Inspirations and removals: the choices on the left already constitute a programme in themselves

There is no manifesto. But there are certain choices that, taken together, already constitute a manifesto. The Italian left, in keeping with its finest tradition, has for some time now chosen to look around in an attempt to find some source of inspiration, some example to follow, to give more substance to its political project. The pattern is always the same. If what we do is also being done by someone else on the left, it means that what we’re proposing isn’t all that bad. And if what someone else on the left is doing can win support, it might be a good idea for us to try it too. In recent times, the Italian left—particularly the Democratic Party—has chosen to look around for some form of inspiration. But in its wanderings around the world, the progressive camp has been rather selective: amongst the many left-wing movements that exist at present around the world, there are some that the Italian left has chosen to embrace and others that it has chosen to ignore. 

Among the left-wing movements he has chosen to embrace are, of course, the activist, anti-capitalist and anti-establishment factions, which have made the demonisation of Israel a defining feature of their identity. The ‘Mamdani agenda’, so to speak, is very much in vogue on the left in Italy, and the prospect of a left willing to pursue a path of radicalisation to combat ‘the right’ appears to be a welcome prospect within the diverse progressive camp. Yet, looking at the rest of the world, the progressive camp – which is struggling in many countries where it attempts or dreams of governing – could find plenty of food for thought for its future programme. It might discover, for example, that the much-vaunted ‘Sánchez model’ – a model often cited for its ability to deliver good results on energy and the economy, though apparently not on housing – is not based solely on renewables but relies to a significant extent on nuclear power as well: the Sánchez government has extended the operating licence for the two reactors at the Almaraz power station in Extremadura until 2030, and if one were truly to follow the ‘Sánchez model’ – assuming such a model exists – the left would have to include in its programme a ‘yes’ not only to renewables but also to nuclear power.

If the Italian left had the strength to look around the world – staying within Europe so as not to make things too difficult for itself – it might discover other instructive stories. It might discover that in Denmark, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a Social Democrat who has recently been re-elected – albeit with a more fragile majority than in the past – has placed a strong crackdown on illegal immigration at the centre of her political agenda. On the Danish Social Democrats’ website, the section on immigration begins as follows: “The number of immigrants in our society matters.” And the explanation is interesting: according to the Danish Social Democrats, the costs of unmanaged immigration fall primarily on less-skilled workers, those on low wages and residents of neighbourhoods where integration is failing, and restricting migration flows – combined with strict rules on deportations, the maintenance of temporary border controls and support for the creation of asylum-seeker centres outside Europe – forms part of the party’s aim to protect the social groups it seeks to represent. Has the Italian left ever mentioned the Danish model? No, because, unlike the Mamdani model, it is not a left-wing alternative: it is an offshoot of the right.

Another story worth telling concerns a recent election campaign, from which the centre-left chose to keep a safe distance. In Sweden, a country that has recently joined NATO to protect itself from the Russian threat, in the elections on 13 September, in which the centre-left bloc secured 176 seats against the opposition’s 173, the party led by Magdalena Andersson – who, after resigning as Prime Minister due to the difficulty of securing a majority, was given a week just a few days ago to form another government – chose to include in its election manifesto several key points concerning a subject that is taboo in Italy, and not just on the left: defence. The Swedish Social Democrats have proposed an extension of compulsory military service, with a 50-year commitment to strengthening defence, targeting at least 12,000 new conscripts a year as an interim goal and 20,000 once fully implemented. To this they have added a commitment to meet NATO’s target of 3.5 per cent of GDP for defence. With a clear guiding principle, as set out in the election manifesto that any centre-left coalition across Europe ought to have: “Ukraine’s cause is our own”. The Swedish Social Democrats have also offered further food for thought to the Italian left. They, too, have chosen to support nuclear power, calling for the state to retain control over safety, the economy and the siting of power stations. On the issue of the wars in the Middle East, they did not limit themselves to supporting the pro-Palestinian agenda. They chose to highlight a fact that cannot be taken for granted: the two-state solution is fine, the restoration of aid to UNRWA is fine, and we can even agree to a ban on products from the settlements, if we absolutely must – but we cannot fail to demand the disarmament of Hamas and its exclusion from the future Palestinian government. Have you ever heard the Italian left discuss the Swedish model? No, because, compared to the Mamdani model, it is not a left-wing alternative: it is an offshoot of the right.

A different fate, however, seemed to be in store for a left-wing leader who had, for a time, come to the attention of the broader political spectrum: Andy Burnham, Keir Starmer’s successor – for however long – at the helm of the Labour Party and the British government, whose ‘shift to the left’ has been a subject of interest for the Italian left. His, said the PD the day after his arrival at Downing Street, is “the programme of a governing left that brings people’s needs back to the centre”. Burnham, however, suddenly disappeared from the centre-left’s radar as soon as the British Prime Minister – in a move that was, in fact, very much of the left – decided to place, guess what, at the heart of his term in office? Support for Ukraine. Burnham welcomed Zelensky as his first international guest as Prime Minister. He did so at a special venue: the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, in Portsmouth. He then chose to make his first overseas trip, a month later, to Kyiv, for the anniversary of Ukrainian independence, linking the Ukrainian resistance to British history: “My nation,” Burnham told the Ukrainians, like a true left-wing leader, “kept the flame of European freedom alive in the 20th century; you are keeping it alive in the 21st.” But that’s not all. Just like the Spanish and Swedish left, the British left has chosen to press ahead – it did so under Starmer and has confirmed this under Burnham – with a £14.2 billion investment in Sizewell C and £2.6 billion for the small modular reactor programme. Is Burnham too right-wing as well?

The point is clear. There is a left-wing movement, around the world, which makes the news for its activism (New York), for its policy on expropriation (Die Linke in Berlin), and for its ideas on a wealth tax (La France insoumise in Paris). Then there is a left that often wins elections and governs in Europe in the few places where it manages to build a majority, and which the Italian left has chosen to erase from its horizon for a simple yet dramatic reason: by persistently labelling everything the right does as ‘right-wing’, even when what the right does is simply common sense – neither right-wing nor left-wing – the Italian left finds itself in the complicated situation of having to regard the common-sense policies implemented by left-wing movements worldwide as right-wing, with the result – both bizarre and unpromising – that it feels at ease, around the world, with other left-wing movements only when they are activist, radical and anti-capitalist, and only when they share, perhaps, the demonisation of Israel as a common trait. The ‘broad coalition’ programme will come sooner or later. But whilst we wait for one that is stubbornly unified, the inspirations of the left around the world – including its denials – already constitute a programme in themselves. Will it work? Who knows.