The urgent need to tell Vannacci to get lost

A ‘fuck off’ to Vannacci from the right, thank you very much. In politics, as we know, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, and the good intentions that, at this moment in history, risk steering the right down a hellish path are those concerning the toxic, dangerous and harmful relationship that the governing majority has chosen to build with a bogeyman called Roberto Vannacci.

General Vannacci is the government’s great summer obsession, and the centre-right’s paranoia is now spiralling out of control, to the point of driving the majority to hound Vannacci even before the general has actually left. In recent days, moreover, the hounding of Vannacci has become evident in numerous cases. The latest has driven the government to such a frenzy that it has even trampled on the prerogatives granted to the President of the Republic regarding pardons. Prior to the case of the famous jeweller, who was definitively sentenced to fourteen years and nine months for killing two thieves on the street who had robbed him in his jewellery shop, the pursuit of the general had centred on other issues.

On Wednesday, concerned that Vannacci might expose Meloni’s "inconsistency" on the issue of voting preferences, Fratelli d’Italia split the majority in the Chamber of Deputies by voting in favour of an amendment tabled by Futuro Nazionale (Forza Italia and the Lega voted against it). Shortly before that, Fratelli d’Italia, together with the Lega, had begun to tone down its stance on the issue of remigration, suggesting that judging individuals not by what they do but by who they are, treating every foreigner as a suspect until proven otherwise and planning their deportation, in the event of a crime, on the basis of their origin, affiliation or identity, are, all things considered, sensible ways of offering Italians a sense of security for the future. The Roggero case and the issue of remigration essentially share the same concept of security: not that guaranteed by the rule of law, but that entrusted to the power of emotions. Even on the issues of Ukraine and defence spending, Vannacci’s influence is having an impact on the majority’s course of action.

On both issues, the government has chosen to proceed, at this stage, by keeping a safe distance both from those in Europe who have eagerly chosen to make the defence of Ukraine the symbol of European security (on 14 July in France, during the parade of the French and European armed forces alongside the Ukrainian forces, Mattarella was present, Meloni was not), and from all those who argue that, to guarantee Italy’s security, it is necessary not to promise future defence spending but to act immediately (countries that regard the Russian threat as real are doing so; those that do not regard it as real are not). The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes, and it is clear that the centre-right has chosen not to let Vannacci have a monopoly on a right-wing agenda, to avoid providing dangerous fuel for his movement. The decision to follow Vannacci’s lead on certain issues might make political sense if this approach served to keep him out of the coalition: I’ll try to halt your growth by attempting to recoup some lost votes. However, given the stance adopted by the centre-right, this move risks being doubly damaging. And the fact that Meloni’s right wing appears intent on allying itself with Vannacci risks dragging it into a toxic spiral.

Firstly: the right risks not only reneging on everything it has become during these years in government, but also, by welcoming him into its ranks, creating the perfect conditions for him to follow the same path as in the Lega: to join and then cannibalise the party. Vannacci, as we know, is, for Meloni’s right wing, the embodiment of everything the right had promised to be but has not been; and every time Meloni sees herself reflected in Vannacci, she sees something of the Meloni she could have been but, fortunately, has not been. But for Meloni, drawing closer to Vannacci is not merely a matter of arithmetic (an issue that could be overcome by focusing on tactical voting and keeping Vannacci out of the coalition: how many right-wing voters would vote for a Vannacci outside the coalition, risking a left-wing victory?). It is an issue that concerns her identity, her governing philosophy, and her path towards the future.

In this sense, ‘Vannaccism’ must be analysed by turning on its head the maxim historically attributed to Niccolò Machiavelli, according to which, as is well known, the end justifies the means. In Vannacci’s case, the means – which may be seductive – do not justify the end, which can only instil terror. The central theme of the general’s programme is to weaken liberal democracy, by giving Putin a pat on the back, a nudge to Zelensky, a high-five to Donald Trump, a shove to Europe, a stroke to xenophobia, and a trip to the rule of law. Meloni, by contrast, has won many votes in recent years by distancing herself from the right as currently embodied by Vannacci. She has also won votes through a responsible policy on the European Union, a courageous approach to Ukraine, and a pragmatic stance on immigration – Albania aside.

For Meloni, pursuing Vannacci means taking a step towards erasing much of what Meloni has come to stand for. And using the new electoral law as an excuse to make an alliance with Vannacci inevitable is not an act of consistency with what the right used to stand for, but an attempt to bulldoze the prospect of a pro-European, pragmatic, prudent right that acts as a bulwark against extremism on both the left and the right. We are optimists, as you know, but the prospect of a right wing that has made the defence of Ukraine its flagship issue drawing closer to extremists who are making the attack on liberal democracy their hallmark is unsettling even for those who stubbornly – often desperately – insist on seeing the glass as half full, even when it is more than half empty.

Asking for a pardon to spare Roggero from serving his sentence is one thing. Asking for leniency to justify a hug with Vannacci is quite another. The first case is open to debate. The second is not. A "f*** off" to Vannacci from the right, thank you very much.