Constitutional dynamism

I didn't vote in the referendum on the constitutional reform. I was abroad, and I was honestly glad to have a good excuse for skipping yet another buck-passing circus put on by our disastrous poli-tricksters. This riffraff, held back by their own limits and by the partisanship of their camps, can't agree on fundamental issues. They reduce everything to the usual polarized brawl and condemn the country to institutional collapse. These mediocre incompetents can't handle the hot potatoes, so they toss them to the citizens. I'm not burning my hands on them.

If I had voted, I might have gone with no. Not for the bogus reasons put forward by the opposition, which is as guilty on this issue as the majority. I'd have voted no because I know I'm not qualified to answer a question meant for experts.
What I really didn't like was the reasoning (and I use the word loosely) of those who urged a no vote because our constitution is a perfect, infallible, eternal creation that therefore must not be touched. Ever. No matter what. Where do these people live, in a bubble?

First of all, the framers, aware that their work was only the beginning, wisely built in a mechanism for amendment. So anyone who is opposed to constitutional reform on principle should at least have the balls to take it up with those whose praises he only pretends to sing.
Second, the original text belongs to a specific moment in history. The world changes constantly, and over the last century it has done so at a dizzying pace. Believing that a constitution drafted at the end of the war could withstand, unchanged and monolithic, the geopolitical, technological and social upheavals of recent decades is delusional.

Take the opening line: Italy is a republic founded on work. First off, it was never clear to me why work of all things. Why not dignity, or self-fulfillment, or the social and cultural development of individuals? But fine, say that back then, straddling monarchy and republic, with a country to rebuild, a bit of motivational propaganda was understandable. Still, does an article like that seem to make sense today, when anyone's job could be taken by new technologies? I mean, should Italy be a republic founded on work done by Gemini or C1-P8?

And that's just one example. Many of the articles could prove inadequate in the face of constant change. The constitution isn't a besieged fortress to be defended. It's a tool that has to stay in line with the current state of national and international affairs. If those change and the text no longer fits, amendments become necessary. But some people parrot slogans that mean nothing, and shout them too, without even asking themselves whether what they're saying is even legitimate.
Truly disarming, disappointing, and deeply depressing.

Drafted from Italian with Blog Translator, then revised by me.

The history books of the future

And here we go again: for the umpteenth time our political class is calling us to the polls to do for free the job they should be doing themselves, on their fat salaries.

Another question for constitutional scholars, addressed to the voters. In other words, the very heart of the machinery of state tossed to a crew of laypeople, some of whom even suffer from an acute form of functional illiteracy and can't make sense of a newspaper headline longer than five words (which, by the way, is at least partly the politicians' fault too).
Meanwhile, they keep us well clear of the ethical or practical issues on which even some guy with a fifth-grade education, who lives for the ballgame and the corner bar, could form a competent opinion, be it "Yes" or "No": euthanasia, same-sex marriage, decriminalizing cannabis, bringing in services like Uber, and you name it.

An ideal referendum question should aim as much as possible at the voter's "political instinct," not at their supposed expertise in jurisprudence or quantum mechanics, and the answer should come almost instantly. If I ask a passerby in the town square: "Assisted suicide: Yes or No?", "Same-sex marriage: Yes or No?", "Decriminalizing cannabis: Yes or No?", that person will almost certainly be able to give me an answer on the spot, without spending weeks pretending to get ready for a question they can't answer with full knowledge of the facts anyway.

A political class (honestly, I don't even feel like making too many distinctions between the parties) that no longer feels any shame in putting its incompetence, its inadequacy, its caste privileges, and even a touch of cowardice on public display when faced with the most important decisions for the country.
I sincerely hope the history books of the future condemn them harshly, as they deserve. And that our descendants know them for what they were, the way the worst emperors, popes, and tyrants of the past are presented to us.
Personally, I'd feel ready to curse them from the bottom of my soul, except I'm not superstitious and I don't think it would work. If you are, do it for me too.

Drafted from Italian with Blog Translator, then revised by me.