Market Data
The Proposal: Bringing Back Parliamentary Immunity
In recent weeks, Italy’s political landscape has been shaken by a controversial proposal advanced by Forza Italia, a key party in the ruling coalition. The proposal seeks to reintroduce parliamentary immunity, a privilege that would shield members of Parliament from certain judicial procedures. Specifically, the idea is to restore Article 68 of the Italian Constitution to its pre-1993 form, before the post-Tangentopoli reforms. This would mean that parliamentarians would once again require authorization from Parliament not only for arrests or wiretaps but also for the initiation of investigations against them.
The debate over this proposal has further strained the already fragile majority government, which is grappling with several challenges, including the contentious Almasri case and opposition demands for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to appear before Parliament to address certain issues. Forza Italia’s leader, Antonio Tajani, has not outright dismissed the idea, stating, "I personally am not against it," though he noted that the party has not yet discussed the proposal in depth. Stefania Craxi, a prominent figure within Forza Italia, argued that the removal of immunity in 1993 "meant a submission of politics" and has caused evident damage to the political system. Tommaso Calderone, the group leader in the Justice Commission in the Chamber, views the restoration of immunity as a "taboo" that needs to be addressed, though he emphasizes the need for broad consensus on the matter.
Divisions Within the Government
The proposal, however, has not met with universal enthusiasm within the ruling coalition. Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy), the party led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, has made it clear that the issue is not a priority and is not part of the government’s program. According to sources within the party, while they would evaluate any formal proposal put forward by Forza Italia, they believe that such a constitutional reform would require significant time and deliberation. Alberto Balboni, the president of the Senate Constitutional Affairs Commission and a member of Fratelli d’Italia, has been particularly vehement in his opposition. "I see no reasons to modify the current text of article 68," he said, arguing that parliamentarians already enjoy the protection of freedom of opinion and that if they commit crimes, they should be held accountable like any other citizen.
The League’s Interest in the Proposal
While Fratelli d’Italia has been lukewarm on the proposal, the League (Lega), another key partner in the ruling coalition, has expressed interest. According to reports, the Einaudi Foundation, which is close to the League, has floated the idea of advancing the proposal either through a parliamentary text or a popular initiative law. Andrea Ostellari, the League’s Undersecretary for Justice, has framed the initiative as a cultural one, worthy of exploration without being tied to partisan interests. He has called on Parliament to evaluate the best way to rebalance the powers of the state, suggesting that the independence of parliamentarians from the judiciary is a fundamental principle rooted in the 1948 Constitution. Armando Siri, a prominent League figure, has also weighed in, emphasizing that Article 68 was originally designed to guarantee the independence of parliamentarians and the separation of powers.
Opposition to the Proposal: A "Shield of Impunity"
The opposition has been quick to criticize the proposal, framing it as an attempt to restore a "shield of impunity" for politicians. Giuseppe Conte, the leader of the Five Star Movement (M5S), has been particularly vocal, denouncing the initiative as part of a broader pattern of behavior by the government. "After the restoration of annuities in the Senate and the increase in ministers’ salaries, here they are trying to bring back immunity and create a class of untouchable and all-powerful elected officials," he said. "It’s a delirium of omnipotence." Chiara Appendino, a former mayor of Turin and M5S exponent, has expressed disgust at the proposal, arguing that it is unacceptable for politicians to place themselves above the law. "Why should a citizen have to defend themselves in court at their own expense, while politicians are shielded from accountability?" she asked. "This creates a system of first-class and second-class citizens."
The Democratic Party (PD) has also joined the chorus of criticism. Chiara Braga, the president of the PD deputies, has accused the government of attempting to distract attention from its failure to address pressing issues, such as the Almasri case. "While the government runs away from its responsibilities," she said, "it reveals its true priorities: reintroducing impunity for ministers and parliamentarians, putting ministries under the control of the executive, and interfering with the judicial system to the point of selecting judges."
Broader Implications and Public Reaction
The proposal has also sparked broader public debate, with many Italians expressing skepticism and outrage. Polls indicate that a significant portion of the population views the initiative as an attempt by politicians to shield themselves from accountability at a time when public trust in institutions is already low. The timing of the proposal has further fueled criticism, as Italy grapples with economic challenges, including rising energy costs and inflation. Angelo Bonelli, co-spokesperson for the Greens and Left Alliance (AVS), has been scathing in his critique. "While millions of Italians are forced to give up heating due to high bills, the Meloni government and its allies find nothing better to do than trying to guarantee new judicial shields for themselves," he said. "This is unacceptable."
The Road Ahead
As the debate over parliamentary immunity continues, it remains to be seen whether Forza Italia’s proposal will gain traction. The divisions within the ruling coalition, combined with the strong opposition from outside, suggest that the road ahead will be fraught with challenges. For supporters of the proposal, the restoration of immunity is a necessary step to safeguard the independence of parliamentarians and the separation of powers. For critics, it represents a dangerous step backward, one that could undermine accountability and deepen public distrust in politics.
The outcome of this debate will depend on a variety of factors, including the level of public pressure, the willingness of the ruling coalition to find common ground, and the ability of the opposition to capitalize on the issue. One thing is clear: the discussion over parliamentary immunity has the potential to reshape the political landscape in Italy, with implications for the balance of power, the rule of law, and the relationship between citizens and their elected representatives.
