A dossier proposed by Jaime Amaducci, Cidi Cesena-Cesenatico (FC)
"What is democracy? A procedural question: everyone participates and decisions are taken by majority," "the left-wing politician: he which is attracted by the ideal - freedom, equality and well-being ... - the one who initiated the claim of a substantive democracy, in which the merit principle must strike a balance with that of need. " Norberto Bobbio
(from the Sermon on the 1992 millennium Rivalta Bormida
http://www.lancora.com/monografie/persone/bobbio_0503.html )
[...] the distinction between the right and the left, for which the ideal of equality has always been the polar star which has looked and continues to watch, is very clear. Just move your eyes from the social issues within individual states, which gave birth to the left in the last century, the international social issue, to realize that the left has not only done their way, but it has just begun.
Norberto Bobbio,
"Right and Left", Donzelli, Rome, 1995, p.. 128
The union between conservation and change
(Forum PA - May 22, 2007)
http://www.forumpa.it/forumpa2007/convegni/relazioni/321_bernardo_giorgio_mattarella/321_bernardo_giorgio_mattarella.htm
THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE IN
of George Bernard Mattarella
Professor of Administrative Law - University of Siena
My job is to talk about the principle of merit and also to give a brief account of a recent proposal law developed by Pietro Ichino and myself, who had a following of Parliament. Before talking about this proposal, I would frame the issue of the principle of merit as the ordering principle of access to public employment and career advancement in the public sector.
As recently noted by Sabino Cassese, the principle of merit has very noble and glorious traditions. It was born partly in China and partly in some European countries (Sweden, Prussia, Austria) between the eighteenth and nineteenth, then it has spread thanks to the Enlightenment ideals in other European countries and also in Italy. It also has a constitutional surfacing in 1997, which states that the public service is an entrance.
The merit principle, however, is more than that. It means at least two things: that not only access to the public service must be made in the competition, but that career progression should be based on merit and that the workplace must have a certain stability.
The merit principle, however, also has great enemies and strong opposition. This is proven, For example, the Memorandum on the public work, in which it reiterates that the ordinary way to access to public employment is a competition. This is already written into the Constitution, should not be a negotiable issue: If you are trading on something that should be common ground, which is imposed by the Constitution, it means that we need to defend the principle involved. I would therefore like to identify which are the enemies - or the apparent enemies - the principle of merit, to identify what are its allies and, on the basis of this, explain the bill I was talking about.
The enemies of the merit principle, or its apparent enemies, are mainly three: the democratic principle, the principle of corporate and the principle of equality. As you can see they're not bad people: they are equally important and noble principles and constitutional roots with perhaps even more than the principle of merit. Why, however, are enemies of the merit principle, or may become?
that the democratic principle can come into tension with the principle of merit is shown for example in a recent article by Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional majority of Americans. The article has a meaningful title (Meritocracy against Democracy) and refers to the constitutional reforms in the UK: Country in which, with the Westminster model, the principle of democracy was the best explanation, since all power is brought back the political circuit and the Parliament. In the UK, however, the democratic principle has recently undergone attenuation with the establishment of independent bodies such as the Central Bank of merit, the Supreme Court and so on. In this article, Ackerman, who is a human rights expert, said that the protection of human rights is best ensured by a system where democracy is tempered by the meritocracy rather than a regime in which the elective principle has its greatest explanation. When it exacerbates the elective principle, therefore, becomes an enemy of the democratic principle of the merit principle. Democracy is not just elections. When the principle of democracy not end the phenomenon of choice, it becomes an enemy the principle of merit.
This we see also in the Constitution, because we both Article 95 on ministerial responsibility, which states that the ministers meet for the acts of government, and thus the monitor (which is actually a projection of the democratic principle) , be Article 97, on the principle of impartiality, and Article 98, which says that civil servants are the exclusive service of the nation or the citizens and not politicians. So there seems to be tension between the principle of impartiality, linked to the substance, and the democratic principle. In fact, if we want democracy in some sense a 'broader, such as sovereignty Check and adjust the electorate, the contrast vanishes and the merit principle is in full agreement with the democratic principle. Indeed, the merit principle allows citizens access to public office on an equal footing and thus, in turn, support for democracy.
Turning to the second opponent: the corporate principle. Often we mean by a negative expression corporatism. But in reality, the corporate is a noble idea: it has to do not so much with the medieval guilds, but rather with the social doctrine of the Church and certain currents of the Enlightenment. However, he also led to historic achievements ignoble, as the sort of corporate fascist mentioned earlier, Professor De Rita and as such the Portuguese model. The noble idea of \u200b\u200breconciling conflicting interests, which is the corporate spirit of the idea, it is difficult to achieve in practice, compared to the simplicity of the elective principle of representative democracy. The principle may be a corporate enemy of the merit principle because it involves negotiation, confrontation between conflicting interests and the principle of merit sometimes does not want to negotiate, agree and the representation of interests. The merit principle, as in the case of competitions, requires rather an objective assessment.
The third enemy of the merit principle seems to be the principle of equality. This, too, in fact, is an apparent enemy: the principle of competition, in fact, is based precisely on the concept of equality, requiring equal access to public office. However, if the principle of equality becomes egalitarianism, the principle of merit is sacrificed. If anyone can access to public office regardless of their merits, without an assessment, then there is the contrast between the two principles.
The contrast with each of these apparent deviations of the opponents were able to verify in recent times. Regarding the contrast between the democratic principle and the principle of merit, the most obvious reference is to the story and the leadership of the spoils system. In fact we have had mechanisms spoils system that are clearly related elective or intrusiveness of the democratic principle, a requirement of impartiality has also recently led the Constitutional Court to limit this interference. In fact, the spoils system is not only in the matter of leadership, but it is sometimes hidden in the financial laws and other laws. When you remove a body and then almost immediately re-attached the same, in fact, this usually serves to get rid of those occupying that body at that time.
The contrast between the merit principle and the principle Corporate emerges every time you shop on something that should not be negotiable. This happens, for example, every time that collective bargaining invades the land should be reserved for the law or the unilateral determination of the administration. Also in the memorandum that I mentioned earlier collective bargaining invades the land of the directives, which should be left to the administration. This conflict emerged when the competition committee made up of representatives of trade unions and, therefore, were represented interests instead of evaluating the merits, it keeps coming up when the notices of competitions are made on the basis of collective agreements and are being negotiated.
An example of the contrast between the merit principle and the principle of equality, then we have with each other to stabilize precarious. In fact, this large pot is put together very different situations: both winners of the competition, which certainly deserve to take up, which persons who were never recruited a competition, but on the basis of political affiliation. In the latter case the stabilization adds injustice to injustice, for those who have not had access to public service continue to remain outside because the seats are reserved for those who have been recruited in that way. Egalitarianism is incompatible with the principle of merit in other cases: for example, when the allowances are distributed to all results, "rain" and not only to the most deserving.
As you can see, the opponents of the principle of merit is the distortions of certain constitutional principles. Fortunately, however, there are also allies. First, the principle of evaluating the results. It is, in fact, the core of the principle of competition, which is in the Constitution, but the principle of self-assessment should also inform the development of careers of civil servants and, therefore, should be used for the purpose of advancing, the salaries and so on. The principle of evaluation of performance is based of course the constitutional principle of good and is in some ways reinforced by the privatization of public work. The privatization, in fact, work in different ways than the principle of merit: in this case reinforces that, because the use of evaluation as a tool for career management, is common in the private sector.
Another ally of the merit principle is the principle of contradiction, which is one of the universal principles of administrative law. It is the principle according to which, before taking a decision regarding a certain subject, you have to listen to the same subject. The adversarial principle, which is an aspect of what Constant called the freedom of the moderns, is a principle whose link with the principle of merit is shown by its recent judgments No 103 and n. 104 of the Constitutional Court, in which the Court said that before getting rid of a manager, you must dispute the charges, that we need a procedure that is based on the principle of adversary proceedings.
A third important ally (or a corollary of the principle of merit) is the principle of transparency: assessments made during the competitions and careers have little meaning and are not credible unless they are open and transparent. Unfortunately, in our system of administrative transparency there is very little. We have a law on open government but this law is very restrictive, more narrowly applied and is far behind the laws in the past ten or fifteen years have been approved and became effective in many Western countries and beyond.
Once described in this combination of principles, upon which the merit principle, I would like to talk a bit 'of the proposal prepared by a group of people led by Pietro Ichino and myself in recent months, which originates from the debate that was started by Ichino with his articles on the Corriere della Sera on loafers, redundancies and so on. Our proposal, in fact, with idlers and layoffs has little to do: it consists in the completion of an evaluation system of the offices and civil servants, which in our system is largely unsatisfactory. It moves from the observation of a number of deficiencies in our legal system, of which mention briefly.
First, there is a lack of control: an inadequacy of the system of internal controls. The offices of internal control are often not present and, if they exist, in most cases structures are nominal and do not know how to work and are not very active. It calls for an organization that fosters the implementation of the law: it is still not implemented the system of controls required by regulations issued since 1999. To this end, we hypothesize the establishment of an independent person (authority, agency or commission that is) who has, among its tasks, to stimulate the implementation of the law in this respect.
There is also a lack of assessment: inadequate, not only for implementing the law, but its real subject. The rules are, in fact, largely unsatisfactory, primarily because they involve the assessment of the offices but do not provide for the assessment of individuals, which often must be done instead. Here to exemplify start from myself, from the category of academics at the end of my course, students fill out questionnaires in which they say they are or are not satisfied, give a lecture on punctuality ratings, deepening, and the clarity on ' adequacy of textbooks. Statistics are then made on the basis of these questionnaires and the only relief they have is my personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction. these statistics to see just me and - perhaps - the dean of my faculty and shall not affect in any way, nor to my career or my salary, nor on the allocation of research funds. Starting with the academics - but not just for them - so there is need for better assessment.
Thirdly, there is a lack of independence of those who make the assessment. Those who carry out internal controls are often appointed by government and political leaders only respond to them. Of this I have had a dramatic confirmed yesterday, reading the newspaper, with regard to internal audit services in the regions. This subjugation of the organs of political control at the top - put together with the spoils system that has been given in recent years - that means there is no distinction between controlled and controlling interests, which should be the basis of the control systems. Here we propose to remedy this by giving an independent entity the task of informing those who then are the true masters of public administration, namely citizens. The controls, therefore, should be transparent and the results of the monitoring efforts should be made public. For the Italian scholars, in fact, now is easier access to the reports made by the supervisory board in California, English or Swedish relations of control bodies made by the Italian government, simply because the former are the websites, while the latter are kept in a drawer.
Here is a general problem of open government: it is sacrificed in our legal system, confidentiality protection receives a disproportionate and in particular in the field of control there is little transparency. For this we hypothesize that this independent commission or authority, as well as stimulate the conduct of audits, in addition to providing criteria to explain and provide guidelines for Checks should be made, in addition to show and publicize the best practices at national and international, must also perform this function of "megaphone". It should, that is, to organize public reviews, annual meetings would be discussed during which the results of inspections and assessments, together with representatives of workers, users and so on.
Finally, there is a flaw in our system of merit, which is the result of everything I've said before. Access to public administration often occurs without competition or in ways that resemble timidly in a competition, the lack of merit exists in career advancement and compensation; it is due to several factors. In our bill we have suggested to introduce a series of corrective measures regarding the structure of wages, the powers of the various departments of internal control and powers of address of public authority or commission. These corrections that should introduce a bit 'more responsible in our system.
The approach of this proposal is not to upset the existing is not to radically change the system of controls outlined in the rules, but is to introduce some correction and to complete the system that already exists. You do not want to revolutionize the internal controls, but they are to complete, is not to revolutionize the responsibility of managers and civil servants, but also in matters of disciplinary liability, executive and state representative, there are a number of rules a bit 'that are specific to the individual to work better forms of accountability, starting with the specification, not want to change the relationship between law and collective bargaining, but you want to introduce some post and some limit to the encroachments of the latter.
This bill has given rise to intense debate, you could follow in the press, and this is a good thing because the basic objective of Ichino and I was the one to discuss this issue. The proposal was submitted the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate and Minister Nicolais spoke in favor of it, within certain limits, to take up some of its contents. This is the state of the art, we'll see what happens. Thanks.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
BUT IS ON THE RIGHT OR LEFT?
http://avanzi-avanzi-avanzi.blog.kataweb.it/2008/12/03/ma-il-merito-e-di-destra-o-di-sinistra/
One would say, right because the substance is shaken like a club from right to left against those accused of not wanting to reward merit, as determined with the myths of egalitarianism sessantottino or, worse, prisoners of trade union corporatism. From another point of view, but within the same logic, the fact that the substance is mentioned in the statute shows the Democratic Party, according to some, because the PD is now dominated by a culture of "centrist." But
promote capable and deserving (as an expression of our glorious Constitution, Article 34). Regardless of social class of birth and privileges derived therefrom, is a typical mission of the Left, which in this case picks up a flag of the enlightened bourgeoisie.
course, would be best to first clarify what is left and right.
innate in left, argued Norberto Bobbio, is to aim for equality, or at least, realistically, more equality. The right is more willing to live with inequality, without feeling too upset. In fact, the great inequality existing in the Italian company, at the highest levels of the Western world, as evidenced by the recent OECD research , demonstrates the extent to which Italy won on the right.
The credit is "right" as a reward when you want to increase the differences. But there is a difference and difference: those resulting from birth, being part of a network of knowledge (which in itself is not negative, but becomes so when the "friends" Team to exclude those who do not belong to the same network), then the differences (more acceptable) that result - in fact - from the recognition of merit.
However, in my opinion, the existence of differences does not guarantee the recognition of merit. For example, among high school teachers there are differences in status, pay, etc.., The university does. So the university should be able to offer more or experts, but if so, I will not complain about injustices and scandals. So it's not enough to "step up the stairs" to reward the deserving. But as long as there are steps must salirli only those with merit and competence, if you want the company functions.
In a purely utopian society, one might be motivated to commit themselves not by the expectation of a reward, but simply the pleasure of doing a good job, the desire to improve society, on the grounds that ideal, in greater or lesser extent, We all (we are not just economic animals). But when the rewards go to those who do not deserve it, then the ideal good, unless it is really a hero, lays back and hope to cultivate his own garden, such as - no coincidence - many are now.
With great harm to society as a whole, which is deprived of the assistance of the "best".
We must also deal with the number of steps (equality), possibly reducing them, but meanwhile we have to decide who has the right to salirli. There are two questions a bit 'different. But the left must also be on the agenda before.
short, there is a merit to "exclude" and on to "include", one to expand the differences or to repair one. The first is right and second left, and excuse the crudeness.
February 17, 2010 JOIN THE ACTION MUST NOT DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY
John Bazoli
http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/SoleOnLine4/dossier/Italia/2009/commenti-sole-24-ore/17- febbraio-2010/bazoli-merito-deve-unire.shtml
Source The Sun 24 hours
Core to any democratic system is the principle of equality: to be understood, of course, not as a precondition, but as a goal to pursue. How
wrote Norberto Bobbio, is not that men are equal. Equality is an end point: it is a duty to perform.
But at this point is questionable whether the task of pursuing equality - that is, as just said, the ultimate goal and the raison d'être of democracy - are the exclusive or even the political sphere to economic . And therefore, if the rules concerning the business should serve only to ensure the freedom, competition and efficiency, or even to meet the reasons of fairness and justice.
is around this crucial question that requires a profound rethinking of the economic system to market. The freedom of economic initiative, such as the right of ownership belongs to the sphere of inviolable rights of the human person. But the primacy of liberty equality can not be absolute, even in economic terms. What we see otherwise, inevitably, comes the utilitarian-oriented research for profit, and enrichment of the individual or company, that no subsequent intervention may be able to prevent.
The big problem that the rules of the economy must be solved is therefore to balance the protection of freedom with that of equality. It is a prerequisite because it is establishing a real "economic democracy". New rules are needed. But apart from the consideration that in the globalized new rules require completely new models of "global governance", the correction of defects and distortions of capitalism, marked by the crisis we are experiencing, can not be exhausted in a matter of rules, because the latter necessarily refer to a new anthropology. The big challenge is to to overcome the supposed neutrality of the economy.
[...] At the base of the capitalist system cha has dominated in recent decades is the theoretical assumption that every person, when acting as homo economicus, is entitled, in the space of freedom accorded by law, to pursue selfish goals ( ie the maximum gain and profit), while it must pursue the public interest only when it acts as a citizen and contributes as such to the formation of those norms. This thesis accepts as normal a dichotomy between homo economicus and homo politicus which is in clear contradiction to the inseparability of the human person and the necessary consistency and continuity of his moral vision, which can not fail in time of economic action. The complete man is the primary nucleus on which to build a new conception of the relationship between economy and society.
The need for consistency of inspiration in the moral conduct of men is the element that leads us to seek an appearance of continuity instead of discontinuity and fracture which is usually identified, including behaviors that are legally defined as legitimate (human) and others who are defined as a duty (obligation).
It should also be considered that the adoption of new rules while on the one hand may be insufficient, on the other hand, has always cost reduction of the spaces of freedom. Conjunction with the adoption of new rules, so that the operator must warn the exercise of rights and freedoms of his competence, their responsibility for "national", that is a member and leader of the democratic community. In this respect manifests itself as the decisive role represented by the sense of social responsibility on the contractor. The realization of particular interest (personal or corporate) to be linked with that of the general. In other words, the public interest - which may be called the "common good" - must always be the horizon they are in and the choices that men do business in the sphere of individual freedom that is granted them.
Here comes in. The religious ethos. Religious language has a capacity to preserve and express the "reasons" that the public discourse can not ignore. In a liberal democratic state is right "that secular citizens to participate in efforts to translate relevant contributions from the religious language in a publicly accessible language."
And it is precisely in this respect, that is part of a reflection on what are the cultural and religious roots of the liberal capitalist system, which arises, in my view, one last question. Capitalism, as is well known, found its fertile ground in the Protestant Reformation, the idea of \u200b\u200bwealth as a grace, namely the idea that the gifts and natural talents granted to men and their fortunes, their success in time, are a sign of divine blessing, a reward.
But it is perhaps time to ask whether it is right that the market economic system continues to be guided mainly Calvinist mold of this ethos and Weber.
Certainly the idea of \u200b\u200ban economy freed from selfishness would be abstract and utopian, because the justification of economic action is always given from individual to improve their living conditions, namely its enrichment. History shows that economic systems that stifle personal incentives are doomed to fail. And besides, no one can deny that it is trends and aspirations that are written in human DNA. How anyone can doubt that the meritocracy is a principle to be exploited in any social organization and that competition is a useful and indispensable procedure in order to select the best people and products.
is precisely on these points, however, that I think need to open a new and unconventional thinking. We are confident that an ethical economy that absolutizes the primacy of merit and enhances competition to select the most talented and strongest adheres to the principles of the Gospel? Is it not true that a system based on this logic inevitably involves a radicalization, rather than a mitigation of the economic and social inequalities? And it is also true that some of the degenerative aspects of the system are derived from the conduct of managers of the first order, even willing to force the company's results in order to earn rewards and prizes unmeasured?
I repeat: the merit is certainly an essential factor for promotion of civil society: an asset to counter the negative value of welfarism. Provided the system is built around the idea that the best, the strongest, most capable deserve to be rewarded without limit. It is equally certain that competition and the quest for efficiency are mandatory rules to follow for economic growth and civil society. Provided they do not become the yardstick adopted to evaluate all human activity. A
These could be a preliminary reflection on the meaning and application that the idea of \u200b\u200bmerit and competition found in the economic realm. This is the case in fact to ask whether the substance in the conduct of business should continue to be measured by our current, theorized in the schools of management training and inspired by the assumption (derived Smithian) that the satisfaction of particular utility (such as strong personal incentives for managers and the maximum profit and the continued increase in shareholder value) will automatically result in an increase of well-being of the community. In the evaluation of professional managers and 'excellence' of the companies it seems clear that greater weight should be the ability to "take charge" - the second requirement explicitly called even after the last encyclical - the interests "of all categories of subjects that contribute to the life of "and, ultimately, the entire" community of reference ". Likewise, with regard to competition, one can not help but observe how the concept of a genuine pluralism of operators - useful, indeed indispensable, in order to improve the quality of services and products offered to the market - is now overwhelmed by the practice of a competition aimed at eliminating competitors, barely controlled by law.
The problem is that the correction to be introduced to prevent the primacy of merit and the principle of competitive tendering end up legitimizing a radicalization of inequality.
The right to pursue their talents in the economy also must be accompanied by a mandatory duty of solidarity. This involves the rejection of a purely functional leads us to consider how the company aims to create profits in the exclusive interest of shareholders and managers, without being charged to the general interests of the communities where it operates. The truth is that the objective of growth of wealth and welfare can not be separated from that of reducing inequalities. The implementation of this principle, that should inspire both the definition of the rules is the behavior of individual operators, is the great challenge facing economic and social system of the future.
Giovanni Bazoli
The text of the president of Banca Intesa-essay is taken from the Church and Capitalism, edited by Morcelliana, output in the coming days
