Months before Mario Draghi's transfer to the presidency of the ECB, the debate on his succession began, which involves public opinion as in no other part of the world does it happen for the appointment of the Governor of the central bank. This is not a good sign. In fact, the fact that there is a long discussion about the most appropriate identikit, the qualities, the curricula and the support enjoyed by various competitors for a nomination that should make headlines mainly on the day it is confirmed, confirms the weakness of the government and institutions of our country carried out.
Nor is it a good sign the extreme importance, also unknown abroad, which has always been attributed – and still is attributed despite the monetary policy being decided in Frankfurt – to the Bank of Italy. However this is a fact that refers to the old, but more relevant than ever, question of our difficulty in producing an "adequate ruling class". There is no doubt that in our history the Bank of Italy has rapidly established itself as the advanced point of the small core of management and this justifies the great importance it still holds and also the liturgy of the annual Shareholders' Meeting on 31 May - also if one would say: blessed is the state that can do without it.
But precisely this fact should receive the utmost consideration in the choice of Draghi's successor and suggest favoring an internal solution, which certainly is not lacking, representative of the leadership that the institution has shown it can continue to train for the country. This capacity has been strengthened by the current Governor who has valued the best personalities trained in the Bank.
On the other hand, the unconcealed friction of recent years between the Minister of the Economy and the Bank of Italy certainly does not constitute a good premise for a transition from the general management of the former to the governorship which, beyond any good intention people, ensure their independence. In the sense that Bonaldo Stringher, former director general of the Treasury and then undersecretary, specified in 1900 when he took office at the top of the Bank of Italy: “For me there can be no disagreement between the Bank and the State. The intent to improve the conditions of national activity and to raise its fortunes must be common. But communion of intent does not in the least mean renouncing our autonomy in the exercise of credit within the boundaries set by the laws and by-laws”.
