Renzi’s defeat about more than populist Euroscepticism

In the immediate aftermath of Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi’s emphatic defeat in Sunday’s constitutional reform referendum, commentators have been rushing to label the result as yet another expression of both populist discontent and Euroscepticism, along the lines of the Brexit vote in the UK.

Although that analysis is understandable, it probably ignores other, arguably more important, domestic issues. Would Renzi have lost if constitutionalists and critics alike had not long ago come to the conclusion that his confused, illogical package of changes was at best a total mess and at worst “a swing from democracy to oligarchy”, in the words of former president of the constitutional court Gustavo Zagrebelsky?

Would Renzi have lost if his own Partito Democratico (PD) had voted with him, in the monolithic manner of its founding father, the old PCI, Partito Comunista Italiana?

Although the opportunist opposition of Forza Italia, the Five Star Movement and the Northern League provided the bulk of the support for the No vote, there is little doubt that vast numbers of disaffected PD voters deserted their leader. After all, there was a vigorous leftist internal PD opposition, symbolised by figures such as former prime minister Massimo D'Alema and former party leader Pier Luigi Bersani, who campaigned for a No vote.

Coherent changes

It is at least arguable that had Renzi been able to come up with a coherent set of changes that convinced both constitutionalists and all of the PD party, then the impact of Euroscepticism could have been contained. There is not an Italian over the age of five who does not realise that this country requires fundamental institutional and constitutional change. What people did not require, though, was this particular package of changes.

Two examples of the failed proposals illustrate the point. For a start, the reforms were allegedly intended to correct Italy’s twin chamber parliamentary system of perfect parity. However, rather than simply abolish the upper house, the new legislation would have transformed it into a 100-person (down from 315) strong chamber of town mayors and regional councillors, “assigned” to the new body rather than elected.

On top of that, the new non-elected senators would have retained some ill-defined legislative powers, not to mention parliamentary immunity.

A second concern about the proposals related to the fact that, allied to the new electoral law, the "Italicum", passed by the Renzi government last year, the new lower house could have seen a 24-25 per cent vote transferred into a 54 per cent share of lower house seats. Put together, a nominated upper house and a lopsided lower house would put too much power in the prime minister's hands, critics argued.

Democratic rights

Essentially, many voters, and not just constitutionalists, became convinced that the Renzi package of changes would strip

Italy

of the checks and balances of the 1948 constitution, aimed at preventing the return of Mussolini-style dictatorship. The M5S and Forza Italia did not campaign on an anti-EU ticket (even if they are Eurosceptic), but rather in defence of fundamental democratic rights. The Northern League did campaign on an anti-immigrant (anti-EU) ticket, but that is a minority story.

As for Renzi himself, he has been so critical of the EU this autumn that last month European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker called on him to stop attacking the commission on fiscal policy.

This vote, with its high turnout of 68.5 per cent, or 33 million voters, was about a lot more than populist Euroscepticism.