The powers of the Head of
Government, or the Prime Minister, and the Italian President, regarded as the
Head of State, are both enumerated in the original Italian constitution. The
President of the Republic, according to the Italian Constitution is to be elected
by Parliament in a joint session with three delegates from every Region to
ensure that minorities are represented (2). More specifically, the election of
the President of the Republic is to be performed by a secret ballot with a
majority of two thirds of the assembly. In Article 87 of the Italian
Constitution the President of the Republic is named the Head of State (2). Their duties and abilities associated with
Parliament are described in Article 87, as are the duties as commander-in-chief
of the armed forces and role as presider over the High Council of the
Judiciary. In Article 89, however, the constitution does promulgate that a writ
of the President of the Republic shall not be valid unless signed by the
proposing Minister, who shall be accountable for it.
The Italian Constitution establishes
a parliamentary system under a head of state known as the President of the
Republic. However, the bulk of the executive powers are vested in the Council
of Ministers whereas the legislative function belongs to Parliament. As
distinguished in Article 95, in fact, the Prime Minster conducts and holds
responsibility for the general policy of the Government (1). This position ensures the coherence of
political and administrative policies through the promotion and coordination of
the activity of the Ministers (1).
The specific powers
enumerated to the President, or Head of State, in the constitution include the
ability to authorize the introduction to Parliament of bills that have been
initiated by the Government, as well as the ability to issue decrees that
include the “force of law and regulations” (2). Additionally, Italian
presidents contain the power to “accredit and receive diplomatic
representatives, and ratify international treaties which have, where required,
been authorized by Parliament” (2). There are specific powers
enumerated for the Head of the Government, the Prime Minister, as well. As
detailed in Article 92, the Government of the Republic is made up of the
President of the Council and the Ministers who together form the Council of
Ministers (2). Appointed by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister
proposes the Ministers for which he then receives approval. The President of
the Council, or the Prime Minister, maintains the responsibility for the
general policy of the Government.
The
institutions of the Italian Republic were arranged to ensure that strong executive
powers were impossible. Executive powers were constitutionally diluted in order
to ensure that neither the President nor the Prime Minister, or Council of
Ministers, could set the government agenda and exercise independent powers (3).
Comparing the vast powers of the legislative branch against the executive
proves this explicitly. Upon analyzing the powers of the Head of State and Head
of Government, it is clear that they together act as figures of the Italian
state. They do control some action but it is, however, very controlled.
Through the analysis of both
positions, I have decided that the Italian Constitution specifically enumerated
certain duties to two executive positions because of the strong desire to
maintain a weaker executive power. History has great weight in the Italian
Constitution, as we have discussed in past blog posts, and here it holds the
same. Fascism created a lasting fear of totalitarian rule. The legislative body
of government undoubtedly holds the most power. Additionally, the selection
process for the president is so equal and proportionally representative of the
people that it is hard to argue that any people are being restricted from a
political voice. There was no specific party or clear sense of who would win
the executive positions. So many parties existed and were included in the
decisions regarding the executive powers that there was relatively equal
representation all around.
1-file:///Users/ameliazak/Downloads/Italy%204/ita_intro-2006.htm.html)
2- https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Italy_2012.pdf
Haleigh Bavol
ReplyDeleteI agree with your evaluation of the executive branch in Italy’s constitution. I strongly agree with the fact that the role of the executive branch is dependent on and intensely influenced by historical contexts. The fascist regime during the World War II period clearly had a lasting effect on how Italy wanted to set up their government and they strived to ensure that one figure or group would never maintain such a powerful presence again. Consequently, they did not permit the executive branch to have much power.
I think the head of state figure for Italy is also a symbolic representative. In the Italian constitution it states, “The President of the Republic is the Head of the State and represents national unity,” (1). This appears to be again influenced from their historical past of wars and violence and the head of the state is there to represent the unity and cohesiveness of the “new” Italian state. Though the Head of State does have executive powers, they are quite limited. The powers listed by the leader are directly in the constitution, and there are only a few. And many of the powers, for example declare war or authorize treaties, must be approved and passed by Parliament first, (1). Thus, the president does not have as much power as it seems, the Parliament evidently has more control.
I also believe that the way that the President/Head of State is elected reinforces the consensual and plurality of the constitution. As noted by the leader, the parliament, which is elected by the people and three delegates from every region choose the president. This allows a direct voice from the people, as well as representation from every group in the country.
1: Constitute (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Italy_2012#3)
Nikhil Gulati
ReplyDeleteI would like to begin by saying that I agree with Mimi’s analysis of the Italian executive branch. Her argument that the Italian Constitution creates a weak and legislative-controlled executive branch is correct and I would like to further this argument by focusing on the election process of the Italian President and the formation of the government. As mentioned by Mimi, the President is elected by the legislature and Regional representatives and not by a popular vote. This election process is drawn out despite a candidate simply needing two thirds of the votes. If no candidate secures two thirds of the votes, then the elections progress on to more ballots and elections. This process continues until someone secures the two-thirds majority and if the elections roll into a fourth ballot, a simple majority will win the presidential. In the twelve presidential elections, only one candidate [Carlo Azeglio Ciampi] has ever won on the first ballot. On average, each presidential election requires ten rounds of elections to determine a winner (1). This long election process represents an example of legislative control over the executive branch; a candidate must be approved by a supermajority and most of the time, this takes multiple attempts. This supermajority is also a representation of the interests of the people as the Regional Representatives and legislative members provide a voice for the various interests of the country, including those of the minorities. In addition, this process prevents a single party or faction from pushing a candidate through the elections and into office. As a result, it is much harder for an extremist or totalitarian candidate to take power and employ a dictatorship. By making the election so convoluted, we can see the Italian Constitution writers were thinking of fascist Italy and Mussolini and ways to ensure it cannot happen again. Surprisingly, there is no limit on the terms a prime minister can serve. However, there has only been one president (current president, Giorgio Napolitano) who has been reelected, as past presidents did not want to taint the position (2). This wariness of reelection and respect for the position also highlights that the fear of totalitarianism is instilled in Italian political nature.
The President, after being elected, appoints the Prime Ministers and the Council of Ministers, as detailed in the Third Title of the Constitution (3). Once being appointed, the new government must receive a vote of confidence from the legislature and the government can be dissolved with a vote of no confidence. This approval process is another example of how the legislative branch keeps tabs on the executive branch.
The creation of the executive branch of Italy, including the Presidential election and Council of Minister approval, was a method used by the Constitutional writers to prevent a strong executive branch from forming. It serves as a constant reminder of the Italian fear of fascism and totalitarianism and the miserable experiences under Mussolini. In order to prevent this fear from materializing, the legislature is intrinsically stronger than the executive branch and this strength allows for the Parliament to direct the government and control the executive branch.
1 - http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-powers-election-of-the-president-of-italy.html#lesson
2 - http://www.understandingitaly.com/profile-content/government.html
3 - https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf
Daniel Mulhall
ReplyDeleteWith my post, I plan on expanding further regarding the historical context that influenced the executive structure that Amelia described. In 1919, fascism, which can be defined as socialism with a capitalist veneer, first emerged in Italy (1). The leader of this movement was Benito Mussolini, who took the premiership of Italy in 1922, and then created a new political dictatorship in 1925 (2). At first, in 1922, Mussolini stated that he would remain faithful to the current Italian Constitution, the Statuto albertino (3). However, he did not remain true to his word as Egidio Reale describes, “Mussolini not only modified constitutional institutions in order to adapt them to the exigencies of his new régime; he has destroyed them outright, one after the other” (3). Mussolini would last as dictator until 1943 when the allied invasion reached Italy. Then, following the conclusion of World War II, we see the enactment of the current Italian Constitution.
As Amelia described in her post, the Italian Constitution appears to purposefully weaken the executive powers. Many of the powers given to the executive branch are not true powers, and must receive votes of confidence by the legislative branch. One such example is seen in Article 87 with the power to declare war. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and is able to declare war, yet any declaration of war must first be approved by Parliament (4). The reason why this is the case is because it is a reaction to the innovations that Mussolini implemented in the Statuto albertino, such as how he created his role as the supremely powerful Head of State and Government (5). Also, as described by Reale, because of the way he altered or destroyed the Statuto to serve himself and his policies.
The constituent assembly wanted to prevent another dictatorship like the one under Mussolini. The way they went about this is by explicitly describing the powers provided to the Head of Government and State, which was not the case in the Statuto albertino. Also as Amelia described, the powers provided to the Heads are both limited and reliant on the parliament. As exemplified, it is clear that the historical context greatly influenced the executive structure we see in the Italian Constitution.
1. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
2. http://specialcollections.library.wisc.edu/exhibits/Fascism/Intro.html
3. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/69950/egidio-reale/the-italian-constitution-under-fascism
4. https://www.constituteproject.org/search#?key=war&cons_id=Italy_2012
5. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1354571X.2012.628093
Dennis Ball
ReplyDeleteWhile looking at the arguments made by the others in my group I would have to say that I would agree with the vast majority of everything they’ve stated. Given the historical context in which the Italian Constitution was drafted: directly following an oppressive fascist regime, it is not surprising that the drafters would want to decentralize as much authority within the executive as possible. Starting out, according to article 83 of the Italian Constitution the President is elected by a joint session of Parliament immediately creating a dependent relationship between the executive and legislative branches (1). To create an even further extent to this decentralization, the Constitution defines the President to appoint the Leader of the Cabinet and in turn the Cabinet itself, with approval of Parliament. Both Nikhil and Amelia discussed this particular relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches of government rather in depth in their posts so I only wanted to mention it briefly.
What is particularly interesting about this relationship in general is how difficult it seems to create a strong lasting Cabinet. Given the responsibilities of the President laid out in the Constitution, the Cabinet is the section of the executive branch that seems to have the real political authority. However, the process of selecting this Cabinet, and the President of the Council (Prime Minister) in particular is rather dubious. A “Prime Minister” is appointed by the President, who then selects the remainder of the Cabinet, and then must receive a vote of confidence from both houses of Parliament (1). Now according to the model offered by Prof. McElwain in lecture, even though Italy does not have a pure-presidential system, due to the fact that the PM is appointed by the President and then confirmed by the legislature, wouldn’t the PM tend to be more closely aligned with the Presidents political ideology (2)?
Yet another interesting relationship is pointed out between the Executive and Legislature by Leyland et al. “The government is collectively responsible for its policy decisions, in the sense that the entire administration stands or falls together, because as already noted, the Constitution requires the government to enjoy the confidence of the two houses of parliament” (3). Thus we see that given the dissatisfaction towards any particular piece of legislation, Parliament is more adapt to dissolving the entire ministry and starting from scratch. Given the fact that the Presidency is already a politically weak position, this need to remain in favor with both houses of Parliament further weakens the executive as a whole. Circling back to the historical context of Post-war Italy and the fear of fascism, it is not surprising that such an astonishingly weak executive branch of government developed from the Constitution that was drafted.
1. Constitute (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Italy_2012#3)
2. McElwain PS3375.2Executive_2014ctools. Slide 13
3. http://www.heinonline.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.kluwer/epl0007&id=225&collection=kluwer#242