Italy is still in a very intricate political situation. I had the opportunity to write in my last column about the possible disadvantages of a Lega Nord-Five Stars coalition for the future of the EU. The complex structure of Italian governance has allowed President Sergio Mattarella to reject the government proposal of the two winners of the last elections.

The candidate premier Giuseppe Conte, the first politician poised to form a populist government in the Italian peninsula since the end of World War II, has seen his cabinet rejected by Mattarella because of the name put forward for Economy Minister, Paolo Savona.

The latter was poised to take over an important portfolio as a super economy minister. He is an old and very experienced banker and former director general of the almighty Italian Employer's Association Confindustria, having taught in many universities, including at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston. His profile thus fits the economy portfolio perfectly. Still, there is a huge issue in his political position, as he remains a very determined adversary of the single currency he sees to be as an instrument in the hands of Germany. He thinks that the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 has given the EU helm to Germany, and he has done since everything to fight it.

Mattarella could not risk endorsing Savona's nomination to be director of the Italian economy. He thought such a move would create a huge financial crisis. The Italian economy is not the Greek economy; it is too large to be handled by the EU in the case of a full-fledged financial crisis. So having accepted all the nominations of the future cabinet, Mattarella vetoed one single name, which has prompted the premier-designated Giuseppe Conte, himself an obscure academic, to give back his mandate.

Therefore, Italy is again without a government. An interim government might again be asked to expedite current affairs, but new elections are on the agenda as never before. The questions however remain, not so much about new elections or negotiations for a new government, but the system that did not allow a democratically elected Parliament to form a viable government.Simply said, here we are with two political parties, perhaps distasteful for many and dangerously populist, but having been vested with a democratic mandate and legitimacy to govern Italy. They have a majority in both Italian Chambers and have formed a coalition government, but this has been rejected because the profile of the candidate for economy minister is likely to profoundly displease the eurozone, the international financial spheres and the functioning of the single market.

The president of the Italian republic is perfectly entitled to endorse or to reject cabinet nominations. He also has been democratically elected and vested with all the democratic legitimacy. He could have endorsed the totality of the cabinet; he did not do it this time.

The reaction of the Italian political class has been diverse; Matteo Salvini, leader of the Lega Nord, has clearly stated his mind: "We're not a free country," he said at a political rally. "We've got limited sovereignty"… A sentence recalling Brezhnev's doctrine of limited sovereignty after the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact

countries in 1968.

The truth is that Italian politics are dominated by a very intricate bicameral governance system that pushes political movements to devote too much time and effort to government negotiations. Parliament is placed on equal footing with the senate and the presidency of the republic, albeit highly symbolic, and holds a number of prerogatives that can be very influential, as we see now.The explanation of this complex system is the hatred and the fear caused by the Benito Mussolini period, where practically a one-man regime presided over the destiny of Italy between 1922 and 1944. The results have been so disastrous that Italy has established this intricate system of checks and balances to safeguard its democratic functioning. In fact, these checks and balances can look extremely disagreeable and undemocratic in the short run, as it is the case today. However, in the medium and long run, they help ensure the sustainability and durability of the social contract and a pluralistic, participative democracy, where the gains and losses for political forces should never be extreme.