Il philosopher Biagio De Giovanni, a career spent studying and passing on knowledge in Italian universities, a former politician and MEP of the area that led from the PCI to the Democratic Party, is known for being an acute observer of reality. For years he has been accompanying the historical phases experienced by our country with his never condescending analyses. We asked him to describe the current one. Here are his responses to FIRSTonline.
What will remain of the experience lived during and after the Covid 19 pandemic? Everything as before and worse than before, as French writer Michel Houellebecq predicted?
“Italian society will change because there has been and is still a very serious crisis. It's not a matter of nature. I don't believe in those maxims like "we'll be better" and so on. Human nature remains immobile in time. Instead, for sure this modality that we lived during the quarantine and in part we still live will have consequences. I am thinking of social distancing, working and studying from home, communication via telematics: this will actually change Italian society. I don't think all of this will become stable, but a lot will remain and in doing so the elements of socialization will further decrease. And this can only have a disruptive effect in the future, forcing the company to review some aspects of its functioning".
Who emerges better from this experience: the central government or the Regions? And in your opinion, have the parties been changed by this experience? Is there more populism or reformism after the pandemic?
“Distinctions should be made. The government on one side and the regions on the other cannot be merged. There have been differences between the Regions, some have worked well, such as the Veneto. Let's not talk about the South because the virus in the South has not arrived as devastating as in the North of the country, there have been deaths, it is true, but nothing to do with the disaster in Milan, Bergamo, Turin, etc. I would therefore not feel like saying: Regions or government. Rather, the real question is what relationship there has been and should be between the Regions and the government on health care. The institutional problem has been highlighted and remains: how should the relationship between the State and the Regions on health work? I believe that one of the defects of the Regions in which the virus was unleashed was the weakening of local medicine. And on this I think that the Regions must have their say in a decisive way, the State cannot decide in this matter, territoriality belongs to the Regions. As for populism, let's start from the fact that in Italy populism is both in government and in opposition, because there is that of the grillini and that of Salvini. In general, however, I would say that all populisms, in their various forms, including Italian ones, will have greater difficulties in the future. For example, they will no longer be able to use the anti-European card since we all need Europe more than ever”.
In particular, what vote would you give to the government in phases 1, 2 and 3?
“During stage 1 it worked quite well, despite the delays. On the other hand, such a catastrophe was unimaginable. I would therefore give a passing vote for that phase, adding only one reservation: it probably would have been better to differentiate more between the areas in order to reduce the economic impact. As for phases 2 and 3, it seems to me that we are far from having addressed them. We are in a very difficult situation, we cannot speak of a restart, not even a hierarchy of the problems to be addressed has been established. Where to start from: school, company, university? But to be honest it doesn't surprise me at all because I consider this government to be very poor quality and for various reasons.”
What do you think of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte? Scalfari even compared him to Cavour, Zingaretti called him a champion of progressivism, but there are those who see traces of transformation in Conte, having gone from leading a government with the League to a government with the Democratic Party without blushing. What grade would he give him?
“Conte represents an anomaly in any Western democracy. The only case that I know of in the world of a president who up until the day before presides over a majority and the day after presides over an opposite one. This is not transformism, because transformism was a serious matter, a major political choice made after the unification of Italy. That's history, nothing to do with Conte's behavior. If I had him in front of me I would ask him a question: President, would he have caused the crisis if Salvini hadn't caused it? Since the answer is obvious, because he would never have dreamed of opening the crisis, this nails it. If there hadn't been Salvini's imprudent initiative, he would have continued calmly. A person like this in my opinion, and I'm not moralizing but I'm talking about politics, he doesn't have a serious and consistent ethical-political structure on which one can base himself. And this is decisive for me, I can't get over it. In short, my vote for the premier is a total rejection: 2 ".
What is Grillo's movement becoming? Pollsters give it uphill: How does he explain it?
“I'll explain why the Democratic Party doesn't exist. The government is grillino or grillizzato. Not in everything, but in almost everything. The security decrees are not touched, all the themes of justice are terrible, the cut of parliamentarians, which does not represent a serious act of spending reduction or other nonsense of the kind, but an attack on parliament itself; neither the ius soli nor the ius culturae has been initiated. In short, there is nothing politically relevant that comes from the Democratic Party. And the grillini benefit from the influence of the premier who remains popular in the polls. The scenario I see is therefore the following: Conte master of Italy, 5 Stars reflected and in his wake, Pd asphyxiated and at stake ”.
So does the Pd pay in the polls for subjection or shyness towards the 5 Stars? Or is it a question of leadership which you recently spoke about, judging the proposal by Gori, mayor of Bergamo, to change the secretary, legitimate?
“I think of a leader, not a new leader. Zingaretti is only now vaguely beginning to raise some objections. He has even gone so far as to say in recent months that Conte is a beacon of European democracy, I won't forget that. The truth that he is an administrator, a very important function, but he has never had a political vision. Having said that, I don't think it's just about men, remove Zingaretti and put in someone else. Here it is a question of reorganizing a thought of the party, assuming that it is still possible. Let's go back to discussing politics. And since everyone says that this government will last until 2023, and perhaps it is true, I don't think that the Democratic Party can continue not to deal with itself. Giving a strong push in a reformist and pro-European direction to the government of the country, which today does not exist in any form, because reformism means decision and there are no decisions. And pro-European means being serious, not choosing what we like about Europe: this yes, that no, today up to here, tomorrow up to there. In conclusion, therefore, I am not thinking of a new leader, I am thinking of a moment in which this party, which for better or worse is still the heir to the history of the Italian left, sits down and starts thinking again. Because politics is above all this in times of crisis.”
And what do you think of Matteo Renzi and Italia Viva? The polls don't reward him: in your opinion why?
“The polls do not reward Italia Viva because it has no political features. Renzi wanted to empty the Democratic Party as Macron had done in France with the socialists, but he didn't succeed. I was not an anti-Renzian, far from it, especially in the phase in which he seemed to want to do something important, and perhaps he too did something. But then he emptied himself, I think that neither Renzi nor Renzism exists anymore. I believe that Renzi had a role until the constitutional referendum. By failing it he closed his game and I don't think he will reopen it ”.
We come to the next regional elections: the center-left appears disunited and disorganized above all due to the opposition of the M5Stelle to go together with the Pd in the territories despite being allies in the central government. Some governors take risks, such as in Puglia where Emiliano, after the presentation of a candidate by Renzi, is considered doomed. In your opinion, is it right to distinguish populism from reformism also electorally?
“As far as Puglia is concerned, perhaps it will not be Renzi's fault, but a merit. From what I know Emiliano was a bad governor. Para populist and much criticized. Renzi plays into his hands, certainly the few votes that Scalfarotto would get according to the polls would tip the balance towards Lease, but frankly it doesn't seem like a clash of titans to me and I don't think it would be an epochal disaster ”.
Did you think Berlusconi would be able to differentiate himself from Salvini and Meloni and send signs of openness to the Conte government? Could this be the prelude to an "Ursula" majority?
“Of course there could be an Italian version of “Ursula”, with the different sides governing together. Administratively the centre-right seems to have reunited, but substantially, in the political dimension, a centre-right no longer exists, there are enormous differences between Berlusconi and the other two players, who, incidentally, are fighting for supremacy in their area. There is a political disintegration in the centre-right. Berlusconi, in reality, waits in the antechamber of Palazzo Chigi, he only hopes to agree on some important act and bring the majority inside. There is no longer any possibility of political communication between him and Salvini. They have two different interpretations of Italy, of Europe”.
Let us dwell a little more on Europe, given his preparation and his passionate experience as an MEP. The pandemic seems to have curbed nationalist anxieties, but it's not over yet. How do you imagine the future of the EU?
“I experienced the grafting of Eastern European countries in real time, as a member of the European Parliament. It was a complicated matter, they wanted to safeguard the former satellites of the USSR from the influence of Moscow by making them join the European alliance. It seemed to everyone, including me, that it was the right thing to do. In reality there were those, like Jacques Delors, president of the commission at the time, who first wanted to deepen the political alliance between the founding states and then expand it to the East. It would have been more correct, if only because the larger the audience, the more difficult it is to make joint decisions. But then Delors' hypothesis was not considered realistic. Now those states often show a less open and liberal physiognomy than the rest of the older association countries, but we cannot forget that the political legacies do not disappear immediately. The despotic elements were already present in the countries of the East, their ruling classes were not trained in parliamentary democracy. But it's done now and so we have to move forward. And in any case, the response to the pandemic has shown that Europe is in, it is not an option. Here the role of Germany appears indispensable today, everything now depends on Berlin. And it is good that the UK is out because in this way Germany will finally be able to play her political role without London breathing down its neck. If she does, there will be a change of pace. Because let's be clear: either Europe becomes a geopolitical community, or it becomes marginal. And I think Germany is going to understand this and is going to say something that she has never said: I am willing to take on the role of leader of Europe. As for Italy, let's go back to the mediocrity of this government. I can't see the physiognomy of a country that has a role. Of course, we remain a great founding country. But only that."
This pandemic has demonstrated, if there were any need, that there is no power, however great it may be considered, that is capable of giving a line that can inspire us. During the crisis, everyone went about their business, with the biggest ones, like the USA, often being guided by hysteria. What are the centers of the world today? Is there anyone in charge?
“No, there is no one who rules in the world. Because globalization has stimulated its opposite, identities. Hence the sovereignty, the neo-nationalism, etc. The structure of the world that we have known is dissolving. There is no more West. Today there is an America that says: my first enemy is Europe. And she practices it, with threats to withdraw from NATO, tariffs, etc. China, it's true, is a huge power, but it doesn't have the ability to be the global power. In reality there are large areas of influence where everyone moves according to their own logic. Turkey for example has become an important piece in global history because it manages to have an expansion capacity throughout the Middle East. Russia, although economically very weak, is a formidable geopolitical power, and it proves it by fully entering the Middle East and the Mediterranean area. But even here, it's just one piece of the puzzle. When I say the West no longer exists, I am saying a very demanding sentence, I am aware of it. But I see a crisis underway in which the very strength of our liberal democracy is trembling. Let us not forget that Chinese culture is founded on the concept of order and not freedom. The concept of freedom is increasingly becoming a ghost, because if societies are gradually destructured, their political representations enter a dramatic crisis. The fall of the West is this. Future decades, if we wanted to make predictions, will see an increasingly heated clash between liberal democracies and illiberal forms of democracy”.
