A friend who lives far away and who consequently I only see from time to time, every time we meet, as an incurable admirer of Matteo Renzi, always asks me the same question: to 2 per cent? “. The next time we meet, I’ll answer him: look at Giorgia Meloni.
I know well that the leader of the Brothers of Italy at 40 per cent has yet to get there, and so far she is accredited by the polls to the maximum of 24. Personally, I believe that in the elections she will take much more than what they attribute today – I still hope less than 40 per cent, I fear more than 30 – but what strikes me is how actively engaged, even before having tasted the triumph, to prepare for the sudden fall, along the same road traveled by Renzi, and by many others before him ( practically everyone, each in its own way).
Italian politics is a carousel that runs faster and faster, and this is in fact the only thing that changes: the pace at which the protagonists are thrown out. For the rest, despite the fact that the game has been repeating itself identical to itself for thirty years now, no one seems to ever learn anything.
Take the latest absurd controversy surrounding the possible appointment of Meloni as prime minister. The leader of the Brothers of Italy, declaring that Sergio Mattarella in the aftermath of a center-right victory could not do anything but give her the job, committed a gaffe, to put it mildly, which counts as three own goals: the first because, by relaunching with such force what should be obvious, he gave the impression that it is not; the second because it offered Matteo Salvini the opportunity to point out in constitutional law – and that is to say – that there are no automatisms, thus helping to spread the idea that the center-right would not be united at all on Meloni, even if his party was the most voted in the coalition; the third because, by doing so, it strengthens and gives credibility to the adversaries’ campaign on its main weaknesses: legitimacy and democratic reliability.
All this, however, would not have a tenth of the weight it has assumed, and above all it will take on in the aftermath of the vote, if the aspiring president had not decided to relaunch the direct election of the head of state as the main point of his program. In an electoral campaign already marked by the danger of a very serious institutional imbalance, determined by the populist slant of the parliamentarians, by the majority law and by the objective disproportion between the forces in the field, common sense should have prompted her to aim above all to reassure. Faced with the concrete possibility that the winners have the numbers to change the Constitution on their own without going through the referendum, the watchword of presidentialism instead confirms all the worst fears about their will to overthrow, on the model of Viktor’s Hungary Orbán. Fears further reinforced by the timely declaration by Silvio Berlusconi – another very significant “gaffe” – on the need to dislodge Mattarella from the Quirinale one minute after the reform.
Mind you, I don’t think all of this will be enough to change the outcome of the elections. But I think that from the day after we will see the hundredth rerun of the clash on institutional reforms, perhaps after a few useless rounds of waltzes in which the supporters of the direct election of the President of the Republic will dialogue with the proponents of the direct election of the Prime Minister (such as Renzi ) and of course with the ineffable reformists of the Democratic Party. Who, after having asked for the vote not to hand over Italy to Putin, will explain that Putin must also be able to govern for five years and implement his program, and will relaunch yet another bicameral (Filippo Andreatta, an intellectual very close to Enrico Letta, has done seriously, in several recent interviews, in the Corriere della Sera It is on Sheet).
In short, the years pass, governments and generations alternate, but the elite group of supporters of the “majority revolution” continues to dictate the law. A kind of gigantic and transversal technical-institutional committee that has been prescribing the same medicines for thirty years, regardless of the fact that until now its treatments have produced increasingly worse results and completely opposite to the declared objectives, from the instability of governments to fragmentation of parties, not to mention the quality and representativeness of leaders and elected representatives.
Yet, for some reason, there is no leader in the smell of victory who does not fall in love with their recipes and rush to buy their elixirs. And it remains for us only to hope that this time too it will end like all the previous ones, that is badly, with yet another paralyzing parody of civil war that ends up nowhere, and no worse.