Conte, the campaign stalls, the lively candidates, the unpredictable voters

The editor-in-chief: Let’s make one thing clear straight away: we are not opposed to primaries. Primaries are in our DNA.

Il Riformista: Defeat happens, but that doesn’t mean we have to organise it every Sunday.

The editor-in-chief: The point is that we must avoid personal agendas, divisions and infighting. The country is calling for unity.

The People’s Mayor: The town really doesn’t ask much of us at all. But when we organise the primaries, at least someone turns up to vote.

The cautious Schleinian: Yes, but who? That’s the problem. For months, we’ve been building a very delicate balance between the PD, the Five Star Movement, the left, the centrists, the environmentalists, the Catholics, the Atlanticist pacifists and the Atlanticists opposed to the use of weapons. Then two million people turn up and choose someone who actually has some ideas.

The editor-in-chief: A disaster.

The tactical context: And above all, they might choose the wrong one.

The reformist: “Wrong” in the sense that voters don’t like it?

The tactical context: No, in the sense that it’s far too appealing. A candidate chosen from the grassroots gains his own legitimacy. Then he starts to believe he’s in charge. He gives interviews, dictates policy, and even demands to choose the ministers. It’s the populism of the campaign booths.

The popular mayor: An intriguing theory: the centre-left wants to beat Meloni, but fears that its candidate might become popular.

The cautious Schleinian: It is not a question of popularity. It is a question of balance. Let’s take an example. If a PD candidate wins, Conte says the Movement has been absorbed. If Conte wins, the PD realises it has organised its own demise for nothing. If a mayor wins, the party secretaries become guests of the coalition. If a moderate wins, the left cries treason. If a radical wins, the moderates suddenly discover ‘responsible abstention’.

Il Riformista: So the primaries work all too well: they make it clear who’s in charge.

The manager in charge: Exactly. And it’s taken us four years not to clarify that.

The ‘corridor’ constitutional expert: There is also an institutional problem. We do not yet know the electoral law. There could be a run-off, a coalition bonus, or the appointment of the Prime Minister. It would be irresponsible to choose a candidate before knowing the rules.

The People’s Mayor: What if the rules were introduced a month before the elections?

The constitutional expert: It would be irresponsible to rush into this.

Il Riformista: What if they don’t turn up?

The constitutional expert: It would be irresponsible to improvise.

The tactical context: Excuse me, but the real issue is political. The manifesto comes first, then the candidate.

The People’s Mayor: Of course. Let’s draw up a joint programme on Ukraine, NATO, energy, justice, immigration and Rome’s waste-to-energy plant. See you in 2047.

The cautious Schleinian: Let’s not trivialise this. The programme must be the result of serious debate.

Il Riformista: The primaries would be a serious contest.

The ‘Schlein-style’ caution: Too serious. When facing the electorate, you end up saying what you really think.

The editor-in-chief: And then there’s the trauma of the day after. In America, the loser supports the winner. Here, the loser sets up an organisation, writes a book and gives an interview in which they explain that the winner hasn’t understood the country.

The People’s Mayor: This happens even without primaries.

The editor-in-chief: Yes, but without primaries we can call it pluralism.

The pollster: May I say something unpopular? The fear is not that the primaries will divide us. It is that they will measure. They will count the votes, gauge the political factions, and reveal who has a following and who merely has a very active chat group. At national level, everyone represents vast worlds. At the polling stations, it turns out that certain of these vast worlds fit comfortably into a studio flat.

Il Riformista: At last.

The pollster: The primaries could well confirm that the centre-left electorate is different from how we imagine them to be in our meetings. Perhaps more pragmatic on business, tougher on security, more pro-European on foreign policy. Or perhaps more radical. The greatest risk is actually meeting them.

The tactical context: The people must be listened to.

The popular mayor: As long as he doesn’t reply.

The editor-in-chief: I would conclude as follows: we are not against primaries. We simply want them to be unified, regulated, inclusive, non-divisive, preceded by the party programme, following the electoral law, respectful of identities, endorsed by all leaders and, if possible, without rival candidates.

The reformist: In other words, a meeting to approve the name that has already been decided upon.

The editor-in-charge: Don’t be mischievous. We call it ‘orderly participation’.

The popular mayor: I would call it fear.

The ‘Schlein-style’ caution: Fear of losing?

The People’s Mayor: Worse. Fear that voters will make a choice.