Rome, March 19. (Adnkronos) – “We are a country politically voted in opposition. Meloni governs, rewarded by voters for being the only leader on the benches of the opposition for an entire legislature. She governs but never neglects to highlight how strong she is his critical spirit towards his opponents and predecessors. Schlein opposes the government, but he also often and willingly opposes his own party of yesterday and the day before yesterday. Conte and Calenda are no less in seeking, each in his own way , some adversary and even some potential ally to flog. And so on, now with over-the-top tones, now with more respect than a certain etiquette. But always with the idea that our antagonist is the main source of the reason we are claiming in our favor.
There is something ancient in all of this. It is the tradition of the Christian Democrats and the Communists of the past, who gathered consensus one against the other. It is the claim of the DC to proclaim itself an “alternative to itself” in the context of a democracy still blocked by virtue of the ideological conflicts that crossed it. And it is, more recently, that attitude of forces that defined themselves as “of struggle and government” going so far as to occupy public squares to contest measures that perhaps they had approved, albeit obtorto collo, a few hours earlier. In short, a long series of inconsistencies on the part of parties that were more at ease wearing the clothes of protest rather than wearing austere and uncomfortable government uniforms.
The advent of a populist political culture (let’s call it that, generously) ended up making a paradoxical contribution to this long tradition. Where the choice of the enemy and the sowing of a wide-ranging feeling of distrust have favored the denunciation of the mistakes of others rather than the assumption of the most uncomfortable personal responsibilities. Thus, everyone ends up talking to the belly of their electorate or of the one they hope to conquer. And there is no surer way to succeed in the enterprise than to take the side of those who are not happy with how things are going. A slippery slope, along which those who administer power are quick to point out to their adversaries and their past the greatest responsibility for everything that doesn’t work.
In fact, if an unpopular or even unprofitable decision has to be taken, there is no better justification than placing the burden on the previous governments or on one’s adversaries. A technique that everyone used a bit, to tell the truth. And that ends up confusing things to the benefit of (almost) anyone.
The fact is that at this rate every party, every alignment finally finds itself talking only to its loved ones. And nobody, or almost nobody, seems able to capture at least the attention of those who militate elsewhere. The positions stiffen in a narrative that becomes progressively more and more one-sided. With the effect, among other things, of inducing an ever-increasing number of voters to desert the polls – as we have just seen.
Yet the logic of a mature democracy should push in the opposite direction. Inducing each party to try to convince at least a part of the voters who militate elsewhere. And generating that movement of opinion which is vital for the functioning of the institutions.
It ‘obvious that talking to opponents without making them the face of the weapon always carries the risk of dissatisfying a part of their own half. But it is precisely in that conversation beyond the fence that a democracy is enriched and finally manages to become more interesting and lively, less rigid than we have all practiced it in recent years.
From this point of view, Giorgia Meloni and Maurizio Landini should be acknowledged for having taken – both of them – a small, very small step in the right direction. Whether it’s an exception to the rules followed up to now or the beginning of a new rule, we’ll see. With the skepticism that is due to the practices followed by everyone in all these years”. (by Marco Follini)
