Currents equal protectorate. Here is the big bang that the Democratic Party needs

The request to overcome the current currents of the Democratic Party, which we substantiated with some proposals in an agenda at the last national assembly, was met with some annoyance and with replies that deserve to be discussed. Current currents don’t work. They have survived the political seasons in which they were born. They have turned into personalist but politically anonymous and silent chains of command. They do not express definite ideas, but consortia of power that branch out from the center to the periphery. Local leaders affiliate by guaranteeing loyalty to the boss and, along the chain of an organization that is as spontaneous as it is paternalistic and authoritarian, they receive his protection. On closer inspection, the old currents of the Democratic Party are not currents but protectorates.

The problem is that this way of living politics internally takes away precious energies. If the only question you hear is whether you’re with “someone”, those who live politics in an authentic and ideal way look at us bewildered and walk away. Meanwhile, the current leaders win congresses by virtue of mechanisms that preserve them, but then lose the electorate. They forgive and together with them we all lose, because, barring virtuous local experiences, the Democratic Party no longer expresses vitality, fresh and innovative ideas. These can only arise from a continuous, free and public discussion and from behaviors to take root in the esteem and trust of whoever we want to represent. The political point of our critique, and of why we insist on its real application, is that this state of affairs corresponds to the scleroticisation of ideas.

Without new ideas there will be no new victories. But with the current currents there is no room for novelty. Every gust of vitality frightens; any new idea is fine as long as it doesn’t alter the pact between the current bosses. Ideas are secondary. They are a tool to pretend to exist in an infinite pendulum between internal guerrilla warfare and trade union pacts. If in the next congress we think of resolving everything with a plastic and old-fashioned contrast between the radical line and the liberal line, behind which to hide the vacuum of ideas of our protectorates, we will only risk a new and dangerous split. Is the Pd still the center-left party thought of as its conception or should it become a left-left party? It is no longer possible to hide and heal this divergence by entrusting mediation to changing tactical compromises between the old currents. A fundamental clarification and a party big bang is now unavoidable. And to achieve it seriously we have to work on an ideal and cultural synthesis, overcoming the little theater of protectorates who have to stand out against nothing in order to survive.

What do we think of the role of the state in the economy, compared to Scholz’s Germany which “nationalises” the cost of energy? Do we still live with the guilt complex that makes us seem more realistic than the King of the market or can we rethink the role of public investment? Can we consider the debate on article 18 closed and instead look at real work, with concrete proposals for wages and VAT numbers and poor or precarious workers? This and more needs to be discussed and decided at the congress.

To arrive at a free discussion, the premise is the dissolution of current currents (sorry, protectorates).. It can be done by reinforcing the guidance bodies and the opportunities for consulting members and voters provided for by our Statute. The first thing to do, as proposed by our agenda, is to overcome the mechanism of blocked lists for the election of the national assembly. We need to use all the tools to encourage the participation of members and voters: starting with an annual conference in which to develop identity-political positions and referendums among members, to be made mandatory for binary choices.

Think how different the story of the last legislature would have been if referendums had been held among the members on the birth of the Conte II government, on the referendum for the cut of parliamentarians and on the birth of the Draghi government. All decisions made by the protectorate leaders based on the individual interests of the ruling groups, and not after a whole-party political discussion about what those steps meant. It is positive that the first candidates who have so far made themselves available for the congress have accepted our proposal for the dissolution of these currents to favor the congressional discussion.

Applications are still open, we hope that other candidates will join in this effort. Words must be followed by deeds. It is from the effective commitment of the candidates and from the thrust of our base that we can start afresh for a congress that clarifies the direction to take and that encourages participation.

Marianna Madia, Tommaso Nannicini, Lia Quartapelle
members of the Democratic Party