What would be better for the Democratic Party: the "split" or the "swamp"? If this were really the alternative, then the split would be preferable, provided, of course, that it is not caused by trivial reasons but by rooted and irremediable differences on the basic strategic choices.
For example on Europe. What do we want Italy to do? Who defends the Euro and encourages Europe's path towards an ever closer economic and political union (Draghi line) or who carves out its own (non-existent) room for manoeuvre? And on public debt, what strategy do you intend to adopt? The one that through structural reforms aims at the growth of our economy and our productivity (in a word, the growth of the wealth produced) or the one that favors the redistribution of the little we create by diverting it once towards young people and once towards pensioners? Even on the reforms launched by the Renzi government, from the Jobs Act to the Good School, from the PA to Justice, what should the Democratic Party propose? To implement them to complete them as the majority would like, or to hastily backtrack, as Bersani and Speranza ask?
And finally, how do you plan to bring down the differential in the growth of production, productivity and employment in Italy compared to other European countries? By removing the "Italian causes" of this differential (bureaucracy, low quality of education, lack of research, etc.) or by continuing to attribute the blame to other countries which, like Germany, are growing more than us because they have made the necessary reforms in useful time? These are all decisive questions, to which others could be added and to which the congress of the Democratic Party will have to respond. The judgment on his identity and on the validity of his programmatic proposal will depend on the answers that will be given.
This is why it is essential that Renzi present himself at Sunday's assembly with a clear, unequivocal and, above all, non-amendable political-programmatic platform, in the sense that it can be implemented but not altered. The confrontation should take place on this terrain and it is on issues of this nature, and not on the date of the congress, that the possibility of being united must be verified.
Bersani and Speranza think that the Jobs Act must be dismantled and that the CGIL is right about everything. Well, then Renzi must make even more explicit the fact that the Jobs Act is the first step towards a radical renewal of the labor market. If we really want to introduce (as it should and must be) the insertion income for young people looking for a job and the reintegration income for those who, having lost it, are looking for a new one, then it must be clear that it is the whole edifice of the current social safety nets, the Public Labor and Training Offices must be radically reorganised. In this field we don't need a restoration, as the CGIL would like, we need a revolution instead. The same goes for the PA and for the School. The reforms made are just a start.
If the Public Administration and the School are to once again represent an opportunity for young people, as Governor De Luca has requested, then they must be radically reorganized on the basis of merit (which must correspond to adequate salaries) of productivity (which can be measured ) and, also, of mobility (there is no right to work at home). In all these fields, a real paradigm shift is needed if we want to align ourselves with other European countries. Many more examples could be given, starting with Justice. But what really matters is that the congress draws a clear line of distinction between reformism and conservatism and between reformism and antagonism and that Renzi has the strength to place the Democratic Party along this line.
And it is precisely in this regard that the question of the Party and its destiny arises again. Veltroni's Pd has reached its terminus, not only because it has proved to be an unsuccessful amalgam (cr. Di D'Alema) but also because of its underlying ambiguity. He said he was a guarantor but then allied himself with Di Pietro, who certainly wasn't a guarantor. He proclaimed himself a reformist but only Berlinguer and Moro had found a place in his ideal Pantheon, certainly great Italians but of whom everything can be said except that they were reformists. He aspired to change things but not the art. 18, the provinces, regions or equal bicameralism. In short, Veltroni's Pd was a party with a low reformist intensity and a high rate of ambiguity. And it is precisely the knot of ambiguity that the congress and Renzi should definitively untie.
In France, a similar problem has arisen in the camp of the left. The PS preferred Hamon to Valls, which would be a bit like if the Democratic Party preferred Speranza to Renzi, but the vacuum that was created in the French reformist camp was promptly filled by the brilliant young Macron with his "En marche" movement , a perfect synthesis of the best of liberal and socialist thought and tradition. It is fortunate for France which, thanks to Macron, today is not unarmed in the face of the threat of Le Pen's nationalism, but in Italy a victory for Speranza, D'Alema and Bersani would be a tragedy because the country could really fall in the hands of Beppe Grillo and Casaleggio.
A nightmare that must be absolutely averted. The only possibility of avoiding it is that Renzi wins the congress and that he wins it on the basis of a clear reformist perspective capable of convincing and uniting the majority of Italians. Could such a clear-cut choice cause a split? Perhaps, but in this case a split, even if not desired, would still be preferable to a mediocre compromise which, yes, would deliver the Democratic Party and Italian reformism to a perhaps irreparable defeat to the full advantage of an obscure and menacing force such as that of the 5 stars.
