Here is a link to an article on prime minister Matteo Renzi’s reform agenda, which first appeared in the December edition of the monthly English-language magazine Wanted in Rome
There was a time when left-wing politics was associated with wealth redistribution and social justice.
Not any more, or at least not in the Italy of Matteo Renzi, prime minister and secretary of the Democratic Party (PD), a distant heir of what was once the largest communist party in western Europe.
And so it seems the ex-Florence mayor had no qualms about ditching a proposal for pensions reform inspired by the principles of equity and protection for the most vulnerable groups before it had even been presented to the public for debate.
The proposal in question is set out in the document ‘Non per cassa, ma per equità’ (Not for money, but for equity) submitted to the government in June by the labour economist of international fame Tito Boeri, president of Italy’s social security institute Inps, for possible inclusion in the 2016 budget law.
The plan has two main objectives: to halve poverty among people aged over 55 – according to Inps the category worst affected by the recent prolonged recession and measures introduced by the Monti government in 2011 to push back the age of retirement – and to promote generational turnover in response to high youth unemployment.
Specifically, it contemplates awarding a basic income of 500 euros a month in the first instance to low-income families with at least one member aged over 55 on condition that unemployed people in the family actively seek work.
The measure is intended as a precursor of the national minimum wage, which currently does not exist in Italy.
The proposal also introduces a new flexibility scheme allowing workers to retire early on a reduced amount.
According to the document, the funds needed to cover these measures would be sourced by cutting welfare support to around 230,000 high-income families and recalculating so-called ‘golden’ pensions to around 250,000 people and annuities for over 4,000 elected officials (read: politicians) on the basis of contributions paid, meaning that recipients would get less.
The draft budget law signed off by the cabinet in October contained no trace of the proposals and in November Inps posted the document on its website for all to read.
The government and the pensions agency both insisted the on-line publication had been “agreed”, but the speed and intransigence with which the former rejected the plans after they had entered the public domain might suggest otherwise.
Renzi reportedly described the proposal to cut pensions as an “error” even before the document had been made public.
“Some of the remedies suggested by Tito Boeri’s Inps had the merit of equity: those who received more than they had paid in would have been asked to make a contribution,” the prime minister acknowledged.
“However, I didn’t think it was the right time: we need to restore Italians’ confidence” in the economic recovery, he continued, insisting rather on controversial tax-cutting measures that have found their way into the 2016 budget bill – measures that are traditionally advanced by the centre-right.
Critics of the proposals accuse Boeri of playing politics and of exceeding his remit as Inps does not have the right of legislative initiative under the Italian constitution.
However the economist has defended himself saying Inps has a long history of making proposals and that the attacks have come from “people who have clear interests in the operation that we wanted to launch”.
“The people who appeared on television foaming with rage to attack me are those whose annuity payment would be cut by half if our proposals were accepted,” Boeri continued.
In an age when expediency and vested interests seem to count more than political values or coherence, ‘equity’ has clearly become a dirty word.
There is a ghost haunting schools up and down Italy. It’s called ‘gender theory’ and it is spooking efforts to promote non-discrimination and respect for diversity among the country’s youth.
Like many, I also have my reservations about prime minister Matteo Renzi’s Good School reform, but I do think provisions set out in article 16 for promoting “sexual equality and the prevention of gender-based violence and all forms of discrimination” among pupils and students are laudable. Or rather, I believe such provisions are the prerequisite for building a fair and tolerant society and as such I would be concerned if they didn’t exist.
Many people don’t see it that way, however. Conservative Catholic groups, right-wing politicians and organisations defending the ‘traditional’ family have mounted an alarmist – and alarming – ideological campaign against the measures, warning parents of the dangers of a purported ‘theory’ that isn’t even mentioned in the law and which academics say doesn’t exist.
The problem is with the ‘gender’ word. Reactionaries are worried that the use of this term typically referring to cultural and social rather than biological differences between the sexes will pave the way for schools to teach pupils that there are no differences and that each one of us is free to determine who and what we want to be irrespective of how we were born.
Obviously this is far from the truth. However, in the absence of dispassionate debate around the issue and a clear sense of how the new provisions will be applied (it is still early days) even the most open-minded and reasonable parents are concerned.
The irony is that not many seem to know how and why the ghost of gender theory appeared in the first place, or realise that it has little to do with the provisions set out in the Good School reform.
The term ‘gender theory’ came to the fore in France in 2012 during debate over a bill legalising same-sex marriage and adoption there. It became the battle cry of the leading opponent to these provisions, the association La Manif pour tous, and subsequently found its way into the lexicon of the sister organisation La Manif pour tous Italia, founded in 2013 in opposition to a bill before the Italian parliament criminalising homophobia and transphobia.
Debate on this bill extending existing anti-discrimination legislation to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people coincided with discussion of another separate but related initiative involving adoption by parliament of a new strategic action plan against sexual and gender-based violence.
This law, approved definitively in October 2013, has its roots in the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) of 2011, which was ratified unanimously by both houses of parliament earlier in the year with huge public support.
It also forms the basis for the provisions set out in the Good School law.
Indeed, article 16 of Renzi’s reform makes explicit reference to an article in the 2013 strategic action plan providing for “adequate training of school staff in favour of relationship and against gender discrimination and violence” and “awareness-raising, information and training of students in order to prevent violence against women and gender discrimination, also through an adequate approach to the theme in text books”.
These provisions fuelled the campaign of the ‘gender theory’ scaremongers and fear gradually began to grip the institutions: in April 2014 education undersecretary Gabriele Toccafondi blocked a programme for schools “based on sexual orientation and gender identity” run by the national office against racial discrimination (UNAR) under the auspices of the education ministry, prompting the authoritative Società Italiana delle Storiche (Italian Society of Women Historians), many of whose members have long been active in the field of gender studies, to intervene.
In a letter to education minister Stefania Giannini the academics highlighted the “partiality” and “erroneousness” of the debate so far. The category ‘gender’, they said, introduces “less a theory than a conceptual tool for considering and analysing the historical social realities concerning the relationship between the sexes in all their complexity and articulation”, showing that “there has not been and is not just one way of being men and women, but a multiplicity of identities and experiences that have varied over time and space”.
However this did little to assuage fears, which on the contrary continued to grow as the Good School bill – presented in March 2015 – made its way through parliament. In July 2015 the newly elected mayor of Venice Luigi Brugnaro ordered the withdrawal of books exploring diversity issues from the city’s nurseries; and in late October the Liguria regional council went so far as to vote to explicitly ban ‘gender theory’ from being taught in the region’s schools.
Giannini intervened formally in July and then again at the start of the new school year in September with a circular aiming to lay the discussion to rest once and for all.
In it she insisted that the provisions contained in the law did not intend to “promote thoughts or actions inspired by ideologies of any kind”, but rather to transmit “knowledge and awareness of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and responsibilities of the individual”. She also reaffirmed that the contents of specific teaching programmes must in any event be set out in the academic plan that every school is required to draw up and present to parents for approval, meaning that families will be informed and have a measure of control.
Exactly how the provisions of article 16 will be applied remain to be seen, and it is reasonable to assume that the ‘message’ that reaches pupils and students will depend to a great extent on the sensibilities and preparation of the individual teacher or school.
However, in a modern, secular and open society if measures originally aimed at creating equality and respect for women are also extended to LGBT people, surely that has to be a good thing.
I don’t know about you, but my eyes glaze over every time I have to look at figures. However, I decided to overcome my habitual resistance when Italy’s national statistics institute Istat released its provisional employment data for September. The reason: I was trying to get to grips with the new labour market reform otherwise known as the Jobs Act for a story on prime minister Matteo Renzi’s reform agenda and I wanted to know whether the measures were actually achieving the stated aim of bringing down high unemployment and creating more stable jobs. Well, in the immediate term it seems they are.
The figures show a 0.9 per cent rise in employment year on year despite a less than brilliant GDP growth rate, suggesting that the upturn cannot be attributed to economic recovery alone. Rather, it is also the combined result of the Jobs Act and exemptions on social security contributions for employers taking on new steady hires this year.
The number of people in work in September rose by 192,000 over the same month in 2014, Istat said. Over the same period the number of people on permanent employment contracts rose by 113,000 and on fixed-term contracts by 107,000. Simultaneously the number of self-employed fell by 28,000. Ergo: more jobs and more stable jobs. Exactly what the government set out to achieve.
Of course much will now depend on whether the incentives for employers become permanent (economy minister Pier Carlo Padoan has said they will not and already in next year’s budget currently before parliament they have already been reduced considerably with respect to this year) and, to an even greater extent, on how Italy latches onto recovery after the longest and deepest recession since World War II. To quote one informed observer, economist and statistician Gabriele Olini, labour market reform has gone as far as it can; now it is up to economic and industrial policy to do the rest.