Agreeing that the law is far from perfect may be one thing, but establishing what to do about it is a completley different thing. The questions involved in this arena are formidable: when does life begin? what limits do we as a society wish to place on scientific research? what relation should the church and state have? is the right to conceive to be protected at all costs? The referendum on 40/2004 won’t answer these difficult questions, but the result may very well decide how, at least in Italy, the questions get answered. Or rather, the result may decide who gets to answer these questions.
In January of this year, the Episcopal conference, held in Bari, expressed itself contrary to the modification of the law. Cardinal Ruini, the head of the CEI (Italian Bishops’ Conference) declared in the Catholic newspaper Avvenire that “to achieve the objective [the non-modification of 40/2004], we will choose the most effective path, and abstention is one possibility”[3]. The call to abstain from voting has been shared by a number of high ranking politicians including members of the government, and a number of scientists and medics from across the political spectrum.
There are two principles behind the call for abstention: the first is that it is a legitimate democratic option, say its proponents. Article 75 of the Italian Constitution, which sets out the conditions governing the holding of a referendum, declares that for a referendum to be valid it must have a quorum of 50%+1 of the registered electorate. While it is your constitutional right to vote, implicit in this article is that it is your constitutional right not to vote. There are those who believe that material such as this should not be decided by referendum, but instead by Parliament. The second principle is slightly less idealistic and governed by a clear understanding of voting trends. Ruini admitted to Italy’s daily newspaper Corriere della Sera in March that “many abstain in any case, [keep in mind that the referendum is held on a june weekend, after schools finish for summer], so there’s already a quota of abstentions to which we’ll be added”[4].
At the same time there is a vigorous campaign calling for voters to a) turn out, and b) to vote in favour of the referendum’s four motions. Politicians from the left and the right, catholic and communist have come out in defense of the referendum as a valid democratic exercise. From blogs and websites through to sms messages and public debates, groups in favour of the referendum hope to mobilise voters to exercise their active democratic rights, rather than passive.
It’s not easy to determine the natural constituency either for a ‘yes’ vote, or for abstention. Certainly the Bishops have indicated which way they expect people to act, but there are many Catholics, including clergy, who have seen this as an unacceptable and who intend to vote in favour of the referendum (Over 900 people, many of them priests and nuns, have signed a petition on the ADISTA website calling for freedom of conscience in relation to the referendum www.Adista.it). At the same time there are many who may not naturally support the Catholic Church and its intervention into legislative politics who nonetheless are uncomfortable with any legislation that permits scientific research on embryonic stem cells, for example.
Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, whose electorate is based to a large extent on both women and catholic voters, has been conspicuous by his silence on the whole issue of voting. This week, when asked whether he would vote [not how, but whether], responded ‘who knows?’.
The complex nature of the subject paradoxically seems to have limited the debate, at least in our experience at Three Monkeys Online. During the referendum campaign we sent out ten questions based on the referendum to proponents of the ‘yes’ campaign, the ‘abstain’ campaign, and a number of political parties. Two different groups on the pro-referendum side responded immediately and in-depth. Despite repeated requests, the main groups in favour of abstention have yet to respond to any of our questions. The argument that the area of bio-ethics is complex and poses huge philosophical, legal and practical challenges is without doubt. Should that, though, absolve those who support 40/2004 from engaging in debate? Should the fact that a legal question is complex deny the electorate their constitutional right to decide upon it?
The question that Italian voters are being asked to decide on Monday is ostensibly about certain clauses of 40/2004. In reality it’s not about what to vote, but whether to vote. On Monday, voters, or non-voters as the case may be, will decide.
2.Interview with Corriere della Sera 15th May
3. “Per raggiungere l’obiettivo, sceglieremo quelle vie che appariranno più efficaci». E la via dell’astensione «è una
delle possibilità» – Interview Avvenire
4.Corriere della Sera, 11 marzo 2005, pag. 11
Trust the Stork – Reflections on Italy’s legislation governing medically assisted conception