Five questions, 30.6% voter turnout, no quorum reached. The referendum held on June 8–9, 2025, ends with a clear verdict: indifference has prevailed. A majority of Italian citizens chose not to choose. The silence from the ballot boxes speaks louder than a thousand words.
The abstention map reveals greater engagement in the North compared to the South, with Florence leading participation at 46%, followed by Turin (39.3%), Milan (35.4%), Rome (34.0%), and Naples (31.8%).
This outcome confirms a now well-established trend of disengagement from abrogative referendums, which in Italy rarely manage to involve more than half of eligible voters.
While the debate focuses on the five questions, progressive protections, dismissals in SMEs, fixed-term contracts, workplace injuries, and citizenship, the real issue lies in communication.
Why, in an age when messages travel faster and reach further than ever, do Italians seem increasingly disinterested in these votes?
The answer also lies in the ability, or inability, of political and institutional communication to effectively engage and inform citizens on complex, often poorly explained issues.
In the Referendum, Italy Is united in not choosing
Communication during referendums follows different dynamics and faces distinct challenges compared to traditional election campaigns. Political elections involve a wide range of issues, but referendums are different. Communication must contend with difficult subjects, overly simplified debates filled with slogans and ideological clashes, and public interest that fades in a climate of disillusionment and mistrust in institutions.
A referendum is a moment of direct democracy that demands, more than ever, clear, transparent, and engaging storytelling. Without effective communication, an informational vacuum can emerge, leading to apathy and, consequently, a weak representation of public sentiment.
That 30.6% turnout is more than just a number, it’s a warning sign. It signals the need to rethink how politics speaks to citizens, so participation is no longer the privilege of the few, but a shared right and responsibility. If we fail to meet this challenge, democracy risks losing its most authentic voice.
Building more effective communication around referendums
First of all, it’s important to recognize that merely informing is not enough. We need to explain, to translate legal jargon into accessible language, and to show the real-life consequences of each choice. Institutional neutrality must not become silence: institutions have a duty to clarify content, without steering the vote, but enabling informed decisions.
Too often, coverage of referendums is crammed into the final days, sidelined in the broader public discourse. In-depth analysis is sacrificed for speed, polarization, and infotainment. As a result, referendums are seen as technical, distant events, even when they concern daily life.
The challenge is twofold: on one hand, to build institutional communication that is authoritative yet simple (not simplistic), one that reaches beyond government buildings into schools, public spaces, and social media feeds. On the other hand, to foster a culture of participation that goes beyond just voting, starting earlier, with widespread, everyday, and ongoing civic education.
Is disintermediation really the solution?
In recent years, disintermediation, the attempt by parties and leaders to bypass the media and communicate directly with citizens, has often been seen as a possible answer to the crisis of trust in institutions.
Social networks, digital platforms, and new communication tools seem to have given individuals a voice again, shrinking the gap between rulers and the ruled. Disintermediation has brought speed, accessibility, and new, active, aware communities. However, the lack of mediation doesn’t eliminate the need for skills and accountability. The line between information and propaganda, between dialogue and polarization, becomes even more crucial.
An overabundance of messages can breed confusion, and algorithms tend to trap people in filter bubbles, reinforcing their existing beliefs rather than encouraging open dialogue.
Now more than ever, it is citizens who can play an active, transformative role in reviving democratic participation. This trend is already underway, albeit fragmented: informal groups, civic associations, local networks, and digital activists are becoming key players in a new kind of information, closer, more understandable, and above all, more trustworthy.
From Instagram carousels clearly explaining referendum questions, to TikTok videos debunking fake news, to online forums and podcasts exploring issues in depth—these are the parallel, often self-managed spaces emerging as new forms of civic engagement.
Rebuilding trust from the ground up, starting with citizens
Grassroots participation increasingly seems like a real answer to the information void left by official communication, which is too often stuck in patterns of polarization, slogans, and opposition. In the absence of an effective, accessible, transparent institutional language, awareness is growing that trust is no longer inherited, it must be rebuilt through proximity and mutual listening.
The citizen is no longer just a passive recipient of messages. They become a performer, interpreter, creator, and disseminator of political content, contributing to the building of informed and engaged communities.For referendums to be more than just symbolic exercises, and to once again become vital tools of our democracy, communication must not simply speak about citizens, but with them. Citizens must be seen as active participants, not occasional spectators.
Only then might abstention statistics stop reflecting apathy and start expressing a shared will. Otherwise, we will continue to ask ourselves not only about the questions posed by referendums, but why more and more Italians are choosing not to answer them.
