The writing of Gianrico Carofiglio she is defined as subtle and profound, as are her reasonings, always sharp and clear. In the space of eighteen years, since his first novel, "Inconscious Witness" dates back to 2002, he has become one of the best known and most translated Italian writers abroad. He moves from short story to novel to essay with ease and readers follow him by the thousands, whatever the choice of the moment. Next September 3, for example, an essay entitled “Of kindness and courage. Breviary of politics and other things”; after he has just upset the Witch by participating with the first yellow in the history of the award, his "The measure of time". He didn't win, as we know, but he kept everyone in suspense. A great satisfaction.
Carofiglio is a proud native of Bari and a man of many passions. Two of them, martial arts, karate in particular, and politics must touch his imagination. The first has even turned it into a subject of study for the control of force and anger, transmitting the results in seminars to needy managers. The second is practiced in the old fashioned way, chasing systems of values rather than systems of power. Always on the left, whatever that meant over the past thirty years. And it is precisely on the present and the future of the left that we questioned him given that in Puglia, for the first time in fifteen years, it risks losing the elections.
His political passion is intact, despite being put to the test by his political alignment: always disunited at the goal. Also this time. With Ivan Scalfarotto, candidate of Italia Viva, rib and ally of the Democratic Party, who competes in Puglia against Emiliano, which risks letting the center-right led by Fitto win. How do you explain this self-destructive anxiety of the left?
"Half? The problem is that very often it is precisely the goal that is missed. And of course there are many reasons, I have tried to analyze them in the little book that comes out on September 3, on the method of politics. The central theme is the absence at the moment of a system of unifying values and passions. It is one of the tasks of building an idea of the future. It's not so much about founding a progressive front, a somewhat worn-out idea, but about rebuilding a system of passions. There is no doubt that it is difficult to perceive the political project of the major leftist party, the Democratic Party: it is not clear, it is not elaborated and therefore it is not visible. I don't know if, as someone proposes, it is a question of changing a leader. But the request to look for a more charismatic person says little enough. It is a matter of understanding whether the candidate, presumed or more charismatic, is doing it to propose something. If you assume the replacement of someone you must also imagine who and to do what. Of course, greater determination in substance, but also in the perception of the leadership, would not hurt. I voted for Zingaretti, within the limited spaces in what I was able to say or do, but it is true that now a different determination would be expected. Above all, I would say, a different perceived determination. One could discuss at length what the substance of political action is, but if the common perception appears faded this is a fact. And that's not good. There are prairies ahead with what is happening and what could happen, but you have to get on your horse and go, if one stands there conversing on the edge of the prairie, counting the decimals that the party manages to maintain, one goes nowhere part. Even if incredibly and surprisingly this Pd, despite the fading, holds up ».
Someone puts forward the hypothesis that the Democratic Party does not advance in the polls because it is dominated by the 5 Stars: what do you think?
«The Democratic Party does not advance because it does not offer content and passions. Contents and passions in which those who are watching, or those who are no longer even watching because they are disheartened, can identify. Damn, they should say to themselves, this is the future I would like for myself and my children, this is what I would like to counter barbarism, this is what I would like for an idea of humane politics, even a cheerful one. For me the concept of happiness in politics is fundamental. There is a beautiful quote from Foucault that I quoted in the book. In one of his writings entitled "Instructions for a non-fascist life", he says: "Among the various rules, do not be convinced that being militant means being sad". It's perfect".
Let's come to Puglia, then. What is your opinion of Emiliano's government?
«To me the game with Fitto seems quite open despite appearances. Sure, it might not be. In the sense that the center-left would have maintained his administration without problems if there hadn't been cross-errors poised between politics and personal hostilities. I am thinking of Emiliano's relationship with Renzi. And I consider this one of the governor's demerits: having evoked such simmering hostilities as to then translate into the divisions that are offered to us in recent days".
Is this Emiliano's biggest mistake? His very bad relationship with Renzi?
"No. For me, Emiliano's most serious mistake was not having nominated the councilor for health. Which is not even a mistake, but a political grammar. Other things are more style than substance, but I find that choice open to criticism».
Why did he do it?
"You have to ask him. But I believe that if you don't name the councilor who controls 90% of the Region's budget and maybe you do so, I hypothesize, because you think that whoever you put in that position could hurt or even do things that are not very clean, this is a defeat for the politics. Because politics is delegation, there is no "I do everything I'm good and honest". The skill of a true leader is not to do things directly, but to find those who do them. It is good. It was a fundamental violation of the rule of good politics."
A look at the post Covid-19. What do you think of Michel Houellebecq's judgment on post-coronavirus humanity: will we be the same as before, even worse?
«Houellebecq has accustomed us to judgments that I believe are inspired by the need to get noticed. I would say that if you leave the clichés, you understand that the world has already changed. Today's world is better than yesterday's. The nature of the individual is complex. Individuals will remain capable of great evils, but also of extraordinary feats. Will we be worse? I find it boring banality. But the opposite, we'll be better, is just as trivial. Outside the clichés, I believe it is possible that there is a reappearance of the virus, but I am also convinced that we are very ready to stop any escalation, because now we are able to control it. And then the vaccine will come. We will still have some difficult months, but with the new year we will start another normality. Because many things that have come out of the crisis could remain and be remodeled. An intelligent use of remote working, for example, which means reducing a lot of useless, neurotic journeys, it means reducing pollution, it means making the relationship between family and work life more flexible, it means making teaching and studying more effective. If we can hold on to this I think in the end, overall, we'll live better. As for the economic crisis, we have seen the numbers according to which the recovery is there and is galloping. But I don't want to make predictions, especially since too many have been made lately. More than all those that were reviewed after a fortnight. How to change the imagined results of a soccer match once the match has been played. It does not make sense".
