The most difficult vaccination. That of the PD against the professionalism of the opportunists.
Alberto Giannoni, a Milanese journalist who trained in the wake of reformist socialism, writes an ironic post that more or less says: "They declare they want to make a socialist party while continuing to alternate a secretary with a Communist background and one with a Christian Democratic background".
Two lines on the net are not enough to subvert a procedure that has lasted for twenty years. However, I take the cue to broaden the argument in the context of the Democratic Party which has requested - in the interest of the credibility of Italian politics as a whole - a quick solution and which, as in the Draghi case for the government, must have a certain authority in the scenario of the Italian parties.
The topic has been on standby since 1992, since Bettino Craxi on behalf of the PSI and Antonio Cariglia on behalf of the PSDI accredited the PDS, of which Achille Occhetto was secretary, at the Socialist International in the year in which Willy Brandt brought at the end of his mandate. Because, having obtained that accreditation, which for the ex-communists overwhelmed by the fall of the wall was a real passport for the future, the appreciation lasted only the time of the return trip: from Occhetto's tears to the approval of that proposal in Berlin the resumption of criticism and accusations against Craxi and the PSI by Occhetto talking to journalists at Ciampino airport on their return.
One may wonder, of course, if the wording socialist it is still an important part in defining the European position of the PD even though it remained marginal in its narration (Renzi considered it important and at the same time kept his narration marginal).
But above all we must ask ourselves if having preserved the substantial diarchy between ex-Communists and ex-Christian Democrats at the helm of the PD still inevitably contains the hesitation to welcome with equal rights, compared to post-communist and post-Christian Democratic nuclei, the tradition socialist, liberal-democratic, post-shareholder, radical and also heir to progressive civicism within the framework of the reformism that it is believed to represent. With the evidence that these are allusive roots, no longer separate organized apparatuses.
1992 is years after the dramatic death of Aldo Moro and the end of the political hypothesis of the historical compromise. But it is also many years before the current theater in which all (or almost) the parties of the first Republic abandoned their names and organizational models, also shuffling the electorates. With important transformations regarding their positioning and, for some, also regarding the ideal historically represented heritage.
However, we are at a time when one cannot take the red of history and invoke it without thinking about some black points of the present. It would therefore be necessary to look at the serious crisis in the reputation of politics; the criticality of a framework - albeit salvific - of government now established but with the two major parties represented in parliament (PD and M5S) acephalous; to the limited time that the parties have to straighten up roots and proposals. And even more limited if you think of the imminent administrative shift that involves 1700 municipalities and eight capital cities of great importance.
In order not to repeat the stories of the "two companies"
The PD is maintained around a representation of demand and electoral consensus of one fifth of the country. It is a relevant figure but not sufficient to contest the strength of the center-right alliance.
Consequently, it would seem necessarily strategic to strengthen the public perception of an opposite complex center-left alliance.
With a recent look - it was Zingaretti's proposal - this could have happened by keeping an alliance standing with the populists, most of whom declared themselves available to the CS label, but which turned out to be paralyzing and in any case now with the plug unplugged, therefore hanging on to confirmations or revisions series.
Or looking even more at the past, someone could imagine a PD understood as the DC was with centrism: a hegemonic force that allows small parties to carry out government tasks as long as they are satellites, that is, without directing roles. A formula that the center-left already put in difficulty on the contents. But that above all the socialist-led center-left forever questioned the terrain of a real unlocking of democracy.
As for the other firm, just as Bersani still, joking a bit, calls the ex-communist leadership group, there were so many appeals to the unity and mythology of the working class. But the only real reform alliance in the course of a long history in a democratic context was for the PCI the agreement - perhaps rough, but in substance loyal - in the territories, in cooperation, in the union with the reformist socialists. Other than the "independent left", good only for the showcase! The disappearance in recent days of Carlo Tognoli, the architect of one of those most incisive reformative juntas, has recalled paths that have to do with the living legacies and the dead legacies we are talking about.
In short, in order not to repeat the stories of the "two companies", the now more viable path would seem to be that of a proposal for federated alliance, with a model based on generational pacts that today seems to be the hybrid path taken by the US Dems. To be implemented with a map of guidelines which, in the existing historical framework, can only refer to the priority of the pro-European scheme. A card, however, that requires credible players, not invented ones. And a strong discontinuity of governance and direction. And that, perhaps finding the "credible players", is understood and metabolized by cadres and voters as the most solid, most open, most post-ideological perspective. Certainly a road that would prove truth only by deeply and blatantly reshuffling the current current cage.
This long introduction is written on the day when Enrico Letta - ex-Christian Democrat, student of Beniamino Andreatta, Catholic-liberal cultural accents and a sure pro-European vocation - assumes the leadership of the PD declaring himself "interested not in unanimism but in truth". Let's say one who doesn't come from a walk, if the titles of his last two books are "Against winds and tides"And"I learned".
What reason would someone like this - who launched the theme ofItaly that must go back to thinking big - to return to the track to give yet another ephemeral outlet to the old scheme with the foot on the brake of an ex-DC alternating with an ex-PCI leading currents that are called “unscrupulous and fratricidal”?
A figure tempered by successes and defeats, who shows signs of thinking about changes not to give shape to grudges but to have a Degasperian memory of the humility of the representation of a defeated country that has arguments to redeem everyone, perhaps he could imagine closing the diarchy of two firms and groped - contaminated by contagion with young people and convinced that in order to do politics ethically it is better first to secure a job to live independently - the progressive alliance of our time.
That it is a narrow street seems to be present to Letta himself in his first statements, albeit marked by the spirit of show-down.
It is no coincidence that this happens after the downsizing of nationalist sovereignty in Europe, but so far without the certainty that Italy too puts aside the reverse towards the cultures that produced two world wars. In short, waiting for a proposal to vaccinate the new generations against the professionalism of the opportunists.