Who would benefit and who would suffer from the constitutional reforms proposed by the current government? Let us not be confused by words like stability, efficiency, governability and the like: they often wrap harsh realities in the babble of the obvious. The Constitution is not literature; it is the most political thing there is.
Three highly respected jurists explain why the proposed reforms violate three cardinal principles of the Constitution: democratic participation, independence of the judiciary and equality among citizens.

The proposed premierate runs counter to participatory democracy because it reduces democracy to the choice, by plebiscite, of the leader to submit to once every five years, with no countervailing powers or citizens making their voices heard between votes. It would be the negation of constitutionalism and democracy.

Against the independence and autonomy of the judiciary is a judicial reform that envisages the separation of the careers of judges and prosecutors and the creation of two separate Csm and a High Court for disciplinary proceedings, composed by drawing lots of all members. Measures that only manifest the will to control the judiciary by politics, achieved by emptying and weakening its role.

Differentiated regional autonomy, for its part, is a project aimed at increasing powers and economic resources in favor of the strongest and richest regions, resulting in the abandonment of the rest of the country to itself, and thus operates against the principle of equality. The exact opposite of what Italy would need because it would mark the end of social solidarity and the unity of the Republic.

If Italy is suffering from a 30-year crisis, the solution is not to exacerbate its causes by annihilating Parliament, the judiciary and the idea of national citizenship, but to defend above all else the balance of powers and the value of a common belonging in full respect for the differences nurtured by the pluralism of ideas.