Suchergebnisse

A FEW YEARS AGO, GALL1 AND PRANDI WROTE THAT THE UNIFICATION of the socialists represented a phase of rationalization of the Italian political system. Not only did the re-unification of the PSI (Socialist Party of Italy) and the PSDI (Social Democratic Party of Italy) lead to a simplification of the party subsystem (by reducing its excessive numbers), thus rendering the choice between alternatives easier for the electorate. But at last a single voice seemed to emerge which could undertake the task of opposing the twenty years of Christian Democrat predominance, which had been responsible for so many aspects of political 'immobilism'. Moreover it was possible to discern a strategic design in the socialist plans — an optimistic design perhaps, but entailing possible innovations. The formation of a strong Socialist Party might have led to the overcoming of one of the principal - if not the greatest - defects of the Italian party system: the absence of a mechanism of rewards and punishments.

IntroduzionePochi anni orsono, Galli e Prandi scrivevano che l'unificazione socialista rappresentava una fase di razionalizzazione del sistema politico italiano. Non solo la riunificazione tra PSI e PSDI poteva costituire un fattore di semplificazione per il sottosistema partitico (di cui riduceva l'estremo pluralismo), e introdurre quindi un elemento di chiarezza per l'elettorato, al quale evidenziava le alternative possibili tra cui scegliere, ma sembrava finalmente emergere un interlocutore dal notevole peso contrattuale, cui si attribuiva la facoltà di contrastare il ventennale predominio democristiano, responsabile per tanti aspetti dell'immobilismo politico. Ancora, nei progetti socialisti si poteva cogliere un disegno strategico — certo ottimista — ma carico di possibili conseguenze innovatrici. Il formarsi di un forte partito socialista avrebbe potuto portare al superamento di uno dei principali difetti — se non del maggiore — del sistema partitico italiano: l'assenza di un meccanismo di premi e punizioni.

The need to introduce flexibility and diversity into an increasingly centralized and insensitive system of political and administrative controls is one of the most strongly felt problems in modern democracies. In particular, reforms must be fostered in state governmental and administrative structures to reckon with the evergrowing weight of regional units and metropolitan areas. The debate affects not only the United States but also Western Europe, witness the recent reforms in England, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Italy. Italy, after delaying by some twenty years the application of the 1948 constitution which called for the establishment of regional governments, has taken steps which should transform the political-administrative base of the country and may serve as guidelines for other societies where regional allegiances remain strong and where metropolitan areas outweigh rural ones in terms of financial needs and commitments. The changes, some twenty years in the works, are worthy of attention as they offer an interesting case of intrastate regionalism coupled with successful elements of micro-regionalization.