Doesn't a "no" result maintain the status quo in this case? While populist parties may have been campaigning for "no", is a vote for "keep things as they are" actually a sign of a shift in Italian politics generally?
The constitution will stay the same but status quo will likely change anyway as there will be a new government for the time being and then elections soon. Also, the "No" has been mainly used to end Renzi's government by very different parties (also from the leftist area of the same Democratic Party lead by Renzi), which don't agree on many different issues and won't be able to create a government after the elections.
The actual referendum question had only secondary role. It was about changing the constitution to ease bureaucracy, which is traditionally heavy in Italy. But both the PM and the opposition made it also a vote of confidence for the PM
's platform, a gamble which the PM lost.
Short answer: yes and no.
People wanted to say no to Renzi's politics without a clear reason.
The focus shifted from the actual consitituion reform to Renzi's presidency, and he can blame himself.
People felt that Renzi didn't have the right to be the president. People thought that Renzi was a liar, that the constitutional reform was only a way for himself to get more power. So many people voted accordingly to their feelings, not basing their vote on what they tought about the reform.
Italy's vote is the result of an irrational hate directed to the establishment.
People thought they were "saving" the Constitution. Not joking.
In Italy people don't know how many articles are there, when the constitution was written and in which situation it was written. And then they pretend to "save" it.
Sorry for my english. Oh, and that's the opinion from a "yes" voter.
"No" actually means going back to the 1980s status quo - because the current electoral law has been deemed unconstitutional. That would be some variation of pure proportional, that will make it even harder for the populists to take power, as only Große Koalitions can realistically work.
It would have been in their interest to campaign for Yes, but their mission is to capture the anger of the average voter so they found themselves having to campaign for No to push Renzi out instead.
So, the five star movement was originally born as a "green-party" kind of movement, the 5 stars representing: public water, sustainable transport, sustainable development, right to Internet access, and modernity.
The movement was entirely born on the web, and refused to appear on traditional media like television and newspapers, as they believe traditional media to be undemocratic and corrupted. The focus of the movement is participatory democracy, so they coded an online platform where citizens can propose laws, discuss, and vote on them. These proposals are then brought to the parliament by the elected members of the movement. These are not career politicians, they are common citizens elected on the online platform based on their CV's.
It's probably one of the first big experiments in direct democracy.
So, to answer your question, they "believe in" what the majority of citizens believe in. The only constant is they believe in the democratic power of the web.
I think it can be called anti-establishment as it was born from strong negative feelings against the current establishment, and it refuses alliances with any existing political party. It gathers people across the political spectrum, who are unhappy with the status-quo. It's a very interesting experiment, testament to the disruptive power of the web, as the managed to get ~30% with no presence on traditional media and no campaign financing.
Something like that. It is a populist party, their main ideas are removing politicians' privileges, cutting costs and paychecks, only electing honest people and so on.
I don't really know what the anti-establishment movement in America is and what it proposes but I can tell you that what Five Star Movement in Italy believes in is yet to be understood. They have too many conflicting ideas in the same party. Some are in favour of Europe, others are not. Some are pro-Euro, others are not.
If there's a thing they are good at it's shouting. They have no political plans, but they shout loud. Very loud. Having zero experience in managing a country.
They are a populist party lead by a secretive internet marketing firm. They started off by copying a lot of ideas from the Pirates like online voting etc without the egalitarian spirit, and with an ecologist slant. As the economic crisis hit, they started repositioning themselves as the party of popular anger at the establishment. In the EU parliament they sit with UKIP and far right parties. They are everything to everyone - anti immigration when they talk to the right wing electorate, ecologists when they talk to the left. They make a big song and dance about removing politicians' privileges, even though they just campaigned to NOT reduce the number of Senators!
Don't make the mistake of thinking the referendum was a victory by them though; there were a LOT of people against Renzi, including half of his own party (who openly campaigned against him)
reply