Pd, Follini: “Dem in confusion, majority thanks”

Marco Follini’s point of view for Adnkronos

“It is difficult to discuss the PD ‘sine ira ac studio’, as the Latins used to say. That is, without prejudice and without partisan passions obscuring the political clarity that would otherwise be due to chance. Also difficult because so much of our people gather in that party political history of these years. So that it ends up condensing in itself the majority of the characters that form the entire alphabet of the republican lexicon. With the result of almost always inducing extreme judgments and partisan analyses.

Yet that discussion would be necessary, both for his fans and his detractors. Because that party, for better or for worse, is not one of many. But it purports to be a summary of almost all of our republican history. Or at least, its most significant part. It is the ‘party of parties’, if we may say so. What intended to update and at the same time archive our first republic, bringing together its historical cultures and displaying before them a prospect of change which ended up becoming, paradoxically, the labyrinth in which at this point it is getting lost. In short, at the origins of the Democratic Party there is a sort of voluntary duplicity between its ancient and noble lineage and the equally noble claim to represent a flag of novelty and change. Two things which, as we have seen many times before, go together with some difficulty.

This duplicity – desired and sought – makes the current Democratic Party a wild deer, a mythological animal. In fact, on the one hand it is perceived as the canonical place of the ruling class, the party that has expressed the last two heads of state, the one that brings together, or at least claims to do so, most of our most noble traditions. And on the other hand, however, as if to compensate for this courtly solemnity that has characterized it most of the time, it would like to present itself on the contrary as a dynamic, innovative force, without roots that recall too much the past. Very difficult combination. And made even more difficult by the populist tide that has buried so many of those stories and traditions (a tide towards which the current Democratic Party persists in being too complacent).

Elly Schlein’s secretary – let it be said without wanting to be too harsh – makes that difficulty more acute and that contradiction more strident every day. In fact, the new secretary plays her fortune on the role of outsider that she has chosen for herself (and for which she was chosen). It’s a shame that that role implies a conflict with the character of republican nobility that has characterized the Democratic Party since its origins. Conflict that no one wants to bring to the end. And which remains, so to speak, hanging in mid-air, giving rise to a contradiction that is still unresolved. Thus, at every meeting that curious dichotomy is reproduced between a party that would like to be the guardian of traditions and a party – the same party – which instead claims to go well beyond those same traditions, almost to the point of overthrowing them.

Now, Schlein can decide to guide the Nazarene with the prudence of a professional. Or he can decide to change it from top to bottom with the impetus of an amateur, even a talented amateur. She can be the first professional of the team or the outsider who gives life and shape to a completely different team. But he cannot do the two things together, nor do them on alternate days, now one and now the other. If he chooses, he risks. But if he remains in the balance he risks much more. And in fact every step, from the most demanding ones (the vote in Parliament on Ukraine) to the most symbolic ones (his candidacy for the European Parliament) and even to the most frivolous ones (the gathering in the Gubbio resort) is revealing itself as a obstacle in his path.

In short, the framework within which the politics of the Democratic Party takes place is not clear. Which thus ends up becoming, despite itself, the true “wide field” that we talk about so much. So large as to accommodate a fair amount of confusion under its flags. And not wide enough though that you could propose sooner or later as a possible alternative. In the meantime, the majority is grateful.” (by Marco Follini)