The a. underlines, first of all, that in the period of its formation two solutions were, so to speak, "fixed" for the constituents. On the one side, being Italy in the western area every possibility fell immediately, of adopting any model of that "socialist State" that was just spreading in eastern Europe, while, on the other side, the result of the referendum of June 2, 1946, imposed on the constituents the republican solution as form of government. So that, rejected the "presidential form" of North American inspiration (as the recent experience of fascism advised against giving too much power to a single constitutional organ) and the "directorial form" of Swiss imprint (incompatible with the multiplicity and the antagonism of our political parties) in the end was adopted a "parliamentary form of government", of a "rationalized" type, which with its equalizing mechanisms among the different powers of the State would prevent those serious inconveniences, that had characterized the parliamentary system of pre-fascist Italy. from occurring again.

In conclusion, at the present time in which there is much debating in the public opinion, in the doctrine, in political environments, upon the reform of the Constitution itself to make it comply with the exigencies of the new times, the proposals put forward (on the relation Government-Parliament, on the powers to be attributed to the single Chambers, on the electoral laws, on the organization of the Regions, etc.) refer continuously to the most recent foreign constitutional experiences. This proves that the comparing approach has been in the past and still continues to be fundamental in the constitutional configuration of our Country.