The Italian Constitution isn't as beautiful as people think. During the Constituent Assembly between 1945 and 1947, when the Constitution was being drafted to address the various parties, small groups formed that would sign the various parties. These small groups were very often the same political groups, and so they ended up writing something that was their own opinion and not shared by everyone. In fact, at the end of the Constituent Assembly, a complete revision wasn't carried out, and so the Constitution remains an excellent Constitution, but without its joints. The problem with our constitution was that it was created on the basis of the Weimar Republic. In fact, how can we understand this by looking at how governments have been governed as they have been up to now, that is, unstable governments, governments that have never or almost never reached their end, but have always fallen due to mistrust. In fact, unlike the German constitution, which was moved against both Hitler's regime and the Weimar Republic, which was the reason for what happened with Hitler, instead we are creating a Weimar.

infatti, quello che sto dicendo io è che la nostra costituzione può essere migliorata e lo possiamo vedere anche guardando la nostra storia, perché purtroppo tu parli di stabilità mentre io invece ti cito il governo Tambroni 1960, dove dopo la entrata di alcuni membri dell’Msi partito neofascista e ci sono state delle rivolte anche a Genova e anche in Sicilia e proprio in Sicilia ci sono stati sono hanno hanno sparato sulla folla e hanno fatto sparare sulla folla ordine dato proprio dal governo e ci sono stati dei morti poi mi mi sembra giusto parlare dello scandalo Tangentopoli che ha proprio mostrato la crisi e il l’inciucio che la politica riserva nei confronti dei dell’economia delle aziende e infatti si era scoperto che i partiti erano per la maggior parte finanziati da delle aziende cosa che non si può fare, ma parlando ancora di stabilità basti pensare al caso di del compromesso storico che ci mostra come gli Stati Uniti e tutti i paesi del blocco occidentale non volevano che il comunismo fosse anche solo per in parte nel governo e per questo fu ucciso Aldo Moro, che proprio lui voleva l’unione dei partiti del partito comunista della democrazia cristiana, perché proprio quello che voleva moro era non parlare di divisioni politiche ma di parlare di uguaglianza, parlare proprio di valori comuni obiettivi comuni per migliorare questo stato, ma invece purtroppo in Italia non è possibile

"First of all, you completely evaded my point regarding the various political instabilities, specifically the Tambroni government. What happened back then is simply unacceptable in a democracy—opening fire on a crowd is a hallmark of a dictatorship, not a free state. Furthermore, let me clarify: I never claimed that Hitler, Mussolini, or totalitarianism are about to return to Italy. What I actually argued is that the Weimar Republic was fundamentally unstable, just as our current governments are today. Our governments are short-lived precisely because they are not built upon shared core principles or common values. And this brings us directly back to the issue I raised concerning the Italian Constitution. The core problem isn't merely the existence of small, fragmented political factions; it is that these factions refused to conduct a final, cohesive revision of the text because none of them wanted to compromise on their own draft. As a result, the Constitution is like a car made of magnificent, high-quality parts but completely lacking the joints to hold them together. The car exists, but it cannot move. This, in my view, is the crucial point. Of course, there were other internal and external crises. As society evolved alongside the rise of mass media, Italy's systemic instability became glaringly obvious. Even the Economic Miracle—which on the surface looked like a period of stability and progress—was actually dependent on the United States. They agreed to help Italy rebuild on the strict condition that the left-wing parties were excluded from government. This exclusion inherently fueled further instability and systemic corruption across the political spectrum, particularly on the right. We saw this culminate decades later with the Tangentopoli investigations, the arrest of Mario Chiesa, and the Enimont scandal. We can also point to Gladio—a stay-behind paramilitary organization whose full scope remains obscured to this day—or the Lockheed scandal, which forced President Leone to resign. These are all dark chapters in our history that remain deeply ambiguous. Ultimately, the issue with our constitutional framework is also tied to accountability. For decades, politicians managed to evade legal punishment and jail time, partly due to parliamentary immunity, and partly because the Italian Republic developed a toxic system of mutual blackmail. A system of 'I know your secrets, you know mine.' In this environment, the more secrets you hold, the more power you wield, relying entirely on a code of silence where nobody speaks out."

First of all, you completely evaded my point regarding the relationship between a nation's framework and its reality. In my view, a constitution is inextricably linked to politics and to everything that happens within a state. Ultimately, what occurs in a country is permitted—or enabled—by the nature of its constitution. If the political class acts unconstitutionally or if the system is fundamentally broken, it means there is a systemic crisis. It proves that the constitution and its laws are failing to function as they should. Look at the historical record, for example: the various political instabilities, specifically the Tambroni government. What happened back then is simply unacceptable in a democracy—opening fire on a crowd is a hallmark of a dictatorship, not a free state. Furthermore, let me clarify: I never claimed that Hitler, Mussolini, or totalitarianism are about to return to Italy. What I actually argued is that the Weimar Republic was fundamentally unstable, just as our current governments are today. Our governments are short-lived precisely because they are not built upon shared core principles or common values. And this brings us directly back to the issue I raised concerning the Italian Constitution. The core problem isn't merely the existence of small, fragmented political factions; it is that these factions refused to conduct a final, cohesive revision of the text because none of them wanted to compromise on their own draft. As a result, the Constitution is like a car made of magnificent, high-quality parts but completely lacking the joints to hold them together. The car exists, but it cannot move. This, in my view, is the crucial point. Of course, there were other internal and external crises. As society evolved alongside the rise of mass media, Italy's systemic instability became glaringly obvious. Even the Economic Miracle—which on the surface looked like a period of stability and progress—was actually dependent on the United States. They agreed to help Italy rebuild on the strict condition that the left-wing parties were excluded from government. This exclusion inherently fueled further instability and systemic corruption across the political spectrum, particularly on the right. We saw this culminate decades later with the Tangentopoli investigations, the arrest of Mario Chiesa, and the Enimont scandal. We can also point to Gladio—a stay-behind paramilitary organization whose full scope remains obscured to this day—or the Lockheed scandal, which forced President Leone to resign. These are all dark chapters in our history that remain deeply ambiguous. Ultimately, the issue with our constitutional framework is also tied to accountability. For decades, politicians managed to evade legal punishment and jail time, partly due to parliamentary immunity, and partly because the Italian Republic developed a toxic system of mutual blackmail. A system of 'I know your secrets, you know mine.' In this environment, the more secrets you hold, the more power you wield, relying entirely on a code of silence where nobody speaks out. And that is precisely why we didn't actually overcome the crises you mentioned. You argue that the Constitution helped us get through them, but the reality is that we never truly emerged from those crises. Sure, things shifted because time passes and politicians inevitably change, but the political class itself has remained fundamentally detached from the genuine interests of the people. Instead, it remains bound to party logic and, far too often, to the interests of whoever funds those parties. Furthermore, regarding your point about political factions—you might brush them off, but I must stress that while it is completely normal in a democracy not to agree on everything, the lack of a final revision of the Constitution was a critical failure. A proper revision means sitting down at a table, reviewing the text together, checking it for internal consistency, and ensuring it is ready to be put into action. This never happened because no one—from the Communists to the Christian Democrats—was willing to compromise on their own draft. And let's be clear: refusing to compromise is not an act of democracy. True democracy requires genuine dialogue and mutual concession, both of which were missing in that final stage. Don't get me wrong: our Constitution is democratic, it is built on profoundly important values, and it is a very good document. I am not denying that. But it is far from perfect. It is not all roses. Take our judicial system, for instance. The Constitution frames our legal rights, yet our judiciary is notoriously slow. Because of these systemic delays, countless legal cases reach the statute of limitations and evaporate, even when a guilty party has been clearly identified. This is an undeniable flaw that urgently needs reform. The same structural failure applies to our fiscal system. Italy’s tax burden is exceptionally high. My critique isn’t directed at the idea of taxation itself, but rather at how broken the enforcement is: it is far too easy for the wealthy and massive corporations to evade taxes, or simply to move their legal residency abroad to avoid paying their fair share in Italy. The system burdens ordinary citizens while allowing the powerful to exploit the loopholes."

Let me clarify my position, because I am not placing all the blame on the Constitution itself. Rather, I am holding accountable those who were meant to carry it forward. You argue that politics and the Constitution should be kept separate, but the reality is that politicians are supposed to treat the Constitution as their ultimate guide—their secular Bible. Unfortunately, in the history of Italian democracy, that is simply not what happened. Instead, they exploited their positions for personal and partisan advantage, often acting in ways that were deeply anti-democratic and unconstitutional. The framework is involved because the system allowed these politicians to be loaded with power in a flawed way, failing to prevent them from abusing it. Now, you seem to be circling back to the exact same points you already made, almost as if you have run out of arguments. I don't say this to attack you, but we need to address the reality of the situation. The proof that our Constitution lacks those 'joints' I mentioned is that even today, parties are constantly trying to rewrite and modify it. Every political force naturally has its own vision, which is completely fair, but this lack of structural cohesion prevents it from being the flawless document we aspired to. It has glaring, undeniable problems—both in our political culture and within our justice and judicial systems. Our Constitution is excellent when it comes to guaranteeing vital, fundamental rights. I am not denying that. But we must stop placing it on an untouchable pedestal. We cannot act as if we have reached the absolute peak of political wisdom and that nothing can ever be improved. Critically analyzing our history is necessary if we want to reshape our framework. We need to allow citizens to live in an Italy that is safe, healthy, and protected, but also an Italy that is dynamic, driven, and ready to stop clinging to the past so it can finally move forward."