Proponents of using the primaries to choose the mayoral candidate for Rome, Milan and Naples should reflect carefully on the real effectiveness, as well as the truly democratic nature, of this instrument. In the vast majority of cases (there are obviously exceptions but they are, in fact, exceptions) the primaries have selected incompetent (Marino), megalomaniacal and self-referential outsiders (De Magistris in Naples and Emiliano in Puglia), authentic Martians (Doria in Genoa) or some tragic caricatures like Crocetta in Sicily. In all these cases (and in many other similar ones) it was the administrations and the citizens who suffered for these wrong choices made with the primaries.
Even in choosing the candidate for prime minister, the primaries have not always helped to make the right choice. The most recent and sensational case was that of Pierluigi Bersani whom the "democratic people" preferred to Matteo Renzi, only to then have to dump him in the face of the political disaster he himself caused.
Obviously it is by no means certain that the old method, made up of extensive consultations, tiring section assemblies, exhausting meetings of the governing bodies and repeated votes within them, would have avoided such disasters. However, it is very probable that things would have gone better. Naturally that method cannot be re-proposed today for the simple reason that there are no longer parties or organizational structures through which the candidates to be proposed as administrators, deputies or mayors were first trained and then selected. But one thing is certain: the primaries, which that method should have replaced, don't work and if they aren't changed they risk delivering the country into the hands of incompetent or, worse, adventurers.
WHY DON'T THE PRIMARIES WORK?
First, because they are not regulated. For example, it is not clear who can participate in the vote: whether only registered members or also sympathizers and potential voters or whether anyone who wishes can vote. It is not even clear whether they are mandatory or optional. Finally, it is not clear who really manages them and, above all, who controls their development and guarantees their legitimacy (the case of Naples and that of Liguria has raised some doubts).
Secondly, the primaries don't work because the parties, which had among their tasks that of training and selecting public administrators, deputies and government officials, no longer exist today. None of the current parties has a pool of militants, members or sympathizers from which to draw, with a democratic and transparent method, the cadres to experiment in the management of public affairs. Today these cadres are formed more and more outside the parties. They are trained in Industry, Finance or Services, in Universities and in many associations. This is not said to be a bad thing, on the contrary! But it can become so if the selection of cadres takes place exclusively through affiliation to this or that emerging leader rather than through the encounter with Politics understood in its highest cultural and organizational dimension (the one Gramsci called the Great Politics).
And herein lies the third reason for the malfunctioning of the primaries. The primaries do not stimulate (and could not) the definition by the candidates of a truly adequate political-programmatic platform. Indeed, a serious and credible electoral program requires time and expertise to be defined. It involves a long-term work that must involve many people. It cannot be the product of an individual or of his staff alone, but must necessarily be the result of the work of a wider political and cultural community, that is, of a Party, albeit of a new type. If this "Community" is missing, the right counterweights to the protagonism or megalomania of primary candidates are also missing.
On the other hand, where the primaries method is used, as in the USA, the President-elect acts as a counterweight, in addition to the Supreme Court, also the Congress (i.e. the Deputies), the Senate and, last but not least, the parties themselves . In Italy this balance does not yet exist.
In the coming months, the parties will have to untie the knot of mayoral candidates in Milan, Rome and Naples. In none of these cases do party primaries (but also coalition primaries) seem to be able to select the right people for that role. None of the major parties (more or less) has internal figures who have the competence and skills necessary to govern those cities. Everyone will necessarily have to look outside their fence. It is quite clear that if personalities such as Sala in Milan or Malagò in Rome were chosen, to give just one example, the idea of submitting them to the vote in the primary elections would not be feasible since they are above all independent personalities.
In that case, the parties should take a step back and propose to support those candidates alongside their list. This, of course, will have to take place through a broad debate within the parties and their governing bodies. In short, a clear assumption of responsibility by the various political forces will be necessary, sanctioned also by the vote of their governing bodies as well as, if they wish, by that of their members and sympathizers. This and not that of the primaries is the way forward today to give the big Italian cities authoritative and capable guides. The regulation of the primary system and their eventual institutionalization can and must be discussed and decided later in the framework of a more general and organic reform of the political and institutional system.
