Minoranze e pluralismo negli organi di rappresentanza politica. Profili di diritto pubblico comparato

The paper is aimed at showing the normative means which are devoted to promote or guarantee the representation of linguistic minorities in the political organs The focus is based on the idea that linguistic pluralism doesn’t lead to a negative freedom but rather to a positive obligation of the State which consists in safeguarding, keeping, promoting the linguistic difference, in order to guarantee the pacific coexistence of minorities in modern States. In this perspective, the main techniques, coming from constitutional law, may be subdivided into three groups: a) Reserved seats. A case in point might be the Slovenian constitution (sec. 64) which reserves one seat per every minorities communities (i.e. Italian and Hungarian). Another example of the topic of reserved seats is the Statute of Trentino-Alto Adige in Italy (sec. 62) which allocates a seat to a representative of Ladino community in the Provincial Council of Alto Adige. b) Juridical tools aimed at supporting indirectly the elections of the members belonging to minorities groups. We could refer to the practice of gerrymandering which can help a particular linguistic group through the manipulation of district boundaries. As an example, it’s appropriate to take into consideration the Finnish legislation for Aaland Islands (where the population is Swedish-speaker) whose archipelago corresponds to a whole electoral district. The same promotional goal can be achieved whether the electoral law exempts parties representing minorities from the achievement of the election threshold (e.g. Germany and Poland). c) Strengthening the influence of minorities in the legislative process. According to some constitutions (i.e. Macedonia, Slovenia) the minorities representatives have the right of veto for bills affecting minorities interests. The different constitutional techniques for implementing minorities representation are directed to prevent certain communities from being wiped out; nevertheless they are not exempt from criticism. First of all, these juridical tools can undermine the principle of equality of vote which represents a cornerstone of constitutionalism, and so there is a concrete problem of balance between equality and pluralism. Secondly, these promotional measures move the focal point from the single voter to the belonging group, changing the principle of one person/one vote to that one of mirror representation distancing itself from liberal tradition; thirdly, this switch urges to reflect upon the meaning of imperative mandate which is a pillar of modern democracy.