Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: italiani fate ridere!

nel 1998 ero a londra. era d'estate, e al telegiornale della sera hanno dato
questa notizia : 'OGGI IL GOVERNO PRODI HA BATTUTO IL PRECEDENTE RECORD DI
DURATA DI UN ESECUTIVO IN ITALIA'. la news, letta dal presentatore con un
tono che oscillava tra il serio e il faceto, ha suscitato il buonumore nel
mio coinquilino isreliano, che non ha esitato un nanosecondo a prendermi per
il culo. la singolarità dell'avvenimento stava proprio nella presunta
longevità del governo prodi. in francia, inghilterra, usa, i governi cessano
di esistere quando scadono i termini di legge, mai prima.
sarà che le altre nazioni vivono la democrazia da più tempo, sarà colpa del
cattolicesimo, sta di fatto che agli occhi del mondo siamo un paese di
incivili. secondo me silvio berlusconi incarna pienamente questo pensiero
così diffuso all'estero.

Siamo stati per 50 anni un paese a sovranita' limitata.

 un nanosecondo a prendermi per il culo. la singolarità dell'avvenimento
Santiddio, e proprio un israeliano ti ha preso per il culo? Sono gli
unici messi peggio di noi quanto a faziosita' di partiti e partitini...
Eugenio
-- 
If it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid

 mio coinquilino isreliano,
Ah già perchè da loro i governi sono stabili come pilastri
Di al tuo coinquilino di guardare in casa sua prima di fare ilarità sugli
altri

 il culo.
se non vado errato il record di durata dei governi lo ha battuto molto tempo
fa bettino craxi e non prodi.
ma non ho ora elementi per confermare, solo il ricordo.
ciao!

 ciao!
Non sbagli affatto.Il Governo Craxi fu il più lungo e stabile del
dopoguerra.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it

 Ah già perchè da loro i governi sono stabili come pilastri
In un certo senso li sono, ma nel senso che poi il Paese si ritrova
imprigionato nella politica del premier. E pensare che qualcuno voleva
proporre quel sistema elettorale per l'Italia! L'abbiamo scampata bella...
Andrea
salo...@mediacomm.it

 un nanosecondo a prendermi per il culo.
Spero tu gli abbia saputo rispondere che dalle sue parti invece eleggere un
premier e' come autoincaprettarsi perche' il sistema elettorale israeliano
imprigiona tutti i cittadini alla politica del premier stesso.
Andrea
salo...@mediacomm.it


Ti sbagli, Andrea. E' qausi il contrario. Il sistema israeliano è un po'
assurdo ma non permetetrebbe mai a un premieri di cancellri i propri reati
con un legge, bloccare prove internazionali, fermare processi eventualmente
a suo carico.
Ti riamndo a un bell'articoloo scritto da mia l'anno scorso in cui illustra
il sistema.
Alooha!
ernesto
---------
Foreign Affairs
ISRAEL: few certainties for Sharon
AFTER THE VICTORY, IS THE PREMIER BLOCKED?
Will Ariel “bulldozer” Sharon , Israel’s new premier, told recently by an
American magazine as “a little of Richard Nixon, a little of general Mac
Arthur and a little of a hand grenade”, be able to move inside of one of the
most singular form of government in the world?
Paradoxically, his electoral triumph doesn’t made his task easier.
It’s up to this ex major general, leader of the Likud ( the Israelitic right
party), four times minister, the right/duty to obtain the confidence of the
Parliament to drive the 30th executive of his Country Maybe it seems an
absurdity that a premier elected directly by people must ask a second
determinant investiture to a second elective organ (the Knesset), who
represents the people again. And, actually, for many constitutionalists the
Israelitic system ( called, using a bad neologism, “parladentialist”) it’s
an absurdity.
To get how this plot has been born we have to remind that Israel comes up as
an encounter of many ethnic-religious tribes that, going the time, divided
also as different groups social and political. The presence of the religious
right close to the laical right, the importance due to the tradition and the
refuse to a written constitution by the religious parties, have contributed
to block the political situation. In this contest, the direct election of
the premier was introduced in 1992 as an expedient after 40 years of failed
attempts to change the electoral law.
The stiff proportional system had been inherited from the ancient yishuv ,
the Hebraic community pre-existent Israel, in which the different political
parts were divided on the ideological plan.
That system (on top of that at national constituency with a blockade at just
1%) was adopted in a transition moment expecting enormous waves of
immigration. That way they thought to warrant the greater representation as
possible to all “tribes” , even in prejudice of governability.
In the new State of Israel , a mechanism so proportional gave to the lot of
small parties a formidable blackmail power .
In 1992, with the approval of one of “fundamental laws” regarding the
government form, the political reformers had to give up to the small parties
opposition averse to the electoral reform (it was possible just to high the
threshold from 1% to 1,5%) and, attempting to give more power to the premier
to strengthen the governability, they opted for his direct election, even if
it was balanced introducing the separate vote between the premier and his
political coalition.
Actually, because nobody was able to break into neither the electoral law
nor the power of the initial confidence that the Parliament vote to the
premier elected by the people, the pivot of the whole system has stayed in
the hand of the Assembly. Actually, the fundamental law of 1992, beyond to
provide for the possibility to go to the anticipated election just for the
premier without any stop to the parliamentary legislative term, establishes
cases in which it’s provided the simultaneous dissolving of Government and
Assembly. According to this law Sharon has to obtain in 45 days the
investiture by the Knesset as premier , then into “ 90 days from the
beginning of the financial year “ (in March) the approval of the budget law.
To get through these obstacles, Sharon has two ways: or the alliance with
the extremist right and religious parties, or a Government of the national
unity with the Labour Party.
In the first hypothesis he could count on a fragile majority – composed by
eight pools of parties – of just 62 congressmen out of 120. This unity
allowed him just to get through without big troubles just the vote about the
investiture, while the negotiation on the budget law would be a lot mor
complicated.
In the second hypothesis, the knot would be to deal with the Labour Party a
shared program about the Palestinian question, the principal point of the
investiture speech at Knesset.
To arrive to form a unity national Government , it will depend a lot from
the destiny of his political rival Mr. Barak, who, for now, dismissed from
the Parliament and from the party’s secretary.
The man of the dialog could become Mr. Shimon Peres, but the internal
situation of the Labour Party , doesn’t allow to make forecasts. This all
while the peace process with the Palestinians risks to record the umpteenth
deadlock or even the birth of a second Intifada against the approach of the
nationalist right.
But the History has shown as, sometimes, there are the ex-soldiers those
ones are able to break into the sovereignty of their own country. Remember
De Gaulle in Algeria, or Begin, who gave back the Sinai to Egypt.
The hope of everybody is that Sharon want to follow that tradition.
