In my five-a-side locker room I experience an uncomfortable situation. Whatever political affiliation, right or left, of my friends, all without distinction express aversion if not disgust for parties (and almost always for politics too). For those like me – by now clearly a minority – who are used to considering political commitment as one of the cornerstones of modernity, it is difficult to find effective rational arguments to counter this showy anti-political bubble.
For this reason, if you want to access other interpretations, it is advisable to read the recent volume by Massimo D'Alema, brilliantly interviewed by Peppino Caldarola, who in contrast provides a rich catalog of reasons in favor of a lofty and reforming conception of politics: and under certain conditions also (and without disturbing Max Weber) the necessary recovery of the role of political professionalism.
This openly alternative approach to the dominant vulgates is already manifest in the title: Controcorrente. Interview on the left at the time of anti-politics ( Laterza editore).
Indeed, if one intends to relaunch the regulatory function of politics, one must consciously swim in a predominantly hostile sea. But – as D'Alema points out – the different versions of anti-political populism, which we can rightly consider as a significant measure of the spirit of the time, are nothing new in Italian history. These impulses reappear in waves, they invest the institutions themselves, they question the foundations of democratic life, through the constant recourse to the idealization of the hierarchical decision, taken by a few or even by just one.
Obviously I realize that D'Alema's bell (on whose tolling I will say something shortly) arouses suspicion in many. In fact, this recognized protagonist of our public life, respected and highly regarded in the international arena (where he currently presides over Ferps, the European Foundation for studies of the left of social democratic inspiration), is portrayed by our media as the incarnation of 'politicizing' politics, intent on plots and intrigues: while, with good reason, he is considered one of the last icons of the 'politique d'abord', of the superiority of politics understood as the regulation of social life. In reality, this confused collective imagination has been cultivated – as D'Alema himself points out – even by a part of the press that likes to label itself on the left.
But this Dalemian bell starts from a critical, realistic and cutting analysis of the degradation of parties. Already matured before the collapse of the wall and continued unstoppable in the last twenty years. Certainly fueled by the rise of financial liberalism, essentially unregulated, which has accompanied the success of technocratic powers and opaque and undemocratic decision-making bodies. Thus the scenario we are facing sees parties "that present themselves more as groups of electoral committees than as associations of citizens united around values, programmes, visions of the world". However, if the impulses of common sense were to be accepted, one would go - warns the author - in the direction of a "further deconstruction". What is needed instead is a redesign that redefines its meaning and functions.
So the thesis is that parties are dying - with the partial exception, in the Italian case, of the Democratic Party - not due to excess, but due to lack of policy. Instead, there has been too much bad politics which has substituted interests, even private ones, for the fabric of the common good. The solution consists in a profound rethinking of the party instrument, without traditionalist nostalgia for the golden age of mass parties, but clearly oriented towards a strategic revirement: of an ethical and ideal nature, as well as a programmatic one. The knot to untie therefore consists in rethinking and updating the dimension of politics as an engine of collective transformation of the world. In this regard, D'Alema mentions the experience of the primaries and the vast mechanism of citizen involvement that set the Democratic Party in motion (also making a self-criticism for not having immediately understood the implications), thus gathering and giving to a widespread push in society. It is the example of a good practice, which has already concretely shown that it knows how to work by producing consensus.
But parties, and politics, can be rethought and relaunched if the other two assumptions on which the book dwells on are well and contextually declined: the left and Europe. Indeed, the two terms should be intertwined as much as possible and re-proposed in the version of the 'European left'. Of course, reversing the course in Italy is fundamental. And in this direction it is decisive - argues the President of the Italianieuropei Foundation - that the centre-left, with the fundamental contribution of the Democratic Party, the "only barrier" to the drift of politics, is a convincing candidate to lead the country, as it is doing. But this will not be enough, without a wide-ranging action on a European scale. What is needed is "a profound change in the direction of growth and social justice". For which a condition that cannot be overcome is the reorientation of European policies. Individual states cannot do it alone, especially in a framework of hostile rules, which penalize investment spending and virtuous public interventionism itself. Hence the need to materialize a robust reformism of European scope, of which we can already see the first signs. Within which an important task is played by the progressive forces, but by now projected into a framework of "centre-left alliances that go beyond the social democratic tradition": after all, the Pd itself - D'Alema reminds us - is an integral part, but with its peculiarities, of this new European reformism that is taking shape. Thus, finally, a fully pro-European left, capable of getting European integration off the ground, without which there is a clear risk of economic stagnation and a retreat in the very characteristics of social citizenship.
This is the political heart of D'Alema's analysis and proposal, which also adds words of cautious optimism on the possibility of making it, that Italy gets back on its feet and the centre-left is the protagonist of this relaunch. Even if the difficulties and complexity of the effort are not hidden, within a perspective that is still marked by limited resources and the need for economic austerity.
The book stops at the phase that preceded Monti's ascent-descent into the field. It is therefore worth catching a further updated joke from the author in reference to the "strong anti-political imprint that characterizes the entire Monti operation" . The latter took action in the name of the presumed superiority of civil society. “But which civil society are we talking about?” D'Alema wonders, who adds "in reality, behind Monti appears a robust block of interests which would require a no less demanding work of purification" than the presence of bad politicians: in fact, "Monti's intrusiveness in the newspapers whose properties figure largely among the sponsors and supporters of his list is surely exorbitant” .
But returning to the book, it also contains many other things, tantalizing for a reader attentive to the dynamics and non-trivial implications of the political story, not only national. For those who are curious and want the whole first part reconstructs from the inside - and with some unexpected background - the farewell to the PCI and the preparation for the olive tree season, and the government experience as Prime Minister from 1998 to 2000 (on whose doubts the author also returns in a self-critical key). Those who are interested in learning more can instead measure themselves with a truly systematic and convincing lesson on foreign policy (even if the interviewer Caldarola retains some doubts about the position taken towards Israel by our former minister).
So a picture that is not only successful, but also completely perfect and shareable? As far as I'm concerned, I still find the idea summed up in this expression too vague, and perhaps inadequate: "the challenge for the left is to innovate without throwing away what is alive in the neoliberal season: throw away the dirty water of injustice and inequalities, but maintain the drive towards a more open and competitive economy”. I am writing this in an online journal that would probably squarely agree with this Dalemian approach. But in my opinion the negative outcomes, not only in terms of equity but also of efficiency, of the current economic paradigm should push towards a clearer shift of borders. After thirty years dominated by the illusion of the self-regulated market, the pendulum swings – or should – in a radically different direction, aimed at restoring primacy to a non-statist public sphere, capable of making the best use of the market but also correcting its distortions.
Would my skeptical soccer friends (symbol of a wider Italian disenchantment) be satisfied?
I don't know, also why they should in the meantime compete with the reading (which is not automatic) of this - as of others - texts that do not mimic current fashions. But perhaps precisely this - the widespread distance from serious political reflection, which some have an interest in fueling - is one of the main evils that dominate the scene of our civil life. Increasing the distance between cultured debate and mass common sense, increasingly distant from the generous ideal of the socialization of politics.
