A few nights ago, December 6, 2010, there was a debate on the crisis of governance the circle of the Democratic Party di Acqui Terme to which they are writing. They talked, among others, the deputy provincial secretary Fiorio and Alexandrian Borioli. Excellent and qualified interventions, to explain the reasons for the political crisis and to discuss possible solutions to the PD proposed. Solutions that include a possible, and not easily digestible, and Freedom and the Future alliance with UDC a government of national emergency (the possibility that personally I'm very cold). The crisis center has been interpreted, almost in unison, as the end of Berlusconi, which brings with it the collapse of the myth of the 'man owned " understood as an archetype of the individual committed to accumulating wealth and available force the rules and laws, even to achieve its objectives . He also said, in ways more or less explicit, that party is not in our time of discussion and excessive self-analysis, because we need to shake this cohort (again) political Armageddon, after which all things are new under the sky of Italian politics.
Personally, I spent a few words to offer my perspective on reading, perhaps not too popular because self-criticism to the Democratic Party, but justified by the high expectations that I feel towards the party. Also I have to admit that voter and activist on the left are tired of repeating the litany dell'antiberlusconismo, the fight against absolute evil, the demonization of the enemy. It seems to me a policy "against" sterile (and mirror the two sides), which prevents us from seeing the reasons of others - they are not the reasons for Berlusconi, but its millions of voters - that perpetuates a division between ontological and ideological Italian, silencing any dialectical possibilities here because there are good and the bad, and that sometimes seem artfully crafted to silence the difficulties of policy making and cultural development of PD: a contrast that, particularly not least, there has often led to the defeat for twenty years now.
In my opinion, rather than a crisis of Berlusconi, we are facing a crisis of political system overall, as evidenced by three things: the first is that while the majority lives its worst crisis, the PD is not growing, even receding, losing eight percentage points (from 33% of the general elections of 2008 Veltroni secretary with 25% of current polls), the second that the confidence of the Italians in the parties less than 9%, given a catastrophic, and the third is that the abstainers appear to be increasing and this increase penalizes us, as evidenced by the recent regional elections.
While PD as we are an integral part of the crisis and not mere spectators, we must necessarily ask ourselves what are our mistakes and correct them as we can. Question in my opinion necessary for the rhythm of four - five points less than a year, in just a couple of seasons in danger of reducing us to a party located between 10% and 15%, ending, finally, not only a major vocation, but also to the role of the main opposition paese. Devo però constatare che questa mia domanda ieri sera non ha trovato grande ascolto, perché ( forse a ragione) è stata considerata poco influente, ritenendo che la nostra crisi di consenso sia un fatto marginale rispetto alle vicende dirompenti che lacerano il centrodestra e rispetto ai problemi economici e sociali che vive il paese. Malgrado ciò, resto con i miei dubbi, e li riformulo chiedendo aiuto a chi voglia collaborare a chiarirmeli, anche (e soprattutto) tra chi era presente ieri sera.
Le domande insolute restano per me le seguenti:
1) il PD è effettivamente coinvolto crisis in the Italian political system? And, if so, why has not had the ability to be a viable alternative?
2) What suggestions can activate the PD drop out of this approvals and recur as innovative force capable of driving a new majority?
hope in the responses of many friends, will reclaim two answers that I suggested last night, which certainly can not be compared to the vastness and partial applications.
a) The Italians hate parties and lack confidence because they hate the party politics, which brings in its wake the patronage and justification of amoral familism. In this country to work to find employment, to attend to a practice, to get support, winning a contract, obtaining financing, must be used consistently to aid, to nudge, to knowledge. The Italians, said politely, we are tired of this situation, both those participating in the "game" and those who struggled and commendably, they are outside. The parties and their interference tentacles are often experienced as a curse as a cross that the country must aim to limit the emergence of merit and competitiveness, as a brake on the desire to do, as the great burden of ' Italian economy and development. Indeed i cittadini perdono progressivamente fiducia anche nelle istituzioni e nello stato, verso i quali i partiti rappresentano i naturali, ma inefficaci, mediatori. Il successo ventennale di Berlusconi e Bossi si inquadra anche (se non soprattutto) in una semplificata e demagogica concezione anti-politica, nella capacità di presentarsi come anti-burocrazia e anti – stato: un successo che è riduttivo e auto -consolatorio inquadrare come frutto esclusivo della forza mediatica del cavaliere. Ma mentre la destra fallisce in questo disegno di marcare una diversità e si rivela dominata dal clientelismo, la sinistra moderata non riesce a presentarsi come valida alternativa.
Quello che è manca and it is not, in my opinion, is the ability of the left to get away from patronage radically, to make a radical battle on this issue, to put (or repeat) with the moral clarity to the center of their debate. The following tangentopoli, from which we were quite immune to various reasons, has not seen a proper reflection on the theme of the Democratic Party and the ruling class (despite coming from a large majority parties of the First Republic) has been pretending that the problem did not exist. Even today among many of our leaders (more or less relevant) I feel confusion between political action and use of power, so that help the "Friends" or "people" - facilitating practices, making the case with the PA, giving a hand to find a job or offering one - is considered a meritorious act, of which the most naive or casual you do also boast publicly. It does so without realizing or seeing this cunningly, that help a person or a group of friends (and not a category, social class or better, all citizens) means advent of such a report clientelism, where someone improperly provides help and protection, and somebody else instead is helped (incorrectly as well) reciprocate the vote and loyalty. A feudal system that is not necessarily illegal, but I personally hate and moralmente indecoroso, ma che spesso all’interno dei partiti è considerato naturale e viene legittimato (anche assegnando incarichi di comando a chi, di tale relazione di presunto aiuto, si fa garante). Un sistema che da una parte apporta certo dei voti - che diventano la merce di scambio, la moneta con cui ripagare i favori - ma dall’altra genera insoddisfazione e odio verso i partiti, esattamente come fa la relazione servo - padrone. Un sistema intollerabile che presuppone un senso di superiorità del “potente” di turno verso il debole, o che comunque porta ad un governo di parte, in cui vengono privilegiati i propri sostenitori a discapito di chi non ti ha votato: a system that I find more unacceptable to a political force that should be left equality as a fundamental value. But the moral question seems to be out of fashion in political parties and in PD, which I see often tolerate these situations. That to me raises a number of questions, list here confused and can not find an answer:
Why the silence and complicity? And how much it costs us, this silence, in terms of popularity and credibility? And how much it costs to the system - the country? Where does the dream of a different Italy, freed from centuries of patronage? Why can not we propose with conviction and consistency of the project Italy that rewards merit and competitiveness? Why not let us know the promoters of a liberal revolution, which has always lacked in our country, historically crushed by the communist and Catholic communities would that have degenerated into consociativismo and corporatism? Why not put the center of our political project to reform socialist and liberal as that predicted by Rosselli, in which the need for social protection does not conflict with the need to enhance the capacity and commitment? Why not freed from the need for young fathers and godfathers and families and make them free to choose their own destinies?
b) The second problem is that of caste. Of course, this is a populist theme, but that there is in the public and we can not overlook. And that probably exists so the public hearing because the parties, as mentioned above, most often act as groups of power as political subjects, not proposing structural solutions to companies and individuals in all but offering "protection" to their supporters . No doubt the Democratic Party in which Soldier is made in the vast majority of supporters and members who generously put their time for free and available to the party and this I have no way to see every day in the life of my circle. Yet the ruling classes damage sometimes the impression of taking lightly the problem when it occurs, clearly not acting to isolate and fight those people who do politics for their own personal gain (which is something very different from the legitimate ambition). The policy of the chairs and benefices and offices still pervades the life of the parties too hard and makes the development of a frank debate, free. Because when we are back to a discussion of personal interests the public good and the good of the party only become obstacles to overcome to achieve their goals or mere pretexts on which to build their fortunes. On this issue of caste and useful idiots that are used to reinforce I would expect a clearer position of the Democratic Party. Indeed it was one of those conditions which led me to join the PD model because the party left the Lingotto was very different from the traditional parties, in virtue of its openness to the outside. Why is the "caste" can be overcome, if we committed. E 'possible in the first place if you keep the Democratic party opened, a party "wiki", a party that is in dialogue with civil society and osmotic. More than the party tighten on itself and its members, more likely to consolidate a political class that self-preservation tends privileges. The danger of "caste" is exceeded even by stating unequivocally that politics is a service and not a job, and then the power and positions are transitional in nature. The "caste" is exceeded also promoting true democratic mechanisms of competition for elective office and positions of the party. The primaries are the most important resource of the Democratic Party democratic, and their use, rather than being challenged, should be strengthened, including to release new energies and enhance the life of the party wants to participate. As proposed recently Lombard by some delegates, should be used wherever the primaries to choose candidates even in the next national elections. And, just to avoid the fossilization of the ruling class, you should respect the status of the PD categorically, that provide for a maximum of three appointments to the House and Senate. Finally, to strengthen the basis of weight compared to elite executives, you should make more use of the use of "doparie" or the referendum among members on key issues and controversial political life of the party and country.
Here I close with my analysis and my own, partial proposals. And listen to the rest of your comments and your proposals. Because I believe that the essence of PD is that of a party attended and open to discussion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment