“There is an alternative and we are ready to govern”. Interview with Schlein

Elly Schlein says it with a smile: the government is in its final stages, the elections are approaching, there is an alternative, Italy is not doing well, we must hurry, we must prepare to govern and we must urgently demonstrate that we are ready. Preparing to govern – or at least working towards that goal – does not simply mean acting with the aim of exposing the government’s mistakes before the court of public opinion. It means something more. It also means trying to come to terms with one’s own taboos, which, if left unaddressed, become vices and, if left unchecked, become problems. The secretary of the PD, Elly Schlein, agreed yesterday to a lengthy interview with Il Foglio to try to explain how her Democratic Party intends to prepare for the challenges of the coming months. Schlein did so knowing that this newspaper has never given her any special favours – as journalists of integrity would say – and she did so driven by a desire to focus not so much on what the government has failed to do, but on what those who wish to govern want to achieve. Our conversation with Schlein followed four main themes: security, the economy, foreign policy and alliances. And to try to discuss security, we need to rewind the tape, go back to Bologna and the two demonstrations organised immediately after the death of Adberrahim Fakir, who died following an arrest by police officers who pinned him to the ground and handcuffed him.

Secretary, let’s address this immediately: did you really find the idea put forward by the Mayor of Bologna, Matteo Lepore, to organise a public gathering in Bologna – which, in the heat of the moment, was highly likely to turn into a rally against the police – to be ‘impeccable’? ‘Let me make one thing clear. I do not believe that the role of politics is to comment on news stories. I believe that, when faced with tragic cases such as these, politics should do everything in its power to aid the search for the truth and to combat hatred. The death of Abderrahim Fakir was tragic. The judicial authorities will carry out their investigations; there will be time to determine whether that death could have been prevented, whether existing protocols were followed or not, and whether those protocols need to be reviewed. But we do not need either automatic condemnations or acquittals. That is not our job. I see that the Prime Minister considers Mayor Lepore’s actions to be serious. I do not share that view. I believe that Lepore did what a good administrator should do. He asked the city to offer its support to the family. And he chose to help manage the frustration of a community rather than leave that frustration at the mercy of those seeking to stir up conflict. Had the rally organised by the institutions not taken place, we would have left that frustration in the hands of the violent elements. Politics, in my view, must combat violence. And the mayor sought to manage that sense of disarray and to establish the truth about what happened so that it never happens again.” Yet there were violent individuals present, and whilst it might have been possible to imagine that a rally organised in the heat of the moment could not turn into a peaceful gathering, let us take the secretary’s point and move forward: as leader of the largest left-wing party, what would you say to the antagonistic demonstrators who have, once again, turned the police into a target? “I say that such violence is unacceptable. I say that we firmly condemn it. I say that the progressive camp will always stand as a bulwark against those violent individuals. And I also say that, as Abderrahim Fakir’s granddaughter put it so perfectly and with such apt words, they seek neither hatred nor revenge, but truth and respect. I’m sorry, but it is not us who are exploiting crime news for political gain.”

Security, as they say. The President of Emilia-Romagna, Michele De Pascale, told "Il Messaggero" yesterday that the left cannot afford to turn security into a right-wing concept. If Elly Schlein were in government today, would she be prepared to pursue policies aimed at having more police officers, more checks and certain consequences for those who commit crimes? “I agree, and I say so emphatically. Security is not a right-wing issue; we must not leave it to the right. Security is a common good. It is every citizen’s right. The point is to be clear: what kind of security are we talking about? The security the right has offered us in recent years is not the security of our dreams. It is the security of our nightmares. I am not just talking about the rise in certain crimes. Or the increase in the prison population. Or the overcrowding of cells. I am talking about the security-first and repressive approach. An approach so ineffective that the first security decree was followed by another. And then another. And yet another. Until we reached five security decrees: an admission of failure. That is not our approach. It never will be. Delivering tangible results on security means taking seriously the two non-negotiable pillars of a pact with the public and collaboration with all possible stakeholders. Repression is necessary, as is prevention. Repression is not achieved through rhetoric. It is achieved by spending money. It is achieved by recruiting more police officers. It is achieved by maintaining a police presence on the ground. It is achieved by not making a mockery of citizens, as this government has done; rather than spending 800 million euros to give the police more breathing space, it has wasted money on the inhuman and illegal folly in Albania. There is a shortfall of 22,000 officers across Italy, and those whom the right claims to have recruited do not even cover the natural turnover within the police force. Strengthening the police presence means helping citizens. But to help citizens, we need collaboration; we need to involve all stakeholders, including the third sector, because alongside the police presence, we must strengthen educational, social and cultural services, as well as street units working with marginalised communities, and invest in urban regeneration. Responsibility for public order lies with the government; it must stop shifting the blame onto mayors. The problem with security, in politics, is the right-wing approach, which is not only repressive but simply does not work.”

Is Elly Schlein alarmed by the prospect of Salvini taking over the Ministry of the Interior in September? “It would be alarming if Meloni were to promote him after his failures on infrastructure, draining the local public transport fund and doing nothing to address the incredible train delays. However, security in Italy has many problems. I hope we don’t add to the problem with a minister who wants to campaign by playing politics with security issues.” The alternative is being built around security. But at a time like the one Italy is currently experiencing, the alternative is being built from a different angle: the economy. Italy today has low growth, low industrial output, low productivity, a high tax burden, poor competitiveness and high debt. The PD talks a lot about redistribution and little about growth. What does the PD intend to do to prove it is an alternative to Italy’s growth of a few tenths of a per cent? “Growth is one of the key problems facing our economy. We must be honest and acknowledge that some of the setbacks we are facing are not attributable to this government. What is attributable to this government is that it had the political clout to implement bold reforms and did nothing to improve the lives of Italians. Growth is low, productivity is low; for three years now, industrial output has been in negative territory almost without interruption; the tax burden is at an all-time high; purchasing power is suffering; and competitiveness is taking a hit. It’s true: the government has kept the books in order, and credit must be given for that. But stability without growth is not sustainable in the long term, especially for a country with a significant public debt. And if stability turns into stagnation, a great deal of damage is done.” Yes, I agree, but what does the PD intend to do? “Three points of our growth strategy, Editor. First: to lower energy costs. Second: to boost investment following the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR). Third: to put the quality of work and training back at the centre, with positive effects on wages and productivity.” Right, but that’s a bit vague. Let’s try to get to the heart of the matter. “When I talk about lowering energy costs, I’m not speaking in general terms. I’m being specific. I’m talking about following the example of countries like Spain and Portugal. We need to step up the pace on renewable energy. And to step up the pace on renewable energy, we don’t need empty talk. We need to tackle the country’s inefficiencies, streamline bureaucracy, simplify procedures, and put an end to projects that require 16,000 pages of documentation just to obtain authorisation. In Spain, authorisation processes take two years. In Italy, six years. Failure, from this point of view, is not a matter of fate: it is a choice. It can be avoided. A task force involving central government and the regions could be set up to halve authorisation times.” We would point out to Schlein that the famous Spanish model is based not only on renewables but on seven operational nuclear reactors across five power stations. To say ‘long live the Spanish model’ is also to say ‘long live nuclear power’. “You’re right, but they already had them in place; here it would take fifteen years, and we don’t have that time. The PD has no ideological objections to nuclear power. As a Member of the European Parliament, I have always supported research into nuclear fusion. The problem isn’t the technology, in this case. The problem is down to timing. And when it comes to nuclear power, the costs and lead times are not compatible with the needs of our businesses. And on this point too, I would point out to you, the government has done nothing: just a token piece of legislation, without putting any money into it, without even defining where the waste might eventually be stored.” We point out to Schlein, with a touch of sarcasm, that when it comes to difficulties in implementing energy policies, the centre-left is also a world champion. In Sardinia, for example, where the left is in power, the regional governor, Ms Todde, has identified no less than 99 per cent of the region’s land as unsuitable for new wind and solar power plants. A straight question, before moving on to the other points: for Schlein, when it comes to energy, is Sardinia a model to be replicated or one to be avoided? Schlein beats about the bush: “I know that we, too, have problems with the acceptability of energy policies. More could have been done. But from that experience, we can try to adopt an approach that might work. When it comes to renewables, to make them acceptable, we need to find a mechanism that redistributes benefits immediately. One of our ideas is this: to stipulate that wherever there is a plant, a share of the energy produced should go to small and medium-sized enterprises and households in the form of discounts on their bills. Confindustria tells us that there are 4,000 renewable energy projects on hold in Italy. We cannot wait any longer. We must take action. And when we are in government, we will do so. Let me add one more point.” Please do. “On energy, we also have another problem that discourages renewables. Our idea is simple: we need to lower taxes on electricity. In Spain, gas accounts for 15 per cent of the energy price. Here, it accounts for 80 per cent. Action can be taken, and we will do so. Just as we need to invest in grids and storage, not like the government’s disaster with the Termoli Gigafactory. We want to strengthen power purchase agreements – that is, multi-year agreements for the purchase of large volumes of energy at pre-set prices. On this point, the government has partly listened to us. However, we must also strengthen the role of the Single Buyer, enabling it to enter into long-term contracts with renewable energy producers and to redistribute that energy to businesses and households at stable and competitive prices. Naturally, this strategy would be even more effective if it were developed at European level.”

More on energy: why does the left only want to revise, rather than repeal, the current ETS rules – that is, the rules governing the European emissions market? “We have always worked towards a revision of the ETS, but it is absurd to frame the debate in terms of the suspension proposed by Meloni. The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has reminded us just how exposed Europe still is to energy shocks. The ETS can and must be amended to avoid distorting effects on businesses, but the priority remains freeing ourselves from dependence on gas – whether it be Putin’s or Trump’s. If Meloni calls for the suspension of the ETS without accelerating the transition to renewables and energy self-sufficiency, the result will be simple: buying even more American gas. I also wonder: since Giorgia Meloni arrived at Palazzo Chigi, the ETS scheme has brought the Italian state around nine billion euros. The question to put to the government is very simple: where has that money gone? How many resources have been allocated to reducing energy bills, decarbonising businesses and investing in renewable energy? Before calling for the suspension of the ETS, Meloni should explain how she has used the revenue she has already collected.” Investments and wages, as they say. “The priority must be to boost investment, starting with the twin transitions – digital and green. These projects require a truly ‘zero-bureaucracy’ approach: we can extend the simplification model of the Single Economic Zone (ZES) across the whole country, with a one-stop shop and a guaranteed response within ninety days. We also need an industrial policy focused on supply chains, starting with the automotive sector, including through a strategic role for publicly owned companies. Furthermore, Italy is a country of major savers: around 1,700 billion euros lie idle in current accounts, whilst pension funds invest primarily in foreign government bonds and highly liquid international financial assets. Meanwhile, Italian businesses, particularly the smallest ones, are finding it increasingly difficult to access credit. We must therefore create innovative instruments, accompanied by tax incentives, to channel a portion of Italian savings towards the real economy, productive investment and the growth of our businesses. The real battle, however, is to increase wages. And to do so, we must also look to examples that have worked. Between 2023 and 2025, the Spanish economy grew by around 9 per cent, whilst the Italian economy stagnated at around 2.2 per cent. Spain has a minimum wage, which has been increased by around 50 per cent in recent years. But they did not stop there: businesses and trade unions have reached an important agreement to reduce job insecurity and limit the abuse of temporary contracts. In Italy, too, we must reopen a serious dialogue between employers’ organisations and trade unions, addressing the issues of representativeness and the renewal of collective agreements. We must invest in training, skills and research. We have extraordinary researchers, but too many are still in precarious employment or forced to go abroad. The challenge is to create wages, opportunities and working conditions that allow young people to stay and build their future here.” Growth, stability and the future. We remind Elly Schlein that the Bank of Italy recently stated that the benefits of the Superbonus were lower than the costs and that the fiscal multiplier was below one. Question: can the PD leader guarantee that, with the PD in government, schemes such as the Superbonus will not be repeated? Schlein understands where we are heading with this and responds first diplomatically and then decisively. “On the issue of improving the energy efficiency of homes, I think we need to follow Europe’s guidelines and work to ensure there are the same rules for everyone.” Schlein pauses, reflects for a second, and we clarify the question. Can the PD leaders rule out the possibility that a broad-based coalition government might reintroduce transferable tax credits with no cap and no funding? “I recall that those measures were voted for by all political parties, and everyone was calling for them to be extended. I wasn’t there at the time. Today I say that the schemes must be properly designed, learning from what has worked and from past mistakes. But at the moment we are proposing to tackle the issue at European level, with a fund for energy efficiency.” A giant slalom.

There is no alternative without security. There is no alternative without the economy. But there is no alternative without foreign policy either. We would remind Elly Schlein that the PD, even whilst in opposition and despite some grumbling, has continued to support the supply of arms to Ukraine. A simple question: why, setting aside the rhetoric, are arms still indispensable for defending Ukraine? And what, in your view, would be the real risk if Italy and Europe were to stop supplying them? Before answering this question, Schlein offers her interlocutor an adverb: ‘Convincingly’. Then she explains it. ‘We voted convincingly to help Ukraine defend itself with all available means for one simple reason. Putin has violated international law. He has violated it through a criminal invasion of Ukraine. And anyone who fails to recognise who is the victim and who is the aggressor in this situation is mistaken. The PD has always supported – I repeat, wholeheartedly – Ukraine with all necessary means. Because, speaking as someone on the left, it is unacceptable to think that anyone in Europe could consider redrawing borders through the use of force. What must, however, be added to this issue and this line of reasoning is that Europe has done little to try, through diplomatic channels, to isolate Putin and force him to negotiate for a just peace. And when I speak of a just peace – let there be no ambiguity here either – I am referring to a just peace from Ukraine’s point of view, as Sergio Mattarella often reiterates. Europe is essential at this stage, including through a single envoy tasked with negotiating on behalf of all EU member states, because the alternative to Europe is a bilateral relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Trump, to put it mildly, has always shown excessive leniency towards the aggressor. Europe, on the other hand, has always managed to stand on the right side of history on this issue. And that is why I say, with conviction, that we need more Europe. We need a stronger Europe. We need a Europe capable of making decisions more quickly. We need a Europe capable of moving forward with pragmatic federalism,” says the secretary, quoting Mario Draghi. “To do this, we must move beyond unanimity. To move beyond unanimity, however, we must be true Europeanists. Giorgia Meloni’s ideological rigidity harms national interests: she is opposed to moving beyond unanimity and to a common defence, and she is not fighting alongside us for joint investment. This is, unfortunately, entirely consistent with her track record.”

We’re pressing the issue of Ukraine once again, partly to see just how far Elly Schlein is prepared to go. So we ask her the following. Firstly: Andy Burnham, the new British Prime Minister, said two days ago that his government is committed to supporting Ukraine and Zelensky ‘100 per cent’. Is this a statement Schlein would echo? Secondly: Admiral Cavo Dragone, a heavyweight within NATO, said five days ago that “over the last two years, allied fighter jets have been scrambled around 700 times in response to threats from Russia”. He pointed out that in recent months, Russian aircraft and drones have violated European airspace. Question: does Schlein also consider Putin a threat to Europe? And finally: does the PD want Ukraine to join the European Union? The PD secretary smiles. “Editor, I know why you’re asking me these questions. It’s no secret that within the coalition we agree on many issues, but not on all of them. I am well aware that there are those within the coalition who hold different views from the PD’s on Ukraine. But I can tell you in all sincerity that I am certain that in September, when we begin discussing the programme, we will find common ground. To answer your questions: my best wishes go to Burnham, and the PD will continue to support Ukraine as it always has. Yes, we support enlargement to include all candidate countries, including Ukraine: there are rules that apply to everyone, and reforms are needed, but I hope they do not become excuses to slow down the process. On Putin, I reaffirm our strongest condemnation: Putin has violated international law with a criminal invasion of Ukraine. This must not be underestimated. Europe is surrounded by military and commercial aggression – think of Trump’s tariffs – and working towards a stronger Europe is the only way to be sovereign, to defend peace and freedom, and also to combat the many Trojan horses of Putinism and Trumpism, which, in a mirror image, dream of a weaker Europe. We will not allow this to happen. And when I speak of a stronger, less weak Europe, I am also referring to a Europe capable of becoming more integrated, more united, more sovereign in terms of energy, less vulnerable and better able to respond to Trumpian protectionism in a creative and courageous manner. For example, by entering into new trade agreements with countries affected by Trump’s tariffs, such as Japan. When I met Mark Carney, the formidable Canadian Prime Minister, one of his remarks struck me. He said – he said this in Armenia – that the international order will be rebuilt because we will not allow our children to inherit an order founded on brutality. And he added that the international order of the future will be built starting from Europe. And it will be Europe that demonstrates what, with Trump, now seems to me to be an undeniable fact: nationalism is not only a danger to the world but also a threat to the national interests of the countries that promote it. The order will be rebuilt from Europe.

‘But the order of the future will start first and foremost with the pro-Europeans – the genuine ones.’ As for defence spending, this is an issue that needs clarifying. The PD is in favour of European defence and of shared debt, but it is against the SAFE defence fund, which is financed by shared debt and which even Sanchez’s beloved Spain has called for. Have we got that right? Schlein attempts to answer, treading carefully. “We are in favour of a common defence that aims to make a single European army possible. We have supported all European instruments that promote joint investment and research, and increase the interoperability of national defence systems. However, we are opposed not only to the unrealistic and misguided target of 5 per cent of GDP for military spending set by NATO, but also to measures that merely encourage the national rearmament of the 27 European armies, which operate in an uncoordinated manner. We do not need to spend more; we need to spend in a more coordinated manner at European level, and we need to do so more efficiently than we do today. Only this will increase deterrence.”

Our time is up; we’ve been on the phone for an hour and forty minutes with the PD secretary, and we’re both exhausted. Schlein also spoke about artificial intelligence, on which she fully endorses everything Pope Leo XIV said, and regarding AI she is convinced that, with the right rules and the right caution, “Italy can find the right keys to forge a path of growth, productivity and opportunity”. On the subject of AI, Schlein then invites Giorgia Meloni to enter into a pact – not linked to the commercial use of AI (Schlein confides to us that “I don’t use it for work; I write my speeches myself, though I might use it in my private life from time to time”) – but linked to a sort of non-aggression pact: “In the run-up to the election campaign, all political parties should commit to not using AI to attribute fabricated words or deeds to their opponents.” Time is running out, but three questions on domestic politics are necessary. First point: is it true that Schlein’s aim is to take the PD to 30 per cent? “I don’t talk about figures – it’s bad luck – but I can say that the latest elections, the regional ones and others, have shown that the PD is already Italy’s leading party, and we will do everything we can to maintain this position.” Second point: is it really necessary to wait for a new electoral law before deciding whether to hold primaries? “We must be ready at any moment. By changing the electoral law, Meloni has shown she is afraid of losing – and she is right to fear it. But we will decide on the primaries with our allies in September, after the party programme has been finalised.” We press the point: but Elly Schlein, who used the primaries as her springboard, does she want primaries or not? “I would point out that in 2022, the centre-right chose its prime ministerial candidate after the elections, from the party that won the most votes. That is also an option.” We press the point again: “Does she want them or not?” “I’m open to primaries, but we’ll decide this together with our allies. I know these answers might not satisfy you, but I’m steadfastly committed to unity and will do everything I can to keep the alliance cohesive.” How long can a ‘cohesive alliance’ and an ‘expanded alliance’ remain compatible concepts? “You know my objective. It is not to repeat the mistake of 2022; it is to avoid fragmentation; it is to stand united with all those in the opposition.” Does that mean you’ll try to keep on board not only the current centre—from Renzi to Onorato—but also Carlo Calenda? “These are my guiding principles. I hope the centrist parties, which are part of the coalition, will talk to one another and not become divided. And as for the rest, I’ve never vetoed anyone. I’ve always tried to broaden our base. But these aren’t issues that can be decided behind closed doors. We’ll draw up the manifesto, and I’m certain that, centred on that manifesto, we’ll manage to be more inclusive, more cohesive and more competitive.” I’d like to ask you a question about Vannacci. “Editor, it’s so nice not to talk about Vannacci; let’s leave him aside for today. Let’s talk about the alternative without talking too much about others. We can do that. And you’ll see that we’ll win the elections even like this.”