[ad_1]
The image, look at Nicola Zingaretti: apron, hot, vibrant in mimicry, full of adrenaline. The words, listen to them, of this final speech at the Festa dell’Unità in Modena. He urges, at least ten times, to “fight”, also wisely raising the decibels: “fight for the right”, “united”, “house to house”, “with all possible passion”, “fight” for “ours” good reasons in the government ”, to“ fight against Covid ”. And obviously, in the word, so obsessively repeated, there are many things: a real exhortation, a tension of those who live the moment as a crucial battle, a fear of being exorcised.
In the end, the news is in an old reflection, the great call to arms in the face of democratic danger. Here it is, the key passage: “The Italian ruling classes have not understood that it is not an alliance of government that you now enjoy choosing with a peak or the destiny of a leader, but the stability of the nation in the years to come.” It is the maximum alarm, “democratic” would have once been said: there is a right, rocky, threatening, denying, “extreme”, that “is not ashamed to nominate the fascists”, a danger so great that it does not allow the luxury of get lost in the talk, debate and criticism because “the opponent is not here, it is the right.”
And, at the end of the day, this is the not so implicit subtext, those who criticize the left accusing it of governance, of subordination to the Five Stars, which has put together all this shit about the referendum, let’s face it, is playing the game on the right, a bit like the Social Democrats, in the 1920s, who favored the rise of fascism and, for this reason, the Comintern renamed them Social Fascists. When instead, precisely in the name of danger, it would be convenient to vote for the candidates of the Democratic Party, without many distinctions.
For the love of God, there’s the election campaign. And, with it, a certain understandable emphasis that, in reverse, always leads to dusting off the paraphernalia of youth: anti-fascism, partisans, Bella ciao, the blood spilled by democracy. However, there is something else in this speech. The high notes of an old letter to cover the noises of the present, of this present. The prose speaks of a people equally sensitive to those values - democracy, anti-fascism, the left – who, in the Constitution, feel free to vote no. Which, however, outweighs the ramshackle and poorly organized Santi Apostoli event on a sweltering late-summer Sunday. Speaking of tics and conditioned reflexes, even in those parts someone has evoked the democratic danger, if the Yes wins, with the consequent weakening of Parliament.
The prose also speaks of a congress of the Democratic Party that has essentially started (go to the entry: Bonaccini) and of a party that is divided on whether or not to reinstate those who have made the split, which gives the feeling of an unfinished path . And the prose speaks of an unresolved problem in the field of government: the “reorganization”, the “coupon” evoked by the undersecretary of the Democratic Party Andrea Orlando, ancient terms that barely hide the underlying question, what to do, because it was understood that the The government is not in question, but, being firm, we will have to find a way to break the immobility and confusion that surrounds it.
Here it is clear: the only thing that can hold everything together, where there are also signs of identity crisis in the whole, is the alarm of the right. Just that he was in the majority a year ago when the government was made and a danger today, a sign that the experiment prevented him from taking power but did not affect his consensus. Ultimately, the poignant lyrics are useful in covering a political failure today: the referendum, the government that doesn’t change its job, an alliance that has never turned into a political alliance, and the underlying issue. Because then, on the democratic question, a debate will have to be opened, in a country where the last government elected by the people dates back almost ten years.
It remains to be understood that it is not a detail, how much, net of the speech of the day, the analysis is a harbinger of consequences or we are facing an intermittent alarm, which exists today but was not there yesterday. And tomorrow who knows. Because, if that was really the point, that is, democracy at risk, it would be difficult to maintain the Franceschini line the day after the vote, that is, the government goes ahead and nothing happens. If it’s fascism, you go to the mountains to fight. Otherwise, the debate opens as to why it is not possible to recover the consent of those Italians who perceive the danger not as such but as a vector of change.
[ad_2]
