1667 devolution

An interesting question John and one that should, I hope, form the basis of a stimulating debate.

I think first and foremost we really need to look at what this is really all about.

Essentially, we are talking about reforms. Most parts of northern Europe have a long pedigree of decentralisation, but considering the lasting influence of a suffocating patriarchal and unstable political system, an underlying clientelist state and an organisational culture of authority based on highly politicised and over bureaucratic control systems, can we ever expect Italy to move forward?

It seems a number of political, social and economic commentators are arguing that Italy needs reforms. Constitutional amendments, electoral laws and a system to stem corruption and stamp out conflict of interest are seen as essential. Accountability seems to be the favourite buzzword of the moment. Who wouldn’t agree?

But this is not new, however, and Italy, ever since it became a Republic, has continued to suffer from a number of dysfunctions and frustrations. How many times have various attempts been made to introduce reforms? How many proposals have been made and welcomed by all political parties, only to be swept quietly under the carpet?

Just to give you some specific examples, back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s two significant pieces of legislation were passed. The first introduced new areas of autonomy for local government. The second tried to streamline administrative procedures. There are no prizes for guessing that both laws encountered obdurate resistance from this closed system. Moreover, Italians have been given the chance to shake things up (the referendums held last spring for example), but most seemed more content to stay at home. That should tell us a lot about the faith people have, not only in their government, but also in their own ability or willingness to force the pace of change.

What we are looking at is divisive politics. The right continues to blame the left and vice versa. Political ideology is replaced with undemocratic behaviour and all to the detriment of the real and incessant problems that continue to plague the country.

I would love to see change because I do believe that Italy has what it takes to make a difference. But I think this fad of Devolution in Italy will soon pass and believe that the cycle of bureaucracy will be self-perpetuating to the point that the status quo will continue to prevail. But that is only my opinion!

Charles, you like your Latin mottos and quotes - can you place the above? Could you translate it into Latin for me please?

[QUOTE=sdoj]Charles, you like your Latin mottos and quotes - can you place the above? Could you translate it into Latin for me please?[/QUOTE]

My latin's never been too good..., even worst than my english, but should sound in this way:
Omnia mutanda necesse est, ut omnia par idemque maneant.

or, in eglish: It's necessary that all changes, in order that all remains the same.
Are beautiful words from the novel "il Gattopardo", if I remember it well.

Charles, sorry to translate "in vece tua" :o

Is it an outdated cliche that everyone in the north thinks everyone in the south takes all the money they generate in the prosperous industrialised cities and blow it via Rome on corrupt construction projects et al?

Or do feelings still run as strong as ever?

I know my left-leaning Italian friends certainly think devolution would be a disaster, and would cut the south off even more than it is already. But I wonder if they are typical?

Mike

[QUOTE=johnsm13]Is it an outdated cliche that everyone in the north thinks everyone in the south takes all the money they generate in the prosperous industrialised cities and blow it via Rome on corrupt construction projects et al?

Or do feelings still run as strong as ever?

I know my left-leaning Italian friends certainly think devolution would be a disaster, and would cut the south off even more than it is already. But I wonder if they are typical?

Mike[/QUOTE]
is ,i personally believe, a " false" problem.The northern league (lega) have made this their cause based on rather populist ( perhaps for some almost atavic pregiudices) amongst certain parts of society in a few northern provinces.Their (the leghisti) insignificance in numeric terms is totally inflated and based on their "lucky" position as a political party which allows the current governing coaltion to continue.The already astronomic costs of the existing twenty plus regional parliaments would most probably spiral aggravating the already mega drammatic situation of public debt and we would probably witness as much inefficiency,corruption,populist expenditure as one does through central government ,perhaps more.Indeed your" left leaning" friends are right about the probable scenario of a worse situation for southern italy.The other grat problem,given that Charles has used the term,would be that of accountabilty in that central government would have diminished credibilty in the context of the EU in presenting realistic financial programmes for the nation in front of the wild horses of 20 regional governments fighting for parish interests.I find that prospecting devolution in such a small country,which,whether we believe it or not is fundamentally today quite unified (look at the ragazzi outside the liceo in catania,pescara or milano...the same)is a fairly terrifying prospect.We'll have to wait and see if they really manage this..

I have friends in the Veneto who feel very strongly that their taxes are wrongly aportioned and their services (such as education) receive less than does the south. They also don't like the Napoleonic point system for public-service job appointments because they say it prejudices against local people from gaining employment in all sorts of areas (e.g. postal workers / teachers). I have no idea if their gripes are justified and if devolution is the right answer. I always point out that if Padania floats off from the rest of Italy and becomes the richest state in the EC then they will have to pay more into the EC pot for regional aid to cover, amongst other things, the south of Italy.

[QUOTE=sdoj]..... They also don't like the Napoleonic point system for public-service job appointments because they say it prejudices against local people from gaining employment in all sorts of areas (e.g. postal workers / teachers). ........[/QUOTE]

What's this system about? How does it work in practice and why do local people feel prejudiced?

Stephanie

[QUOTE=Iona]What's this system about? How does it work in practice and why do local people feel prejudiced?

Stephanie[/QUOTE]

I am no expert so anyone please correct me if I am wrong: I have been told that one obtains points for previous qualifications and more points depending on the score achieved in an exam specific to the post. There are also points for family circumstances and for the region from whence one hales. The jobs themselves are ranked according to job spec. and location and time spent in a particular post also earns points. The gripe, as I understand it, is: applicants from the Veneto are awarded lower scores than those from some other regions whilst Veneto jobs require more points than the same jobs do in some other regions.

[QUOTE=Iona]What's this system about? How does it work in practice and why do local people feel prejudiced?

Stephanie[/QUOTE]

Dear Jona, your simple question could lead us far far away.
To give an answer, we first have to talk about history.
For a long time Italy hasn't been a unitary nation, but in part divided in many little states, each of them with its own money, govern, army etc. and in part under foreign control, while England, France and Spain had shaped their united countries since Middle Age, under one strong leadership.
This wasn't possible in Italy essentially becouse of the church and the Pope
This fragmentation, for a long time, has impeded the rise of a unitary national/political spirit, even if there has always been a unitary italian culture.
Italians, even if neapolitans, venetians or romans, have always felt themselves as part of a common family.
Only in the 19th century the political problem became crucial and under the Savoia dinasty and popular urge (Garibaldi, Mazzini sound familiar ?) the different states melted in one unitary nation.
Something similar happened in the same period in Germany under the Prussia leadership.
The problem was that now we had political unity, but not social unity yet.
Too many years of different governments and administrations, slowed the rise of a national spirit, at least for the popular masses.
Meanwhile, the northern part of Italy, thanks to its colseness to the rich markets of north Europe, availability of natural resources (water and so hidroelectric power), started an economic progress that left behind the southern part of Italy, suffering of traditionally bad administration of its local governs and poor economic assets.
So Italy developed in a "two speed" way: faster the north, slower the south.
After WW2, there has been a huge inner immigration from south to north, needy of manpower in order to feed the economic boom of italian industry.
Meantime the govern started, after 1950, an huge investment porogram to create, even in the south, the economic structures necessary to improve developement: roads, airports, acqueducts, industry etc.
A lot was done, but a lot was wasted too, in corruption and inefficiency.
Many local administrators and many northern entrepreuners and companies took advantage of the situation and so a lot of money took "strange" directions.
Since very much of that money were taxes payed by the rich part of the nation, a sentiment of (comprehensible) anger arose, gone with (unjustifiable) selfishness.
People started to think that their money has to stay home and that the south was receiving more than the north: this is not true, as anybody can see looking at the northern infrastructures and as shown by statistics.
But this become the general feeling and some people pushed this fear, hopeing to take political advantage and pretending a federal status for the nation, in order that every region could manage its own taxes.
Since this party is, at the moment, part of the coalition that's governing Italy, these pretences have been partially fullfilled by recent reforms: [B]devolution[/B]
In my opinion (but it's the opinion of quite all the costitutional experts) this is one of the worst reforms ever made.
It's potentially eversive and distructive of national social, aconomic and political unitity.
I agree with Sebastiano's description.

Thank you, sdoj and notaio for your very helpful comments.

sdoj - this system seems highly unfair as employment should really be based on a person's experience and qualification in relation to the role they apply for - and not their social & geographical background. But while this sounds good on paper, even in the UK it's not always guaranteed. Very interesting to note, though.

Notaio - I have read about the historical and historically political aspects of unification in Italy, but focussed so far more on the earler centuries, i.e. dark / middle ages to the industrial age - and not so much on the impact on modern society day by day. I've come across many comments about the division of the country, the north-south divide, feelings of unfair taxation for richer areas, etc, but not in too great detail. This is very interesting to find out about!

When devolution came to Scotland some years ago, many friends were very concerned about any additional cost for them, and, in fact, local council taxes were raised straight away to get extra monies towards setting up this new parliament - which in my view is just a big, expensive white elephant. It could be more efficient in getting Scottish interests across in London, but MSPs never do in practice! In my view, they avoid any serious debate that could bring advantages to the country.

I'm very interested to find out how it is all going to be implemented in Italy, how they intend to push it through in the face of such huge opposition - and the people's reactions to it!

Thanks,
Stephanie

[QUOTE=sdoj]Charles, you like your Latin mottos and quotes - can you place the above? Could you translate it into Latin for me please?[/QUOTE]

Sdoj

Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi" (Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, "Il gattopardo", 1957)

" Totum oportet mutare, ut immutato permaneat."

[QUOTE=Iona]Thank you, sdoj and notaio for your very helpful comments.

sdoj - this system seems highly unfair as employment should really be based on a person's experience and qualification in relation to the role they apply for - and not their social & geographical background. But while this sounds good on paper, even in the UK it's not always guaranteed. Very interesting to note, though.

Stephanie[/QUOTE]

As I said before, I am not sure I am correct in what I have written as it is just what I picked up talking with Veneto friends (who are not Lega supporters and who do claim to support the notion of wealth redistribution). I think what bothers them is the same unfairness that you pointed out - when I suggested that the young people with lower scores should head somewhere with lower entry requirements - I was shouted down - they are a parochial lot in the Veneto.
You mention the UK, don't you think there is some sort of positive descrimination at work which favours Scots for the top jobs at Westminster (Blair, Brown, Macaroon)? - only kidding!

[QUOTE=sdoj]As I said before, I am not sure I am correct in what I have written as it is just what I picked up talking with Veneto friends (who are not Lega supporters and who do claim to support the notion of wealth redistribution). I think what bothers them is the same unfairness that you pointed out - when I suggested that the young people with lower scores should head somewhere with lower entry requirements - I was shouted down - they are a parochial lot in the Veneto.
You mention the UK, don't you think there is some sort of positive descrimination at work which favours Scots for the top jobs at Westminster (Blair, Brown, Macaroon)? - only kidding![/QUOTE]

You're not completely right.
The system for recruiting public employes is theorically based on merit only:
generally there is a public competition or examination.
Some personal specific qualities can increase the examination vote: i.e. if you're married or have children, if you're disabled or handicapped etc.
Geographical background is not one of these qualities and it has no influence on the recruitement.
So why northern people argue ?
The situation has been generated by the northern economic high performance.
Since northener people has the possibility to be emplyed in industry or private service, generally far better payed than public service, they preferably choose these kind of jobs.
People from the south, traditionally with less possibility of choice for their jobs, tend to look for a public employee too, moving even to the north.
This has changed the face of our inner immigration.
While in the past (1950/1970) the southerns moving to the north were essentially poor peasants with very low instrucion, working in the factories, therefore a subordinate working class, in the last years the "new" immigrants have been theachers, police officers, carabinieri, magistrates, doctors etc. becoming part of the northern leading class.
This upset part of the notherner, that started to demand a "geographical background" for public employee, in order (i.e.) that a teacher born in Verona had preference on a teacher coming from Palermo and other crocks like this.

Notaio…

This is an interesting point.

When I was working for a large multinational on secondment to one of its Italian divisions, despite the painful transition from a state owned, archaic autocracy to a more modern and democratic organisation, the very culture of this division remained the same. The old guard was resistant to change. Result: rigid hierarchy, clientelism, nepotism and protectionism still ruled. This division has been sold and is now back in public sector hands. Guess what? Nothing has changed!

Today, I see very little difference in the way things operate at a national level, both in the public and private sector. In fact, many people still appear to work safely in the monopoly of their professions, organisations or social hierarchies.

As far as reforms are concerned, there’s a lot of rhetoric of course and that is to be expected I suppose. Well-meaning people want to change the constitution, but you need an absolute majority of all seats in both chambers to achieve it. This would entail cross-party agreement. But how many times have you seen this happen?

[QUOTE=notaio]You're not completely right.
The system for recruiting public employes is theorically based on merit only:
generally there is a public competition or examination.
Some personal specific qualities can increase the examination vote: i.e. if you're married or have children, if you're disabled or handicapped etc.
Geographical background is not one of these qualities and it has no influence on the recruitement.
So why northern people argue ?
The situation has been generated by the northern economic high performance.
Since northener people has the possibility to be emplyed in industry or private service, generally far better payed than public service, they preferably choose these kind of jobs.
People from the south, traditionally with less possibility of choice for their jobs, tend to look for a public employee too, moving even to the north.
This has changed the face of our inner immigration.
While in the past (1950/1970) the southerns moving to the north were essentially poor peasants with very low instrucion, working in the factories, therefore a subordinate working class, in the last years the "new" immigrants have been theachers, police officers, carabinieri, magistrates, doctors etc. becoming part of the northern leading class.
This upset part of the notherner, that started to demand a "geographical background" for public employee, in order (i.e.) that a teacher born in Verona had preference on a teacher coming from Palermo and other crocks like this.[/QUOTE]

Very interesting and I stand corrected - perhaps the children of the teachers, police officers, carabinieri, magistrates, doctors etc will be less resented by northerners as they will have grown up in the north and will be quasi-northerners.

.... jsut a few thoughts.... interviewees on tv yesterday were all for a form of federalism.... they regard it much the same as it was sold in the uk as a means of having more local poiticians who have a better knowledge of their area and more accountability.... but guess where this survey was carried out ....an opinionist from rete 4 ... of course

what was mentioned and i think this can almost be described as fact not fiction is that a region say like lombardy is a net contributor to the revenue...and then receives back less than it pays in.... calabria the opposite....

apart from the arguement that this is unfair which i dont agree with...its all italy and italians ...my thought is that if this change was to take place....wouldnt it help those regions with traditional tax revenue defecits to maybe come to the realisation that they had better get their income sorted out and start reducing the level of the grey/black economy so that people that use the education,hospitals and pension systems actually contibute into it.... surely if a region sees it hospitals and schools suffering without being able to blame lack of investment from central government they will then start fighting locally to shake the yoke of years of illegal control over their lives...their politicians and their region....

i know ...we can all dream .... but wouldnt it be better than instead of 70 % of the bussiness in certain areas paying tribute into certain private hands they were able then to pay it into the central regional fund....maybe it would be harder for these private tax collectors to operate..

as regards employment here and freedom of movement.... if they did away with residency complications and control it might help.... its harder to move areas in italy than it is to move to another country .... if i leave my commune here in the region of teramo and want to take an exam ...say in the marche... i would have to change my residency.... to the commune where the exam is .... with all the complications of finding a new residence and then owning two homes and my original home suddenly becoming my second home andd the tax rate changing and the electricity rates changing and god knows what else..... its just that the system here like to have a minute control over its citizens....

.... i once went into a university here in italy to ask for an application form...they looked shocked....whats that for...for a job.... oh we dont have application forms for that....

... despite pessimism on change ...it will come i think.... by signing up to the eu single currency they will have to.... it will force things through that italy never realised fully could happen ..... there are protests... simple things...baby milk for instance..... when italians started to cross the border into neighbouring eu states to buy this because it was 300 % more expensive here ....things were changed ...the companies in italy were fined under anti competition rules and it is now only about 100 % more expensive.... without europe it couldnt have happened....

...insurance.... is coming under scrutiny... banks.... when you start removing protective practices .... you then start having to become competetive ... and one day someone might clue on that if you have qualified people working for you that actualy earned their qualification with their brain ....your company might be able to operate at a profit ...without fixing all the prices....

... a glimmer of hope... that controls set up via historic megolomaniac systems of control .... via church and communism .... of all citizens... may well be about to be consigned to the bin..... in the face of freedom guaranteed to all eu citizens under the charter of human rights

[QUOTE=Charles Joseph]Notaio…

As far as reforms are concerned, there’s a lot of rhetoric of course and that is to be expected I suppose. Well-meaning people want to change the constitution, but you need an absolute majority of all seats in both chambers to achieve it. This would entail cross-party agreement. But how many times have you seen this happen?[/QUOTE]

Charles, the constitution has been changed right now, by the majority at the govern.
The whole process is over.
Since there hasn't been a cross-party agreement and only a majority decision, now the last word (hope in my mind) will be a referendum in the next year.