Three reasons to say no to De Luca

I believe that those who do not join the pacifist demonstration, called for October 28 in Naples, do well not only to do so, if they think it is right, but also to say so. I say this for three reasons. One of context, one of form and the other, obviously, of merit. The first. I make my disagreement public not because I attach some kind of value to it, but simply because I haven’t read many other statements of this kind so far. And I believe instead that in times of rampant abstention it is better not to further feed a climate of concealment, of dissimulation. Better to speak clearly, in short. It is also better to give the idea of ​​a plural city, in which distinct but mutually respectful multitudes coexist. Then, because I am convinced that explaining the reasons against it can help the opposite front to emerge from the mists and misunderstandings in which it seems to be struggling; and therefore to better define the reasons for it, given that the initiative we are talking about does not yet have either a platform or a list of passwords. After all, we all want peace and a ceasefire. But who is joining the demonstration – I am thinking of Mayor Manfredi and Archbishop Battaglia – what, exactly, are they joining? And who is he addressing? To NATO or to Russia? To the victim, that is to Zelensky, or to the aggressor, that is to Putin? At the time of Vietnam we shouted yankee go home, now who do we ask to go home?

The second reason. I express my dissociation, I said, also for a formal question, because I do not believe that a demonstration like that of the 28th should be convened by an institutional summit, be it a governor or a minister or the president of a parliamentary chamber. Such things have already happened, with de Magistris for example, but I remember well, in that case, the censorious chorus that rose on the side of the formalists. At that time it was said that wars between institutions were not tolerable. Now the institutional conflict instead admitted in the name of peace? My not empty controversy. If I ask this question only because it seems to me difficult not to see in De Luca’s recurring positions on the war explicit offenses against the secretary general of NATO (illiterate returning, obtuse); blame against the United States (they are turning a regional conflict into a near-world conflict); and underlying criticism of the actions of the Draghi government and the EU. Who adheres to the event also adheres to these judgments and the consequent self-censorship? I do not remember, in fact, direct attacks or fleeting sarcasm at Putin’s address. In the case of De Luca, then, there is more. I refer to his simultaneous candidacy to lead the Western pacifist movement and to the secretariat of the Democratic Party. These, however, are business of the Democratic Party, in fact. If anything, national leaders should tell the country how it is possible in Rome to embrace the Draghi agenda, which if it exists has a single certain commitment: proximity to Ukraine alongside NATO and Europe, and to Naples – through the mouth of the secretary Sarracino – agitate the De Luca agenda instead. While the southern leaders should instead explain why, opposed as they are to the overwhelming power of the governors as a result of differentiated regionalism, they now consider it completely physiological that they can deal with foreign policy and international treaties.