Italian referendum on assisted reproduction: discussing the appeal to abstain by the Italian bishops
As I wrote in an earlier post, a referendum is to be held shortly on the 12th and 13th June in Italy, on assisted reproduction and on stem cell research.
I had then exposed the position of the Catholic Church, and notably that Cardinal Ruini called Italians to abstain from voting, to try and avoid that the referendum obtains the 50 % participation necessary for the referendum to be valid. You may find his position here: http://www.chiesacattolica.it/pls/cci_new/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=2318
(warning: all the links are in Italian). However, here is a synthesis in English: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=35728
It ought to be precised for the sake of completeness that the political world was rather split on what to recommend to the electors. To give an example, instructions for voting ranged from recommending abstention, as did most of the Catholic-related movements, to voting four yes, passing by the whole range of the different options.
The campaign was marked in a quite latin way by all sorts of excesses from the part of the supporters of the referendum, who, for a lady CEO even went to promising one day salary to her employees who would bring back the evidence that they have gone to vote. And personnalities from the entertainement world also joined the fray, such as the actress Monica Belluci who called to vote "yes".
On the side of the opponents to the referendum, there was a quiet but efficient pressure of the Church to bring all representative Catholics to adhere to the position of Cardinal Ruini. However, there was a number of Catholics of left who have taken some distances, beginning with the leader of the left coalition the former president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, who announced that he would go to vote « as an adult Catholic ». Sandro Magister, whose excellent and well-informed blog I already quoted, inferred that Prodi considered those Catholics who were not going to vote as not being « adult ». You may read a rather critical appraisal of the Christian left by the ACLI (Christian Workers Union) by following this link http://www.acli.it/archivio_del_sito/editorialehomearchiviato.asp?idarticolo=160
Other partisans have taken up the traditional argument of abstention being an attack against democracy. The argument may be discussed, actually. When you consider that democracy is not any more the place of open debate and of discussion that was foreseen by its theoreticians such as Jurgen Habermas or John Rawls, the pertinence of participating in a ballot may be questioned.
Actually, if one believes in the legitimacy of parliamentarian democracy, one then firmly believes that the Members of Parliament are elected to vote laws, in the limits of what is legitimate - and that requires then confronting the laws voted with the Common Good.
The proponents of the referendum have argumented that not to go to vote would be the greatest insult to democracy so far. How to analyse that argument?
First, the referendum targets an act that was voted in 2004 by a clear majority in the parliament. So, in fact, the proponents of the referendum are acting against their view of democracy - since they are protesting against a legitimate act and an act legally adopted by Parliament. Nevertheless, should they prevail in the referendum, the same persons who denounce an act just adopted by Parliament, would insist that democracy requires that their opponents respect the verdict of the referendum and thus... « democracy ». It is an interesting example of viewing democracy according to one’s best interests... But from my experience in Belgium, a very perverse and subtle way of carrying the day for the proponents of bioethical aberrations, since any rational dialogue is impossible along those lines.
Nevertheless, the abstention recommended by Cardinal Ruini did not express any judgement on the value of referendum democracy, or contempt for democracy. It was simply that he found that the best way of exposing the lack of legitimacy of this referendum was to expose its failure to get the quorum.
In the second place, it might be worth recalling that democracy as a system, alone, is an empty shell. A democratic State, to be viable, should be based on a view of what is the Common Good for the country and the population. When a life is destroyed for the benefit of another, it becomes a true attack against Common Good, in that a potential member of the Human community is reduced to an infra-human status, and denied protection for its existence - the reader will have noticed that I did not use the term « life ».
Giuliano Amato, another of the left leaders who support voting for the referendum wrote in an article published in Il Corriere della Sera, the Milanese lead newspaper, that an embryo that had to be destroyed, could « donate » its cells to help save another life. Two elements are missed by Amato: firstly that the embryo has no say in the case, since it can never take part in the debate over its future. If it could take part to the debate, it is probable that it would strongly advocate to be left living... since at such a basic level of development, the only consideration that might be of importance for an embryo is living its life, and continuing its development. Secondly, in the end, it means however turning a being into an object. And whatever the philosophical or religious concepts on the embryo might be, everyone may agree that there is the potential for a life in an embryo, and that the embryo exists, after all.
Another more deep question is that of the legitimacy of a referendum. Traditional political theory considers that it is the supreme representation of the popular will, and that thus it holds a greater legitimacy than parliamentary mechanisms. Most constitutionalists consider that for that reason, referendum should be conserved for truly great occasions, such as... the ratification of a constitution. A couple of reflections on this theory:
1° It is known that masses seldom understand the question as it is put to them, and tend to reply according to their greater or lesser sympathy for the government in place. Hence a referendum is not the expression of direct democracy, but an occasion open to let all frustrations influence and provoke replies completely distinct from the questions that are asked. Hence, the campaign of left activists against the European constitution. Hence also the « no » vote to the French referendum by some campaigners because... the EU opened the way for the adhesion of Turkey.
2° Referendum should never be a means of using popular movements against the Common Good. In a society so vulnerable to influence by the medias and to demagogy, referendum cannot be a valid mean of adopting statutes.
An Italian lawyer, Marco Olivetti produced a detailed explanation of why abstention was the correct choice in the referendum.
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=22418
He reaffirmed later, in another article, that there were only two serious alternatives: voting "yes" or abstaining. He notably pointed out that in the past 15 years, in Italy, 5 referendums on 8 were defeated by abstention.
I’ll conclude by recalling the position of the principal Italian parties on the referendum (I might be mistaken on one account or the other, so if you see any mistake, please point it out to me as Angelo has just done):
AN (Alleanza Nazionale), right: Liberty of vote to its members. Gianfranco Fini, the Chairman of the party did however announce 1° that he would vote; 2° that he would vote 3 x « yes », with some doubts on whether to vote "no" to heterologous IVF (with the gametes of a person exterior to the couple benefitting of IVF).
Forza Italia (center right and party of the Prime minister Mr. Berlusconi ): no consign of vote. Berlusconi refused to indicate how he would (or would not) vote, allegedly not to influence the vote.
Margherita (center left): liberty of vote, though its leader, Rutelli, supported the law being attacked by the referendum.
Ulivo (coalition of center left, but not a party as such): Mr. Prodi announced that he would be voting « as an adult Catholic », but that he would be voting 4 x « no ».
Democratici di Sinistra (left): 4 x yes.
Radicali (left): 4 x « yes ». It is the party at the origins of the referendum, with two of its top campaigners beign the most active in favour of voting and of voting yes: Emma Bonino and Marco Panella (who is a MEP). Both are known for their controversial stances on about every controversial subject that there might be in European politics (drugs, euthanasia, stem cells, etc...).
Rifondazione Communista (far left): 4 x « yes ».
The associative sector, as far as it is closely or distantly related to the Catholic Church has progressively taken positions in favour of abstention.
I have taken into account the comments of Angelo (to whom I am quite grateful for pointing out my blunders).
I had then exposed the position of the Catholic Church, and notably that Cardinal Ruini called Italians to abstain from voting, to try and avoid that the referendum obtains the 50 % participation necessary for the referendum to be valid. You may find his position here: http://www.chiesacattolica.it/pls/cci_new/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=2318
(warning: all the links are in Italian). However, here is a synthesis in English: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=35728
It ought to be precised for the sake of completeness that the political world was rather split on what to recommend to the electors. To give an example, instructions for voting ranged from recommending abstention, as did most of the Catholic-related movements, to voting four yes, passing by the whole range of the different options.
The campaign was marked in a quite latin way by all sorts of excesses from the part of the supporters of the referendum, who, for a lady CEO even went to promising one day salary to her employees who would bring back the evidence that they have gone to vote. And personnalities from the entertainement world also joined the fray, such as the actress Monica Belluci who called to vote "yes".
On the side of the opponents to the referendum, there was a quiet but efficient pressure of the Church to bring all representative Catholics to adhere to the position of Cardinal Ruini. However, there was a number of Catholics of left who have taken some distances, beginning with the leader of the left coalition the former president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, who announced that he would go to vote « as an adult Catholic ». Sandro Magister, whose excellent and well-informed blog I already quoted, inferred that Prodi considered those Catholics who were not going to vote as not being « adult ». You may read a rather critical appraisal of the Christian left by the ACLI (Christian Workers Union) by following this link http://www.acli.it/archivio_del_sito/editorialehomearchiviato.asp?idarticolo=160
Other partisans have taken up the traditional argument of abstention being an attack against democracy. The argument may be discussed, actually. When you consider that democracy is not any more the place of open debate and of discussion that was foreseen by its theoreticians such as Jurgen Habermas or John Rawls, the pertinence of participating in a ballot may be questioned.
Actually, if one believes in the legitimacy of parliamentarian democracy, one then firmly believes that the Members of Parliament are elected to vote laws, in the limits of what is legitimate - and that requires then confronting the laws voted with the Common Good.
The proponents of the referendum have argumented that not to go to vote would be the greatest insult to democracy so far. How to analyse that argument?
First, the referendum targets an act that was voted in 2004 by a clear majority in the parliament. So, in fact, the proponents of the referendum are acting against their view of democracy - since they are protesting against a legitimate act and an act legally adopted by Parliament. Nevertheless, should they prevail in the referendum, the same persons who denounce an act just adopted by Parliament, would insist that democracy requires that their opponents respect the verdict of the referendum and thus... « democracy ». It is an interesting example of viewing democracy according to one’s best interests... But from my experience in Belgium, a very perverse and subtle way of carrying the day for the proponents of bioethical aberrations, since any rational dialogue is impossible along those lines.
Nevertheless, the abstention recommended by Cardinal Ruini did not express any judgement on the value of referendum democracy, or contempt for democracy. It was simply that he found that the best way of exposing the lack of legitimacy of this referendum was to expose its failure to get the quorum.
In the second place, it might be worth recalling that democracy as a system, alone, is an empty shell. A democratic State, to be viable, should be based on a view of what is the Common Good for the country and the population. When a life is destroyed for the benefit of another, it becomes a true attack against Common Good, in that a potential member of the Human community is reduced to an infra-human status, and denied protection for its existence - the reader will have noticed that I did not use the term « life ».
Giuliano Amato, another of the left leaders who support voting for the referendum wrote in an article published in Il Corriere della Sera, the Milanese lead newspaper, that an embryo that had to be destroyed, could « donate » its cells to help save another life. Two elements are missed by Amato: firstly that the embryo has no say in the case, since it can never take part in the debate over its future. If it could take part to the debate, it is probable that it would strongly advocate to be left living... since at such a basic level of development, the only consideration that might be of importance for an embryo is living its life, and continuing its development. Secondly, in the end, it means however turning a being into an object. And whatever the philosophical or religious concepts on the embryo might be, everyone may agree that there is the potential for a life in an embryo, and that the embryo exists, after all.
Another more deep question is that of the legitimacy of a referendum. Traditional political theory considers that it is the supreme representation of the popular will, and that thus it holds a greater legitimacy than parliamentary mechanisms. Most constitutionalists consider that for that reason, referendum should be conserved for truly great occasions, such as... the ratification of a constitution. A couple of reflections on this theory:
1° It is known that masses seldom understand the question as it is put to them, and tend to reply according to their greater or lesser sympathy for the government in place. Hence a referendum is not the expression of direct democracy, but an occasion open to let all frustrations influence and provoke replies completely distinct from the questions that are asked. Hence, the campaign of left activists against the European constitution. Hence also the « no » vote to the French referendum by some campaigners because... the EU opened the way for the adhesion of Turkey.
2° Referendum should never be a means of using popular movements against the Common Good. In a society so vulnerable to influence by the medias and to demagogy, referendum cannot be a valid mean of adopting statutes.
An Italian lawyer, Marco Olivetti produced a detailed explanation of why abstention was the correct choice in the referendum.
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=22418
He reaffirmed later, in another article, that there were only two serious alternatives: voting "yes" or abstaining. He notably pointed out that in the past 15 years, in Italy, 5 referendums on 8 were defeated by abstention.
I’ll conclude by recalling the position of the principal Italian parties on the referendum (I might be mistaken on one account or the other, so if you see any mistake, please point it out to me as Angelo has just done):
AN (Alleanza Nazionale), right: Liberty of vote to its members. Gianfranco Fini, the Chairman of the party did however announce 1° that he would vote; 2° that he would vote 3 x « yes », with some doubts on whether to vote "no" to heterologous IVF (with the gametes of a person exterior to the couple benefitting of IVF).
Forza Italia (center right and party of the Prime minister Mr. Berlusconi ): no consign of vote. Berlusconi refused to indicate how he would (or would not) vote, allegedly not to influence the vote.
Margherita (center left): liberty of vote, though its leader, Rutelli, supported the law being attacked by the referendum.
Ulivo (coalition of center left, but not a party as such): Mr. Prodi announced that he would be voting « as an adult Catholic », but that he would be voting 4 x « no ».
Democratici di Sinistra (left): 4 x yes.
Radicali (left): 4 x « yes ». It is the party at the origins of the referendum, with two of its top campaigners beign the most active in favour of voting and of voting yes: Emma Bonino and Marco Panella (who is a MEP). Both are known for their controversial stances on about every controversial subject that there might be in European politics (drugs, euthanasia, stem cells, etc...).
Rifondazione Communista (far left): 4 x « yes ».
The associative sector, as far as it is closely or distantly related to the Catholic Church has progressively taken positions in favour of abstention.
I have taken into account the comments of Angelo (to whom I am quite grateful for pointing out my blunders).
posted by dawnofeurope | 1:13 pm
<< Home