Just by Marsala Wine Party wants to divide the unity of Italy was born under auspices of resource optimization and quality of premises, highlighting the features and avoiding centralization, bloated, wasteful unable to act quickly and effectively over a vast territory, long and far as the ITALY.
When Cavour dreamed federalism
The Count did not want an Italy based on the Piedmontese model. But the political class rejected any idea of \u200b\u200bdecentralization
Eugenio Di Rienzo
Risorgimento An old legend tells that Cavour, just before his death June 6, 1861, claimed to be able to die peaceful, having already created Italy. Personally, I think the last moments of his life were marked by less satisfaction. Only a few months before, in fact, had been dismissed the bill Minghetti, which provided administrative reorganization reflects a large degree of decentralization and that it intended to counter what Cavour had just called the "tyranny of centralization." With the failure of that reform can to reconcile the demands of the new state with the experiences, traditions, the interests of governments pre-unification, our country would withdraw, to this day, for an institutional architecture that could better ensure, with the unit, growth of all its territorial components without perpetuating old conflicts and create new imbalances.
The problem of local autonomy was not, in fact, then as now, only a question of administrative organization but was mainly a problem concerning the proper distribution of power between the national political class and the local political class and the strengthening of economic , civil, social, of a nation. It would, therefore, difficult to deny that the idea of \u200b\u200bdevolution on a regional basis, or if you want a real administrative federalism, could remain alien to the tradition of renaissance thought. Even Mazzini in 1861 supported the need to "recognize the region as the body midway between the Nation and the City", adding that "the unity must not necessarily identify with the centralization." The Apostle of Young Italy, in fact, he realized that the unitary state structure should have been conveniently "with an internal centrifugal motion from center to periphery." Mazzini did not want a rigidly centralized state but argued the opportunity to reconcile the political and constitutional unity with "a well-understood self-sufficiency and autonomy of the provinces and even regions, in all matters related to the legislative, executive and administrative assistance concerning matters of local interest."
On the other hand, the possibility of an administrative federalism was strongly ingrained ideal of democracy not only to shareholders but it belonged by right to the genetic code of the liberal culture. The federalism that had been experiencing and affirming the United States took on great value for the European liberalism of the nineteenth century, for its ability to protect large areas of civil liberties inherent the principle of self-government . Even Cavour, until the end of 1859 had rejected the formation of a unified Italian state considering it a mere "political utopia," proved you want to remain a stranger to these considerations when, October 2, 1860, indignantly rejected the title of "coordinating" to characterize his political program.
From this point of view, you can say, reversing the meaning of a phrase of Massimo d'Azeglio, Cavour that if "the Italians had done," after identifying the component in the moderate center of the future hegemonic nation, the most serious problem to be addressed was left for him to "make Italy" namely to create a state model, able to combine and not simply to unify populations divided by historical realities, political, cultural, productive. Italy was a "foolish," he argued Cavour, without making this union from the bottom and if it had wanted to give body to the fabric overlapping polycentric Peninsula Piedmont or government regulations, making a kind of centralized authoritarian Bonapartist.
After the death of Cavour, the Italian ruling class chose instead to entrench almost total unanimity, no significant distinctions between Left and Right, in the defense of the central model. In 1881, however, Marco Minghetti, in one of the most lucid of the liberal posters produced in our country ( Political parties and their interference in the justice and administration ) had taken up the battle, which ended unfortunately the first two decades, concentrating hours on the objective of achieving a kind of financial federalism . Thanks to this reform, although it remained the central government, "the general guideline internal and external policy" for future macro-regional areas had to be given 'the management of most of the budget of public expenditure. " Although apparently limited, this innovation could create regions' economic responsible "for what concerns the use of public resources. Once you have created the region, called for by Minghetti, this would constitute the solidification point of interest for significant extension, to strengthen the capacity of the various Italian territories to claim a precise function of self-determination with respect to the central government. The same geographical size of the region also had to give effect to any regional planning, opening outlets in the direction of a strong autonomist evolution. In the solution proposed by Minghetti returned the hypothesis of administrative federalism wanted to Cavour, able to strengthen and not weaken the unity of the state, triggering a virtuous circle of cooperation between the city and territory.
0 comments:
Post a Comment