Reformists are pressing Schlein on the primaries. Gori: "A single candidacy is a mistake for the whole party"

The PD’s executive committee meeting is currently underway – the meeting where Secretary Elly Schlein has got things off her chest by responding head-on to Giuseppe Conte and the Green and Left Alliance duo. But at the heart of today’s party meeting was another issue, which Schlein, in her lengthy speech, chose not to address: the primaries, the procedures for holding them, and the possibility of a dual candidacy that would also represent the reformist wing. Giorgio Gori was ready—ready to hear either ‘yes’ or ‘no’—but in the end, the leadership decided not to address the issue. Two-round primaries? Single-round primaries? A single party candidate? Everything will be discussed at the assembly on 18 October, when Elly’s term as secretary will be officially extended. As explained by Igor Taruffi, according to the rules, the assembly decides on this matter. The PD MEP himself, in his speech, described this ‘political’ decision as ‘a mistake’.

“To win them, and thereby gain the momentum to win the general election, we need to broaden participation as much as possible, and to do so it is important that the PD makes full use of its pluralism,” said Gori. In his view, “a one-dimensional PD, which fails to capitalise on that pluralism, sacrifices part of its strength”. Hence his proposal to stand as a candidate over the past few weeks. “This is our proposal, and the response came not from yesterday’s party leadership meeting, but via the press,” he says, addressing Schlein. He explains: “It can be summed up in four words: out of the question. Let’s not beat about the bush: this is a political choice”, he asserts. And he does not mince his words: “This choice is a mistake. But not for me; for the PD as a whole”. He continues: “I am in favour of broadening the coalition’s scope as much as possible – of course I am. If it were up to me, I would try to include Calenda as well. But I fundamentally oppose the idea that this work – the dialogue with the key components of Italian society – should be outsourced, subcontracted or delegated by the PD. I oppose the idea that we should hand decisive votes to other political forces” (the reference is to Franco Gabrielli).

Senator Simona Malpezzi also agrees with the MEP’s view. “I’m not afraid of the primaries; they are the mechanism the PD has put in place, and I regret the tiresome debate surrounding them. They weren’t created as a showdown; they aren’t a competition between party secretaries.” She explains: “Today it seems that a section of the PD is afraid of the primaries; we must not be afraid of them, but ensure that they work.” According to the PD member, “they must not become a battle between party apparatuses; they must broaden consensus beyond the boundaries of individual parties”. Therefore: “They must be open and organised in two rounds because the second round allows for a broader consensus to be reached. Voting must take place in person because, at this historic juncture, the manipulation of democratic processes is a genuine concern, and the security of the vote and the identification of voters are not secondary issues”. Malpezzi concludes: “I believe there is a need for further effort; the whole PD must play a leading role in this programme, and all political traditions must work together to build a genuine consensus”.

Senator Sandra Zampa also spoke on the subject. After lashing out against the idea of online voting in the primaries, she criticised the leadership’s decisions, following in Gori’s footsteps. “Today, the Democratic Party is once again confining itself within very narrow boundaries by denying the possibility of other candidates, because we have heard – and it seems to me that the secretary’s speech made this clearer than anything else – that today the Democratic Party is outsourcing a task, a role and a culture that it once possessed.”

Schlein’s decision to sidestep the issue does not appear to have gone down well with the reformist wing. As Il Foglio reports, they were expecting a response from the secretary today. The matter will therefore be addressed in two weeks’ time. But the ‘response-non-response’ seems clear.