Pera’s colander: “I’m not playing the hero; I’m ready to withdraw the rule on the run-off”. Salvini? “He’s been cosying up to Vannacci – and now what?”

Marcello Pera isn’t wearing a colander. His amendment on the run-off? Pera says: “It avoids the quagmire and blackmail by extremist forces, and would also help Schlein. The Meloni–Schlein clash would become a duel like that between Coppi and Bartali”. Is the Pera amendment the anti-Vannacci amendment? “The general from Viareggio has many counterparts on the left. Isn’t that right, Professor Conte?” Russia’s hybrid attacks in Germany? “I hear the drums of war in Europe. I take them seriously and I fear them.” And Salvini? “I don’t understand him. He pampered Vannacci, he nurtured him, and now that the League has been overtaken in the polls, what is he doing?” Dear Pera, are you on your own? “Yes, I’m on my own.” Will Pera withdraw the amendment? “I’ll decide after consulting the majority. But I won’t put a colander on my head just to play the hero.”

Marcello Pera relishes this particular and final solitude. The philosopher, former President of the Senate and now an FdI senator, is the man behind the amendment on the run-off vote. I ask him if he has any regrets and what it feels like to play the part of the lone man. He replies cheerfully, with that typical Tuscan ‘blessed’ cheerfulness: “Yes, I am alone, because I tabled the amendment on my own and it is only right that, for now, I should remain alone. As I said, I asked everyone – first and foremost my centre-right colleagues – for serious reflection and a thoughtful debate. I have taken on the role of the advisor, certainly not that of the protagonist. Now it is up to the political parties.’ When he has finished speaking, I remind him that the chance of his proposal being voted through is now minimal and that his battle is already being seen as a fine, valiant struggle. Pera would not take this as a defeat; on the contrary: ‘Well, if they came to different conclusions from mine, I would accept it and reflect on it myself. I’m a philosopher by trade and I don’t believe that the truth is vox populi – that’s a relativist’s fallacy. But if I stand up in the Chamber and say ‘run-off’, and two hundred senators tell me ‘no to a run-off’, I’ll have to give it some thought. Even if I still think my solution is the best, I won’t put the hero’s colander on my head.” We smile. Using the metaphor of the colander on my head, we list all the objections raised by the PD and by Senator Dario Parrini – the ‘Pera of the left’ – who speaks of unconstitutionality. The real Pera says, ‘Yes, I can hear Senator Parrini too, talking about the unconstitutionality of the run-off. But do I really need to remind him of his party’s history, starting with the programme of Occhetto’s ‘joyful war machine’ in 1996, which called for a run-off? And D’Alema’s bicameral system? And the proposal supported by D’Alema and endorsed by Berlusconi, Mattarella, Nania, Salvi, Cossutta, Boselli and everyone else? And the proposals put forward by the experts in the Letta government? All approved by Parrini. And what about the bills tabled by Nicoletti, Bazoli, Rosi Bindi and others in 2013 to introduce a run-off when the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate even had different electorates? All supported by Parrini. In reality, this zealous senator, who changes his mind every year, is so terrified of not being re-elected that he has become Elly’s puppet.”

Just as in philosophy, Pera has enlisted Parrini as his rival in the debate. I shall try to play the part of the PD senator and, like Parrini, ask: ‘Professor, don’t you think that a bicameral system is an obstacle to your proposal on the run-off vote? And what about the Court?’ Pera acknowledges this: ‘It’s true, a perfect bicameral system is an obstacle, but the Constitutional Court has already stated that it can be overcome. And then, when Renzi tried to abolish it, I campaigned for the ‘Yes’ vote and Senator Parrini opposed it.’ I ask him why the man who used to engage in dialogue with Popper is now so set on the run-off – a concept so un-Italian – and Pera, as if to reaffirm his position even more strongly, replies that it is true: ‘Yes, you’re right, I’m set on it because, in my view, it has valuable advantages. Firstly, a run-off avoids the parliamentary quagmire that arises when there is no clear winner and the parties with fraction-of-a-percentage shares squabble amongst themselves. Secondly, it prevents political manoeuvring in the corridors of power. With a run-off, once the polls close, it is also decided who represents us and who governs us. Finally, a run-off election prevents blackmail by extremist forces, towards which – under a single-round system – the main coalitions are inevitably drawn in order to secure a numerical majority. A veritable disaster”. When I ask Pera whether his way of thinking is a weapon against the scum-like generals and the ‘dirty dozen’ – the Vannacci-style generals who support Moscow, described by the FT as ‘Trojan horses’ – the philosopher stops me, as if to emphasise that the danger also concerns the left. Pera explains: “It’s not just a question of Vannacci. The Viareggio general with pro-Moscow sympathies has many counterparts on the left. Isn’t that right, Professor Conte? Can you hear the drums of war in Europe? I can; I take them seriously and I fear them. Now, when it comes to deciding whether or not to send weapons to defend ourselves, how would a government behaved if it were influenced by Putinists and pacifists? Elly Schlein is still unable to draw up a unified programme with the Five Star Movement because this is her primary obstacle. If she were to become Prime Minister tomorrow, how would she overcome it? A run-off would help her too, if she gave it serious thought.” Let’s return to the mechanics of the Pera amendment, and the obstacles that would prevent a run-off even for the right. The former president acknowledges that “there are obstacles partly because there is no small amount of confusion in the press and amongst politicians, including the so-called ‘sherpas’ of the centre-right” and adds that “evidently, reading and understanding is tiring. For example, it is said: the run-off prevents a call for tactical voting in the first round. No, the minimum threshold of 38 per cent must be reached, so there will inevitably be a convincing call to vote strategically. Or it is said: not even a run-off would guarantee an absolute majority. False: the amendment states that, ultimately, the majority would have 220 members in the Chamber of Deputies and 113 in the Senate. But have you actually read it? Or again, it is claimed that a national run-off is unconstitutional for the Senate. This is also false; the Court has said so, adding that our constitutional system ‘requires’ – mark my words, ‘requires’ – homogeneous majorities, which does not necessarily mean the same electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, but it does mean that the two systems must not hinder the formation of a cohesive majority. What more could one ask for?” And yet Pera stands alone. Even Meloni is said to have set this brilliant idea aside so as not to irritate Salvini.

Pera, who was hand-picked and put forward as a candidate by Meloni, ‘understands’ Meloni. He says: ‘I understand Meloni: she is historically hesitant, because many on the right have always believed they cannot get people to vote in the second round. But can people really imagine not voting on the very day when, in effect, the Prime Minister is elected? After two weeks of head-to-head television debates hosted by Mentana or Vespa have turned the Meloni-Schlein or Meloni-Conte contest into a Coppi-Bartali-style showdown?” I keep asking whether this is nothing more than a trap to hinder Vannacci and shift his support to Meloni, but Pera objects: “That’s not true either. With a single round, how many of Vannacci’s supporters would vote for Meloni? Few, because they want to make their voices heard. With a two-round system, once Vannacci has secured all his MPs and his party symbol is no longer on the ballot paper, how many of his supporters would say ‘yes’ to Meloni? Many, because they want to govern.” During the conversation, I point out to him that Salvini keeps repeating that his League will never vote for the amendment on the run-off. Pera, ever the philosopher, won’t give in to Salvini: “I don’t understand him. He has pampered Vannacci, nurtured him, and now that the League has been overtaken in the polls, what does he do? Does he strike a deal with him or try to do without him? And how does he plan to do without him under a single-round system? Forza Italia has a problem too: if it wants to remain a liberal and moderate party, doesn’t it also need to neutralise Vannacci? It’s the same story with ‘Noi Moderati’. Please, as well as trying to win in Milan, have a go in Rome too.” A little further north of Milan, in Berlin, Russia has started attacking Europe. Professor, are we going to go to war? And Pera: “We’re already at war – a lopsided war, but war nonetheless.” I prod him again on Vannacci, who has now become the new nightmare. With a curt ‘no’, he bids me farewell and finally, to the question: ‘Professor, so are you withdrawing him?’ He replies: ‘I’ll listen to the majority. I’ll assess the situation on the day; there are many reasons, but I won’t be the one to take the fall.’