Legislature VII of Italy VII legislatura della Repubblica Italiana | |
---|---|
7th legislature | |
Type | |
Type | |
Houses | Chamber of Deputies Senate of the Republic |
History | |
Founded | 5 July 1976 |
Disbanded | 19 June 1979 | (2 years, 349 days)
Preceded by | VI Legislature |
Succeeded by | VIII Legislature |
Leadership | |
Structure | |
Seats | 630 (C) 315+ (S) |
Chamber of Deputies political groups | |
Senate political groups | |
Elections | |
Proportional | |
Proportional | |
Last general election | 20 June 1976 |
Meeting place | |
Palazzo Montecitorio, Rome (C) | |
Palazzo Madama, Rome (S) | |
Website | |
Seventh Legislature – Chamber of Deputies Seventh Legislature – Senate | |
Constitution | |
Constitution of Italy |
The Legislature VII of Italy (Italian: VII Legislatura della Repubblica Italiana) was the 7th legislature of the Italian Republic, and lasted from 5 July 1976 until 19 June 1979.[1][2] Its composition was the one resulting from the general election of 20 June 1976.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:1 201 0197 064 2322 99732 098555
-
Bureaucracy Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #15
-
The Roman Empire. Or Republic. Or...Which Was It?: Crash Course World History #10
-
The History of Street Performance - Dr Paul Simpson
-
KWestion Time: Were the Nazis Left Wing?
-
The 1848 Revolutions in Europe; Lighting the Powder Keg Episode 4.
Transcription
Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government & Politics, and today, we're gonna talk about bureaucracies, just as soon as I finish filling out these forms. Do I really have to initial here, here, and here on all three copies, Stan? Regulations say so? All right. I'm just kidding. I don't really have to fill out forms in triplicate in order to make an episode of Crash Course, but this kind of stuff is one of the main reasons that people don't like bureaucracies. Americans tend to associate them with incomprehensible rules and time-wasting procedures and probably most annoying - actual bureaucrats. But bureaucracies are a lot like our extended families, in that we largely don't understand, or at least don't appreciate, the important role that bureaucracies play in our lives, mainly because of all the forms, and because my cousin who always ate all the cookies from the jar at Grandma's house. So what exactly IS a bureaucracy? I don't like to do this, because I'm arrogant and lazy, but sometimes it's helpful to go to a dictionary when you need to find out what a word means. So here's a serviceable, political science-y definition: "A bureaucracy is a complex structure of offices, tasks, rules, and principles of organization that are employed by all large scale institutions to coordinate the work of their personnel." Two points to emphasize here: First, bureaucracies are made up of experts who usually know more about the topic at hand than you do and who are able to divide up complex tasks so that they can get done. Second, all large scale institutions use bureaucracies, so the distinction between big business and big government is, in at least this respect, bogus, or what I like to call a false dichotomy. Is that too pretentious to say "false dichotomy," Stan? I don't care, I'm saying it. False dichotomy! So if people hate bureaucracies so much and compare them unfavorably with Google and Amazon, why do we have them? Well, the main reason is that bureaucracies are efficient. They make it easier for governments to accomplish tasks quickly and to basically operate at all. In the US, federal bureaucrats fulfill a number of specific important functions. One, bureaucrats implement the laws that Congress writes. Have you ever read a law? They're pretty complicated. It's a good idea to have experts who can interpret them and put them into action. Two, bureaucrats also make and enforce their own rules. But this isn't as action hero-ish as it sounds. And three, they settle disputes through a process called administrative adjudication, which makes them kind of like courts. Now, since I know that all of you have been paying extremely close attention to these episodes, you know that at least two of those functions are problematic in ways that go beyond making rules that seem Byzantine or stupid or both - Byzantupid. The big concern here is the separation of powers, which you remember is the idea that power is divided between three branches of government. Technically the federal bureaucracy is part of the executive branch, but it's so big that it dwarfs the other two branches and can easily overpower them, much like I overpower this eagle. "That's right eagle. I make my own rules, like a bureaucracy." But an even more troubling, to some people, aspect of bureaucracies is what they actually do. So let's go to the Thought Bubble. Bureaucracies don't just enforce the rules; they make new ones called regulations. In doing this, they're acting like a legislature, especially since the rules have the force of law and people can be punished for breaking them. For example, if you say "Sh%t Sticks" on TV, the FCC can fine you, just like the local law enforcement would if you broke a state law against speeding. And don't say "Sh%t Sticks" to the cop. But according to the Constitution, Congress is supposed to make the laws, so if you're a constitutional formalist, this is going to give you fits. On the other hand, the rule making process allows for a degree of popular participation that goes way beyond what happens in Congress. In 2014, Congress called for the mandatory notice and comment period on new FCC rules on the issue of net neutrality. Any person can read the proposed rules which are not easy to understand and offer a public comment, including suggestions for new rules using the internet. The bureaucracy is required to read the comments and they could be incorporated into the final rules that are published in the federal register. So in a way, federal rule-making is more democratic than congressional law-making, but it's still not in the constitution. Administrative adjudication raises similar separation of powers issues, but they're less problematic because the constitution gives congress the right to establish courts other than the Supreme Court and it doesn't say that these can't be administrative tribunals that are part of bureaucratic agencies. Many low level bureaucratic positions are filled through competitive exam-based civil service procedures which are supposed to ensure a level of expertise and take politics out of the staffing process. But many upper level bureaucratic leaders especially cabinet secretaries and also ambassadors are very political. For one thing, they're appointed by politicians who may be repaying favors or trying to pack the agencies with like-minded favorites. For another, bureaucrats engaged in bargaining and protect their own interests, the very thing that politicians do all the time. Thanks Thought Bubble. So the first reason we keep bureaucracies is because bureaucracies are useful. They do get things done even though it might not be as quickly as we'd like. And some of these things are things we want done, like inspecting our meat so we don't get E. coli or Salmonella or Mad Cow Disease. One response to this that we'll talk about later is to get rid of public bureaucracies and contract their tasks out to private companies. There's something to be said to this. After all, in a lot of ways UPS does a better job of getting packages to us than the postal service does. And I also have a lot more fun at the private bowling alley than the public one. There's no such thing as a public bowling alley. If there is, I'm going. Might be free. But the main argument for privatization seems to be cost. And that one might not always be true. It seems unlikely that a private corporation would spring up to inspect meat. And although we can rely on pricing to signal that our chicken wings are salmonella free, I don't think it's a good idea. So in addition to being useful and filling roles that the private sector might not fill, one of the reasons we have so many bureaucracies is because Congress keeps making them and delegating power to them. If we didn't have bureaucracy, Congressmen and their staff would be taking on all the oversight and enforcement of their own laws. In addition to creating its own separation of powers problem, this might be kind of chaotic, considering that potentially the entire House of Representatives could be replaced every two years. One advantage of bureaucracies is a certain amount of stability in the built-up expertise that comes with it. Probably the main reason why we don't change bureaucracies though is that doing so is really difficult. Once Congress makes a bureaucracy it's usually permanent for a number of practical and political reasons. We'll get into those reasons next time. So I'm going to wrap this up with a little bit of a reminder about Federalism, based on a largely unwarranted assertion. I bet that if you ask most Americans to give an example of a bureaucracy they will say the DMV. Most people will tell you a DMV horror story of the time they had to wait in line for four hours just to renew their license and when they got to the counter a clerk told them that they didn't have the right forms and they needed to post a money order, and not a credit card or a check or even cash and that anyway they had to go on break and I had to come back in fifteen minutes and all I wanted was my license-- AAAAAAH the DMV! And I sympathize with this predicament but I feel the need to remind anyone who has had this experience at the DMV, that it's a state bureaucracy, not the federal bureaucracy. Most of the bureaucrats you meet in your daily life: teachers, policeman, tax assessors are officials of your state government, not the federal government, like Bureaucrat Jimmy. Which is pretty much what the Framers intended. So it's a good idea to be thoughtful about which government we're going to transfer our anger towards and to rage against the correct machine. That's what federalism's all about. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next week. Crash Course: Government & Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course: U.S. Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqual.org. Crash Course was made with the help of these soulless bureaucrats. Thanks for watching.
Main chronology
After the election which officially certified the historic growth of the communists, Aldo Moro became a vocal supporter of the necessity of starting a dialogue between DC and PCI.[3] Moro's main aim was to widen the democratic base of the government, including the PCI in the parliamentary majority: the cabinets should have been able to represent a larger number of voters and parties. According to him, the DC should have been as the centre of a coalition system based on the principles of consociative democracy.[4] This process was known as Historic Compromise.[5]
Between 1976 and 1977, Enrico Berlinguer's PCI broke with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, implementing, with Spanish and French communist parties, a new political ideology known as Eurocommunism. Such a move made an eventual cooperation more acceptable for christian democratic voters, and the two parties began an intense parliamentary debate, in a moment of deep social crises.[6]
The proposal by Moro of starting a cabinet composed by DC and PSI and externally supported by PCI was strongly opposed by both superpowers. The United States feared that the cooperation between PCI and DC might have allowed the communists to gain information on strategic NATO military plans and installations.[7] Moreover, the participation in government of the communists in a Western country would have represented a cultural failure for the USA. On the other hand, the Soviets considered the potential participation by the Italian Communist Party in a cabinet as a form of emancipation from Moscow and rapprochement to the Americans.[8]
The christian democrat Giulio Andreotti, known as a staunch anti-communist, was called in to lead the first experiment of a cabinet externally supported by the communists. Andreotti's new cabinet, formed in July 1976, included only members of his own DC party but had the indirect support of the communists.[9] The cabinet was called "the government of the not-no confidence", because it was externally supported by all the political parties in the Parliament, except for the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement.[10] In this new climate of cooperation, on 5 July 1976 Pietro Ingrao was the first communist to be elected as President of the Chamber of Deputies.[citation needed]
This cabinet fell in January 1978. In March, the crisis was overcome by the intervention of Aldo Moro, who proposed a new cabinet again formed only by DC politicians, but this time with positive confidence votes from the other parties, including the PCI. This cabinet was also chaired by Andreotti, and was formed on 11 March 1978.[citation needed]
On 16 March 1978, Aldo Moro was kidnapped by the Red Brigades, an ultra-left terrorist group, on the day in which the new government was going to be sworn in before parliament. Despite the huge shock that the kidnapping and the consecutive murder of Aldo Moro caused on the Italian politics, Andreotti continued as Prime Minister of the "National Solidarity" government with the support of the PCI. During this period the Parliament passed a long list of new laws and reforms, including the creation of the Italian National Health Service, the promulgation of the Basaglia Law for the closing down of all psychiatric hospitals and the parliamentary approval of a new law to legalize abortion.[citation needed]
In June 1978, the PCI gave its approval and ultimately active support to a campaign against President Giovanni Leone, accused of being involved in the Lockheed bribery scandal. This resulted in the President's resignation. The party then supported the election of the veteran socialist Sandro Pertini as President of Italy.[citation needed]
Presidential election
On 29 June 1978 the Parliament and the representatives of the 20 Italian regions met to elect the sixth President of Italy. On 8 July 1978 the socialist Sandro Pertini was elected on the sixteenth ballot with 832 votes out of 1011.
Government
Prime Minister | Party | Term of office | Government | Composition | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Took office | Left office | ||||||
Giulio Andreotti (1919–2013) |
Christian Democracy | 29 July 1976 | 11 March 1978 | Andreotti III | DC (with PCI's external support) (Historic Compromise) | ||
11 March 1978 | 20 March 1979 | Andreotti IV | |||||
20 March 1979 | 4 August 1979 | Andreotti V | DC • PSI • PSDI |
Parliamentary composition
Chamber of Deputies
- President: Pietro Ingrao (PCI), elected on 5 July 1976
- Vice Presidents: Virginio Rognoni (DC, till 13 June 1978), Oscar Luigi Scalfaro (DC), Maria Eletta Martini (DC, from 21 June 1978), Pietro Bucalossi (PRI), Luigi Mariotti (PSI)
Initial composition[11] (5 July 1976) |
Final composition[11] (19 June 1979) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parliamentary group | Seats | Parliamentary group | Seats | Change | |||||
Christian Democracy | 262 | Christian Democracy | 263 | 1 | |||||
Italian Communist Party | 228 | Italian Communist Party | 220 | 8 | |||||
Italian Socialist Party | 57 | Italian Socialist Party | 57 | ||||||
Italian Social Movement | 35 | Italian Social Movement | 17 | 18 | |||||
National Democracy | 15 | 15 | |||||||
Italian Democratic Socialist Party | 15 | Italian Democratic Socialist Party | 15 | ||||||
Italian Republican Party | 14 | Italian Republican Party | 14 | ||||||
Proletarian Democracy | 6 | Proletarian Democracy | 5 | 1 | |||||
Italian Liberal Party | 5 | Italian Liberal Party | 5 | ||||||
Radical Party | 4 | Radical Party | 5 | 1 | |||||
Mixed | 4 | Mixed | 14 | 10 | |||||
Südtiroler Volkspartei | 3 | Südtiroler Volkspartei | 3 | ||||||
Independent–Non inscrits | 9 | 9 | |||||||
Total seats | 630 | Total seats | 630 |
Senate of the Republic
- President: Amintore Fanfani (DC), elected on 5 July 1976
- Vice Presidents: Luigi Carraro (DC), Edoardo Catellani (PSI), Dario Valori (PCI), Tullia Carettoni Romagnoli (SI)
Initial composition[12] (5 July 1976) |
Final composition[12] (19 June 1979) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parliamentary group | Seats | Parliamentary group | Seats | Change | |||||
Christian Democracy | 135 | Christian Democracy | 135 | ||||||
Italian Communist Party | 116 | Italian Communist Party | 117 | 1 | |||||
Italian Socialist Party | 29 | Italian Socialist Party | 29 | ||||||
Italian Social Movement | 15 | Italian Social Movement | 6 | 9 | |||||
National Democracy | 9 | 9 | |||||||
Italian Democratic Socialist Party | 6 | Italian Democratic Socialist Party | 8 | 2 | |||||
Italian Republican Party | 6 | Italian Republican Party | 6 | ||||||
Mixed | 8 | Mixed | 8 | ||||||
Italian Liberal Party | 2 | Italian Liberal Party | 2 | ||||||
Südtiroler Volkspartei | 2 | Südtiroler Volkspartei | 2 | ||||||
Independent–Non inscrits | 4 | Independent–Non inscrits | 1 | 3 | |||||
Total seats | 315 | Total seats | 315 |
Senators for Life
Senator | Motivation | Appointed by | From | Till |
---|---|---|---|---|
Giovanni Gronchi | Former President of Italy | ex officio | Previous legislature | 17 October 1978 (deceased) |
Cesare Merzagora | Merits in the social field | President Antonio Segni | Previous legislature | Next legislature |
Ferruccio Parri | Merits in the social field | President Antonio Segni | Previous legislature | Next legislature |
Eugenio Montale | Merits in the literary field | President Giuseppe Saragat | Previous legislature | Next legislature |
Pietro Nenni | Merits in the social field | President Giuseppe Saragat | Previous legislature | Next legislature |
Giuseppe Saragat | Former President of Italy | ex officio | Previous legislature | Next legislature |
Amintore Fanfani | Merits in the social field | President Giovanni Leone | Previous legislature | Next legislature |
Giovanni Leone | Former President of Italy | ex officio | 15 June 1978 | Next legislature |
References
- ^ "Camera dei Deputati – 7ª Legislatura". www.storia.camera.it (in Italian). Retrieved 19 February 2021.
- ^ "Senato della Repubblica – 7ª Legislatura". www.senato.it (in Italian). Retrieved 19 February 2021.
- ^ Elezioni del 1976, Ministero dell'Interno
- ^ Fontana, Sandro (1982). "Moro e il sistema politico italiano" (PDF). Cultura e politica nell'esperienza di Aldo Moro (in Italian). Milan: Giuffrè. pp. 183–184.
- ^ "Cos'è il compromesso storico? | Sapere.it". www.sapere.it. 28 September 2011.
- ^ Eurocomunismo, Enciclopedia Treccani
- ^ Quanti rimpianti da quella stretta di mano tra Moro e Berlinguer, Giornale Mio
- ^ Quando c'era Berlinguer. Bureau. 21 May 2015. ISBN 9788858680681 – via Google Books.
- ^ Fallaci, Oriana (1974). Intervista con la storia (in Italian). Milan: Rizzoli.
- ^ "Il governo della "non sfiducia", nel 1976". Il Post (in Italian). 10 April 2013. Retrieved 4 January 2019.
- ^ a b "VII Legislatura della Repubblica italiana / Legislature / Camera dei deputati – Portale storico". storia.camera.it (in Italian). Retrieved 19 February 2021.
- ^ a b "senato.it – Composizione dei gruppi parlamentari nella VII Legislatura". www.senato.it (in Italian). Retrieved 19 February 2021.