In June earlier this year, the Italian Parliament became the scene for intense debates on the so-called “Calderoli’s law,” a proposal put forward by the League Party (Lega). The proposed legal framework, also known as “the law on differentiated autonomy,” stipulates further regional autonomy, notably in administrative and economic matters.
Luca Zaia, President of Veneto Region
Although democratically approved, the proposal has met staunch opposition from parts of the general public and the coalition of left-wing parties, culminating in a petition initiated by the latter. The petition aims to force the government to hold an official repeal referendum by raising 500,000 signatures from the Italian electorate.
The procedure, although unconventional, is not unheard of, and it is explicitly outlined in Article 75 of the Italian Constitution. Substantial progress has already been made, and last month, the petition reached its intended milestone. Simultaneously, the collection of signatures against the controversial law continues in the major Italian cities. Nevertheless, the debate is far from settled.
An Intense Debate
On September the 20th, the first phase of the petition was closed following the recorded collection of 532,406 signatures. Around the same time, five Italian regions (Emilia-Romagna, Campania, Apulia, Tuscany and Sardinia) announced their official condemnation of the law, showing their support for the campaign and accepting the results in conformity with the Italian Constitution. Nevertheless, some regions (notably Piedmont and Veneto) and the right-wing parties (particularly the League and the Brother of Italy) still support the law and reject the petition, laying the foundation for further parliamentary debates.
A Closer Look at Calderoli’s Law
A more in-depth analysis of the law (official document, in Italian) reveals its main objectives. Calderoli’s law aims to increase the autonomy of regional authorities and adjust the economy along the lines of a quasi-federal model by giving them greater freedom regarding the use of regional tax revenue. Nevertheless, the proposal remains relatively vague and refrains from proposing more specific interventions.
The law further outlines the establishment of a paritarian commission to enable further coordination between centralised states and regional authorities, building upon Articles 116 and 117 of the Italian Constitution. The main purpose of these commissions is to facilitate “special agreements” between the regions and the state to meet particular needs while not endangering the state’s economic balance (according to Article 81 of the Italian Constitution). Although regional authorities already have the mandate to request special agreements, the law extends the scope of these agreements to include various concurrent topics, including international affairs and EU policies.
The Benefits
Thanks to the law, the Italian regions would achieve greater autonomy, enabling them to retain tax revenue and create more stable and equitable regional growth. The advocates of the law appeal to the principle of subsidiarity and reject the notion that a centralised government could be better suited to making decisions regarding the necessities of each region. Additionally, the law is unlikely to damage regions that are inefficient or fiscally insolvent as it provides an opportunity for their administrations to become responsible and reactive to the needs of their citizens.
South Against North?
It is common knowledge among Italian readers—and probably not surprising to those from other countries—that there are several differences between the northern and southern regions. These differences extend beyond the economic domain and include cultural differences as well. In this context, we are not speaking of educational attainment, but rather political consciousness and civic responsibility. It is claimed that the political participation of Southerners is far less than that of Northerners, however this time it has been proven to be false: Such as the exposure of Apulia on the matter at hand, and the 152000 signatures collected only in Sicily. One of the most significant objections against Calderoli’s law is the explanation for this high engagement rate. Though this may appear on the surface to be a simple political struggle between the north and the south, the reality is much more nuanced than that. As those who voted against the law pointed out, the risks are not limited to small cracks; they also potentially affect the state’s entire economic system and its ability to support and oversee numerous autonomous regions in the absence of a sound federal constitutional foundation.
The Calderoli’s law uses a number of preexisting legal infrastructure, This undoubtedly expedited both the drafting and the parliament’s approval process, but this feature combined with the proposal’s status as a collection of “principles and norms for further legislation” raises the possibility that the economy may suffer. The state’s relief efforts would not be as effective as they could have been in the past, increasing the Italian debt, if, for example, a wealthy region is able to keep some of its tax revenue for itself while another is unable to support itself. Moreover, those outcomes may have occurred as a result of a law that, in theory, ought not to incur additional costs for the government and go against the constitution’s solidarity concept.
Moreover, the law frequently refers to Article 116, which focuses on a few Italian regions known as “special statutes regions” that already enjoy several autonomy agreements with the government. Article 116 also contains a section on agreements that a non-special statute region may request, outlining the subjects (a topic previously covered in the article) and the procedures. The problem is that this specific section of the article has never been fully implemented because of the amount of economic and bureaucratic complexity that must be handled while maintaining the state’s economy.
The LEPs and the State’s Cohesion
The LEPs (translated and paraphrased from the italian acronym: Essential Performance Thresholds) are theoretical economic reform support tools, whose idea first appeared in the League party, a political faction notoriously north-focused (indeed, their first official name was “Northern League”). At the time, they sought to stop the claimed resource waste occurring in the south by using the LEPs to develop a model of standard expenditure for every region, according to numerous themes. These set restrictions will be the maximum amount of money that the region is allowed to use for internal expenses under Calderoli’s statute. This is a significant source of disagreement because LEPs were never properly defined and completed; in fact, the deadline was originally set for the end of 2023, but it was extended to the end of 2024.
Since the LEPs are a relatively new concept, it is possible that they won’t be ready this year. In that event, the historical expense will be used as the threshold when an area requests additional budgetary autonomy under the new law. Obviously, the northern regions have a larger historical expense, due to their economic efficiency, whereas the south is plagued by fiscal insolvency and a less active market. The differentiated autonomy statute carries an inherent risk of widening the disparity in wealth between areas.
Other points of criticism
Even though the current state of the law theoretically benefits the already wealthy while further impairing the finances of the poor, the actual results are more complicated; in fact, increased autonomy also entails increased isolation, which may prove problematic in the long run, even for the wealthier regions: Even though their economies are efficient, northern regions require the market variety that the south provides. However, financial difficulties are not the only issue; during the pandemic, even Lombardy, one of the richest regions in Italy, required government assistance. It has to be seen whether giving their functions to the one regional body would result in more efficiency.
Conclusions
Although the media has not been able to fully engage in the debate, this law is still very important because it will undoubtedly impact Italy’s foreign policy strategy and because voter turnout was surprisingly high in a country where political apathy is objectively low. Citizens should monitor the argument because, if and when a referendum is held, the repeal of the statute will not be legal unless a majority of voters cast ballots; otherwise, the results will be deemed void.
all images issued from Wikimedia commons
