by Rossano Salini |
The current upsurge in the spread of Coronarivus, although not comparable to the devastating wave that swept across our country and northern Italy in particular in the spring, is however leading to a new climate of anxiety, uncertainty and fear of the consequences of new imminent closures and restrictions on the movement of people. We are still in the midst of the economic depression generated by the total lockdown of a few months ago, and we are already facing new and disturbing scenarios that would risk dealing a real blow to our economic fabric.
The inadequacy of the political class
In this situation of uncertainty and confusion, there is a strongneed for a political class capable of taking clear and impactful decisions boldly and promptly. A need that is destined to remain, at least for the moment, totally unsatisfied. And this is a general condition, beyond any partial judgement on this or that line-up, on this or that government team. The more serious and difficult the general situation, the more obvious becomes the inadequacy of a political class sadly tied to the mere problem of consensus and lacking in understanding of the present, vision of the future and consequent decision-making power. Beyond the question of what should be done at the present time, it is necessary once again to ask ourselves how we can rebuild a political and institutional fabric capable of dealing seriously and concretely with emergency situations such as the present one.
We come from the recent outcome of a referendum, the one on cutting the number of members of parliament, which has once again confirmed the intolerance of Italians towards politics, fuelled, moreover, by years of anti-caste rhetoric devoid of construction and a real proposal for alternative solutions. The prospect of such a cut does not help us in the least to understand how we could get out of the situation in which we find ourselves. Indeed, we find ourselves rightly looking at the current political landscape with great discouragement. The prevalence of instinct and easy consensus often leads us to the extreme consequence of distrusting democratic processes as they are implemented today. Sometimes we even run the risk of hoping - even if we do not say so explicitly - that in the face of such barbarism it is better to rely either on a single man in charge, or on some elite capable at least of making informed decisions. This is why the problem of an alternative to all of this is now more necessary and urgent than ever.
The death of politics
Beware, however, of the concept of alternative. Today we often hear about the opposition between people and elite. In political terms, this translates into an alternative between direct democracy on the one hand and technocracy on the other. Both paths, however, represent the death of true and authentic politics.
Direct democracy, theorised in particular by 'Casaleggio Associati' but actually implemented in practice by all those who conceive of political action as a direct relationship between leaders and voters (especially nowadays through the tool of social media), leads as a consequence to a total absence of political participation: everything is resolved in giving assent or otherwise to what is proposed by the leader on duty, who in turn mostly limits himself to smoothing the hair of the dominant opinion. Direct democracy produces easy consensus, which - as we can see - often ends up as a flash in the pan: great flames, but of very short duration.
On the other hand, technocracy also envisages the total absence of participation: political decisions in this sense are understood as mere cold applications of laws and regulations from which it is impossible to derogate. In this case, the safeguard against the fluctuating dynamics of consensus is transformed into absolute self-reference, incapable of following the various facets of reality and the deepest needs of people.
From this very brief analysis, it is clear that direct democracy and technocracy (people and elite) are by no means an opposition, a dual option, but are two sides of the same coin: political decision-making without real involvement, without real participation of the people in decisions, through the proper application of the dynamics of representation.
Presence and participation
So the real alternative to the current scenario is a return to political action as presence and participation. Once upon a time, all this took place in the normal life of the popular, mass parties: the circles discussed, there were many people willing to get personally involved, the big decisions were subjected to the scrutiny of discussions not only in the upper levels of the party, but also in the small circles, whether they were the speakers or the small party sections.
It is not a question of being nostalgic and re-proposing a model from the past: however, it must be made absolutely clear that there is no other way of doing authentic politics than through direct involvement, participation and the presence of people. Politics at a distance - a bit like the school at a distance that we have seen in the months of lockdown - is objectively and intrinsically anti-human, and incapable of giving concrete effects, of being effective. Man is made to be there, to be present, to see himself with others, to meet, to speak, to look the person he is talking to in the face, to share in flesh and blood the ideas and values he is committed to.
If, in politics today, this no longer passes through the party form, then other forms will have to be invented: but it cannot be thought that the essence of that method has disappeared, because there is no other way of doing politics, just as there is no other way of doing things among human beings in general.
Policy reconstruction
And so we return to the point we started from: situations of particular difficulty, of social and economic emergency such as the current one, require positions to be taken, real 'political' decisions in the full and global sense of the term, which pass through an understanding of reality based on people's participation in decision-making processes, on a sharing that turns into a final assumption of responsibility. The theoretical and abstract discourse on what it would be best to do today does not hold up if there is no context in which all this is structured and takes shape. The problem of reconstructing the political fabric is therefore much more complex and urgent than a simple and - it must be said - somewhat banal and botched cut in the number of members of parliament. We are faced with the need for substantial reconstruction, which is the only way to find solutions capable of giving hope to a generation that will have to face years and years of social, economic and employment crisis, which can only be overcome by making well-considered and far-sighted choices.
