Liliana Segre’s speech in the Senate

The elections of 25 September saw, as it should be, a lively competition between the different camps that presented the country with alternative programs and often opposing visions. And the people decided. It is the essence of democracy. The majority who left the polls have the right and duty to govern; minorities have the equally fundamental task of opposing. Common to all must be the imperative to preserve the institutions of the Republic, which belong to everyone, which are owned by no one, which must operate in the interest of the country, which must guarantee all parties. The great mature democracies prove to be such if, above the party divisions and the exercise of different roles, they know how to find themselves united in an essential nucleus of shared values, respected institutions, recognized emblems.

In Italy the main anchor around which the unity of our people must manifest itself is the Republican Constitution, which as Piero Calamandrei said is not a piece of paper, but is the testament of 100,000 dead fallen in the long struggle for freedom; a fight that did not start in September 1943 but that ideally sees Giacomo Matteotti as leader. The Italian people have always shown great attachment to its Constitution, they have always felt it a friend. On every occasion in which they have been questioned, citizens have always chosen to defend it, because they felt defended by it. And even when the Parliament has not been able to respond to the request to intervene on regulations that do not comply with constitutional principles – and unfortunately this has often happened – our fundamental Charter has still allowed the Constitutional Court and the judiciary to carry out a precious work of jurisprudential application, always making the law evolve. Of course, the Constitution too is perfectible and can be amended (as it itself provides in art.138), but allow me to observe that if the energy that has been spent for decades to change the Constitution – moreover with modest and sometimes pejorative results – had been instead used to implement it, ours would be a fairer and even happier country. The thought inevitably runs to art. 3, in which the constituent fathers and mothers were not satisfied with banning those discrimination based on “sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, personal and social conditions”, which had been the essence of the ancien regime. They also wanted to leave a perpetual task to the “Republic”: “to remove the obstacles of an economic and social nature which, effectively limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, prevent the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers to the political, economic and social organization of the country “. It is not poetry and it is not utopia: it is the North Star that should guide us all, even if we have different programs to follow it: remove those obstacles!

The great nations, then, prove to be such also by recognizing themselves chorally in the civil holidays, finding themselves in brotherhood around the anniversaries carved in the great book of homeland history. Why shouldn’t this also be the case for the Italian people? Why should they be lived as “divisive” dates, rather than with an authentic republican spirit, April 25 Liberation Day, May 1 Labor Day, June 2 Republic Day? Also on this theme of the full sharing of national holidays, of the dates that mark a pact between generations, between memory and the future, the value of example could be great, of new and perhaps unexpected gestures. Another terrain on which it is desirable to overcome the fences and assume a common responsibility is that of the fight against the spread of the language of hatred, against the barbarization of public debate, against the violence of prejudices and discrimination. Allow me to recall a virtuous precedent: in the past legislature the work of the “Extraordinary Commission for the fight against the phenomena of intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism and incitement to hatred and violence” concluded with the unanimous approval of a document of address. A sign of an awareness and a will across the political spectrum, which is essential to persist.

I conclude with two wishes: I hope that the new legislature will see a concerted commitment by all the members of this assembly to uphold the prestige of the Senate, substantially protect its prerogatives, reaffirm the centrality of Parliament in deeds and not in words. A drift has been complained for a long time, a mortification of the role of the legislative power due to the abuse of the emergency decree and the use of the vote of confidence. And the serious emergencies that have characterized the last few years could only aggravate the trend. In my naivety as a mother of a family, but also according to my firm conviction, I believe that it is necessary to interrupt the long series of errors of the past and for this it would be enough for the majority to remember the abuses they denounced by governments when they were a minority, and that minorities remembered the excesses they attributed to the opposition when they ruled. A healthy and loyal institutional collaboration, without detracting from the physiological distinction of roles, would allow the majority of legislative production to be brought back to its natural bed, while at the same time guaranteeing certain times for voting.

Finally, I hope that the whole Parliament, with unity of purpose, will be able to put in place in collaboration with the Government an extraordinary and very urgent commitment to respond to the cry of pain that comes from so many families and from so many companies struggling under the blows of the inflation and the exceptional surge in energy costs, which see a dark future, which fear that inequalities and injustices will further expand rather than shrink. In this sense, we will always have the European Union at our side with its values ​​and the concrete solidarity it has shown itself capable of in recent years of serious health and social crisis. There is not a moment to lose: the clear signal must come from democratic institutions that no one will be left alone, before fear and anger can reach warning levels and overflow.