Agenda Occhiuto: the centre-right that doesn’t need Vannacci

Roberto Vannacci had a political insight that it would be foolish not to acknowledge: he spotted a gap in the market and filled it. He realised that there was a demand, even in Italy, for far-right, radical right-wing and sovereigntist politics, and he built a political platform around that demand.

The point, however, is not to determine whether he is good at interpreting that space. The point is to understand whether the centre-right government led by the highly capable Giorgia Meloni, in order to remain competitive and retain its majority, needs to become a little more like that right. I believe this is the wrong question. The right question is another: what must the traditional centre-right – as conceived by President Silvio Berlusconi, the one we have known from 1994 to the present day – do to renew its own vision of the future in a way that is bold enough not to be obsessed with what is happening to its right? The answer, for me, lies in ten points, ten reflections. Many of these issues are set out in my book "Il coraggio di governare. Idee liberali, la forza di realizzarle", published by Piemme and available in bookshops for the past few days.

Taking immigration seriously means starting with a basic distinction: legal immigration is one thing, illegal immigration another. 

Anyone who has no right to be in our country must be repatriated more quickly. Anyone who commits a crime and has no right to remain must be deported.

We must combat people smugglers, secure our borders and strengthen readmission agreements with countries of origin. But we must also be honest enough to say that repatriation cannot be achieved with a slogan alone: it can only happen if there is a state on the other side willing to take back its own citizens.

At the same time, Italy needs legal immigration. The Meloni government has recognised this by planning for almost 500,000 work-related entries over the three-year period 2026–2028. This is not a contradiction: it is exactly what a right-wing government – a modern and responsible one – should do.

Less illegal immigration, more legality. Fewer irregular arrivals by sea, more workers arriving through proper channels because our businesses need them.

And then we need Europe. More Frontex, more EU agreements with countries of origin, more investment on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, and a more united approach to border management. To think that Italy can manage a continental phenomenon on its own is to condemn itself to powerlessness.

Immigration should neither be denied nor exploited: it must be managed.

Competition is not just a conference buzzword. It’s a very simple concept: it means remembering that when one sector is artificially protected, someone else, on the other side, pays the price for that protection.

In Calabria, we fought a battle over non-scheduled public transport, taking the case all the way to the Constitutional Court. We supported the opening up of the private hire market, encouraged the introduction of innovative services, and challenged regulations that made it more difficult to provide an adequate service to the public.

The Constitutional Court has ruled in our favour, overturning the decision of the national government – which belongs to my own political party – and also rejecting the absurd twenty-minute time limit imposed on private hire drivers.

The principle I draw from this is a general one: when reforming the taxi market, we must also consider those waiting for a taxi, not just those driving them. When reforming the healthcare system, we must think first of the patient waiting for an appointment and then of the professional body defending the status quo. When reforming the labour market, we must also look to the young person trying to enter it, not just to those who are already protected.

The categories must be taken into account. But laws must be written for the public.

There are political examples in Europe that we can look to and with which we need to engage. But engaging with them does not necessarily mean adopting them as a model.

I belong to a different political culture. A liberal, populist, pro-European, Atlanticist culture. I believe in a right-wing that regards the European Union not as an enemy to be rid of, but as an instrument to be reformed and strengthened. That regards NATO as a strategic choice, not a hindrance. That is unequivocal on Russia. That knows that, in a world of continental powers, Italy does not become more sovereign by isolating itself: it simply becomes smaller.

Europe deserves criticism when it seeks to regulate everything and is too slow to make decisions on major issues. But the answer cannot be ‘less Europe’ across the board. It must be ‘more Europe’ on the big issues and ‘less Europe’ on the small ones: more Europe on defence, immigration, energy, innovation and capital; less bureaucracy on the details that can be managed by states, regions, businesses and citizens.

This is a different kind of right-wing. No less right-wing: simply different.

Every public euro has an alternative. A billion spent on one thing is a billion that cannot be spent on another. And for too long, Italian politics has distributed resources by focusing primarily on those already within the system. I would like to turn that perspective on its head.

Italy’s major problem is not merely that too few young people are being born. It is that we pay those we do have too little, recognise their worth too late and often drive them away. We have built a country where pay rises are based on length of service. Instead, we should be building a country where pay rises are based on future potential, paying brilliant young people – in both the public and private sectors – better, as they bring added value to our society.

If resources are available, the discussion will focus on how to increase the starting salary, make it worthwhile to hire a young person, help them find a home, and enable them to set up a business.

I proposed a ‘no tax’ zone for the under-35s precisely for this reason: not a bonus, not a cheque, but a choice that makes work more affordable and immediately visible on one’s payslip. There is a political difference between spending billions to bring forward retirement once again and investing that money in helping young people enter the labour market. And it is a difference concerning the direction in which we want to take the country.

A liberal right cannot concern itself with freedom only when it comes to business, taxes or the market. Freedom is an indivisible principle and also concerns a person’s most intimate choices: relationships, sexuality, the way in which each individual shapes their own life and, when extreme and rigorously verified conditions arise, even decisions regarding the end of one’s life.

Defending these rights does not mean adopting someone else’s political culture: it means being consistent with a liberal culture that places the individual at the centre and regards the state as being at their service, not as an authority called upon to regulate their every choice.

For too long, we have ceded to the left issues which young people now discuss quite naturally and which they would like to see on the agendas of every political party. Civil rights can no longer be a taboo for a modern, governing centre-right. And on end-of-life issues, the legislator must have the courage to take action, establishing clear and rigorous rules, with informed consent, medical assessments, and particularly stringent timeframes and safeguards for vulnerable people.

There is currently a section of Italy that is politically adrift. There are liberals who would like to see a more courageous centre-right. Reformists who view the Democratic Party’s alliances with unease. Ordinary Catholics who have been left without a political home. Entrepreneurs, professionals, local government officials and young people in the big cities who do not want maximalist politics, whether on the right or the left.

There are, if we are to call them that, many centres in need of an author.

Forza Italia should return to its original purpose: to open up. To engage. To bring in people who have not spent twenty years in the corridors of party politics. To look to civil society, the business world, the professions, universities and reformism. Forza Italia was founded by breaking down barriers, not by building them. Its role within the centre-right should not be to defend a small, moderate enclave, but to broaden the coalition’s reach towards sectors of society that currently have no political home. The centre-right will grow if it manages to attract those who are currently on the outside, not if it continues merely to compete for those who are already on the inside.

For years we have celebrated Italian entrepreneurs because they have managed to grow despite bureaucracy, despite high energy costs, despite a slow civil justice system, despite endless authorisation procedures, and despite inadequate infrastructure. Yet ‘despite everything’ cannot be an industrial policy. Not least because, to tell the truth, industrial policies have little to do with a liberal state. A liberal state, if anything, pursues enabling policies: it ensures the market functions so that businesses can play a leading role in it, and grow in Italy – not in spite of Italy.

Government stability is a value. Sound public finances are a value. But to make Italy attractive, stability alone is not enough: opportunities must also be created.

An international company must be able to look at our country and conclude that it is worth investing here – because of the skills it can find, the speed with which it can obtain authorisation, the cost of energy, the infrastructure it can use, and the certainty of the regulations.

We do not simply need more state or less state. We need a different kind of state: strong where it is needed, unobtrusive where it should step aside; capable of building infrastructure and enforcing the rules, but incapable of turning every authorisation into an obstacle course.

I have never understood why those who regard competition as beneficial in the economy should then regard it as extremely dangerous within a political party. A party in which everyone always agrees is not necessarily a strong party. It may simply be a party in which no one has any interest in challenging the status quo.

Competition means alternative ideas, rival leadership styles, new people trying to make their mark, and leaders forced to earn their place every day rather than treating it as a given. It does not mean turning a party into a state of perpetual war. It means preventing it from becoming a source of unearned income.

Italian politics has suffered from co-optation for far too long. The ruling classes choose the ruling classes that will follow them, who in turn choose the next ones. In the end, everything changes on the outside whilst everything remains the same on the inside. A liberal movement should have the courage to break this cycle.

There is such a thing as left-wing populism, and there is such a thing as right-wing populism. The target audiences may differ, but the message is often the same: the world is a scary place, and I will protect you. I will protect you from competition. From technology. From artificial intelligence. From globalisation. From big business. From risk. From change. It is a very reassuring promise, and one that is almost always impossible to keep.

A liberal policy should do something else: enable people to make the most of change rather than simply endure it. Artificial intelligence will boost productivity: let’s ensure it is accessible to small businesses too.

The energy transition will transform industry: let’s use it to attract investment. The world of work will change rapidly: let’s reward skills and merit rather than automatic seniority. An entrepreneur may fail: let’s build a society in which they can try again. The best politics does not promise to freeze the world in time. It builds the tools to navigate it.

Ultimately, this is the issue for the coming months. If the centre-right focuses solely on how to stop Vannacci, how to imitate him, how to co-opt him, or how to take a percentage point away from him, it will have already lost something far more important than votes: it will have lost the agenda. The agenda should be something else entirely. Lower taxes. More reforms. Less timidity. More courage. Fewer unearned incomes. More competition. More opportunities. A public administration that takes decisions. An Italy that attracts investment. More Europe on the big challenges and less bureaucracy on the small ones.

Illegal immigration is being tackled firmly, whilst legal immigration is linked to the needs of the economy. Young people are treated not as a group in need of assistance but as the country’s main investment.

Vannacci represents a genuine political challenge. Pretending he does not exist would be a mistake. Thinking that the only way to respond to him is to become like him would be a different, more serious mistake.

The discussion that really matters is not about the former general. It concerns what sort of centre-right we want to continue building: what vision of the state, what relationship with Europe, what economic model, and what attitude towards change.

Because a coalition can win even by bringing together everything and its opposite. But the very next day, it has to govern.

And this is where the fundamental difference lies: it is not enough to build a coalition capable of winning. We must build a coalition capable of governing what comes next.