Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and up to the great crisis of 2008, the Western democracies, which remained absolute masters of the field, have carried forward a hegemonic design based on globalization, i.e. on the prevalence of the free market of goods and finance, with consequent reduction of the role of nation states, and on the belief that the diffusion of democratic freedoms would bring benefits to all citizens both in the various geographical areas and within individual countries.
The government of globalization, on the other hand, has encountered various difficulties due to the malfunctioning of multinational organizations and then entered into a crisis of consensus with the explosion of the financial crisis in the USA which swept away many illusions and accentuated the uncertainties and fears of citizens towards the future.
This is the basic thesis of Carlo Calenda's essay, which he held leading positions in the various governments of the past legislature, and that from his observatory he was able to see closely what was happening on the international scene and the growing frustration and anger that took possession of a large part of the Italians and which then resulted in the elections of 4 March in a total rejection of the old ruling classes both economic and professional policies.
The book "Horizons wild" (Editor Feltrinelli) is subtitled “Understanding Fear and Finding Courage” just why leads the reader through a detailed analysis, at the origins of the "fear" that is driving the citizens of various Western countries to ask for greater security and protection from the old nation states which, despite having lost some important prerogatives due to globalization and the advancement of technologies, are the only structures to which people can turn to ask for protection from complex, distant and difficult to understand events. Hence the spread of sovereign recipes, of requests to be masters of one's own home again, of refusal not only of immigration but also of free trade through the introduction of duties or other limitations on the circulation of goods and capital.
Calenda's analysis starts from phenomena affecting the entire Western world. And try to trace the lowest common denominator of the choices that led the British to vote for Brexit, the Americans to choose Trump and his America First, the Hungarians and the Poles to dust off a nationalism that was thought to have disappeared after so many years of communism , Le Pen and Salvini contesting the construction of Europe. Western countries have had little benefit from globalization.
With the exception of the upper echelon of the population, everyone has either lost income or seen their certainties about the future diminish. And above all - says Calenda - neither traditional politics nor international organizations have been able to manage this phase of profound transition towards a new type of work and a new type of welfare - This is causing difficulties for the liberal democracies which had strengthened after the war then emerge triumphant from the confrontation with Soviet communism.
The aspiration therefore is for a return of the "politics" that is known and that is exercised within the nation state, to which protection is asked against the uncertainties of the future, regulation of innovations, a greater presence of the state in all crucial sectors of production as well as in health services and pension benefits. The trouble is that these types of requests which, if well conceived, are correct and normal, have been collected by political subjects who propose unrealistic solutions as a response which, if put into practice, will lead to a general worsening of the economic and social situation.
The aversion to "word-mouth" parliaments leads to illiberal democracies or even to the search for the strong man, who, free from the constraints deriving from the checks and balances of the current democracies, can make quick and reassuring decisions (the question of migrants is the glaring example). Hence the fear of seeing questioned liberal democracy, the only one that ensures the freedom of the individual, that protects minorities, and avoids turning "opponents into traitors", as happened in Turkey.
However, the attempt to find the common factors of the crisis in the West fails to highlight the profound differences between the various types of populism. In England, for example the Brexit does not appear to undermine liberal democracy even if it is causing rifts in the traditional parties. In the USA and in Sweden the question of immigration appears to be by far preponderant compared to economic questions (which also weigh in as much as the malaise of the middle class is widespread).
Then Italy is a particular case where the general disease of the West has hit the hardest because it has hit a body already debilitated by long-standing pathologies such as the weak but pervasive state; distrust in institutions; the imbalance between rights and duties; widespread functional illiteracy. Surely the responsibility lies with a ruling class, starting with the political class which for at least forty years has neglected to invest in the country's development factors: efficient institutions, public administration functional to the citizen's needs, productivity and investments, school and research. And yet we are now in a situation where the patch is worse than the hole.
[smiling_video id="64196″]
[/smiling_video]
We are one step away from the affirmation of an "illiberal democracy" which is destined to accentuate all the fears of Italians. Progress becomes a threat, and in fact we oppose public works and aspire to a happy decrease. There is a rejection of modernity and a brake on any change, which is not an evident restoration of a mythical past considered happy, while it was fraught with problems and conflicts, even bloody ones, as demonstrated by the long season of terrorism. And this in the face of the "government of change".
How do you get out of this cul de sac? Calenda drafts some proposals, the main one being that of resume in practice a cautiously reformist policy, taking care to defend those who will have to endure drastic changes in their lives. The new policy will therefore have to take charge of representing a fearful Italy, proposing non-illusory ways to overcome this situation without going backwards but guaranteeing an effective ability to govern the new open markets and the strong evolutions of technology.
The national state exists and must be re-evaluated, but it must not be invasive, it must focus on a few essential issues, establish the rules to stimulate investment and individual enterprise, and above all it must be able to guarantee protection to those who are temporarily cut off from innovations, but not with generalized subsidies, but with tools suitable for a rapid reintegration into the production chain.
In short, it is necessary to oppose with all our strength the illusions of the current sovereignists in government, but also to propose policies capable of restoring confidence in politics and the future, and thus change the expectations of Italians who from being negative and resigned, as they are today, should once again look at the potential offered by the new global world with greater optimism.
The important thing is not to promise gifts right and left, but to ensure that you have one forward-thinking attitude, i.e. capable of seeing dangers in time and knowing how to deal with them. Contrary to what the incumbent government is doing today, which clearly aims at the immediate interest of winning the next electoral tests, without worrying about the disastrous consequences of its decisions in the medium term.
