If "good morning starts in the morning", then, the nebulous premises of this further electoral "round" can only betray every expectation in terms not only of the programmatic conclusions that should inspire its progress, but also of the consequences, on a constitutional level , which would be determined in the hypothesis of the prevalence of one or the other of the two self-styled coalitions in the field, united, indeed, by the need to express, albeit in different ways, the meta-political ideal of "full powers ”apparently declining it in a democratic sense to offer it, quite illusively, a semblance of admissibility.
However, let's be clear. If both the center- right and the center -left seem willing to almost "mystify" their intentions in order not to have them clear even internally, however, it seems necessary, not to say vital, to try to understand what each other means respectively with the the term "full powers", and with respect to what and who, or better still, with respect to which "other" powers that " fullness " must find expression, especially when considered on the results of an electoral law that seems to guarantee everything except the implementation of a " regime "of" full powers ".
In the meantime, because the clarification is not only of method, but above all of substance, as it is completely suitable to overwhelm, in its most spurious declination, the institutional profile of a country that has always made the so-called "separation of powers" the cardinal reference of own democratic representation. Therefore, why, the first and most dangerous of the degenerations that could ensue cannot but assume, and not only on the level of the common imagination, the perverse image of the " man alone in command ", identified when in presidential sauce as regards the center-right, when in a technical-juridical sauce as far as the center-left seems to belong, it being understood that the pure different nomenclature, far from wanting to be distinctive, and far from being so in fact, represents a mere linguistic simplification as an end in itself since, in fund, destined to betray the same identity of the two sides in order to be guaranteed, that identity by the same "providential" "saves all".
