A wake-up call for the broader political spectrum. Bettini writes to us

Drafting a coalition programme is no easy task, although it is by no means an insurmountable challenge; however, trying to focus on a few key points can be useful when considering a crucial question: on what basis can the next elections be won? Let us proceed in an orderly fashion and consider five key elements.

Firstly. The most burdensome legacy of the neoliberal era is the staggering increase in social inequality over recent decades. Between 2010 and 2025, 91 per cent of the increase in national wealth went to the richest 5 per cent of households, whilst the poorest half received just 2.7 per cent. In Italy, this phenomenon comes on top of thirty years of stagnant wages and productivity. This situation does not merely concern the living conditions of workers, women, pensioners and young people with no future: it calls into question the very stability of the democratic system and the very foundations of a community. The primary driver of insecurity — let the right take this to heart — lies in the conviction, felt by the majority of people, that a life of hardship, with no hope of redemption, is inevitable. Anger inevitably springs from the outrage provoked by waste, the vulgar display of wealth, tax evasion, and indifference towards the vulnerable, the weak and the less fortunate. The centre-left must raise the debate on social justice to this level. It is both a partisan demand and a powerful call for national responsibility, one that concerns the entire Italian ruling class, for it is the very stability of the Republic that is at stake. If selfishness and the centrifugal forces of those seeking more or less lawful enrichment prevail, chaos, disintegration and violence will increase. The Meloni government is behaving irresponsibly. It is not tackling large fortunes, unearned income or tax evasion – which should be targeted – and is instead handing out petty pre-election handouts. Italy must, therefore, recognise that, even within the context of an economy that is hyper-connected to the world and subject to European budgetary rules that we wish to change, every one of our efforts, actions, measures and government solutions will be rooted in the circumstances and perspectives of our citizens. From the minimum wage to the reversal of the tax drag on earned income and pensions. From the fight against job insecurity to ensuring that public procurement contracts are awarded to businesses that apply the collective agreements signed by the most representative trade unions. I could go on. And this will not be dictated by the interests – all too often presented as objective – of concentrated, oligarchic economic and financial powers. Italian voters must understand which side we are on. Of course, the feasibility and speed of change will not be entirely in our hands. But setting the direction of travel certainly is. Resources must be sought where wealth is concentrated: combating tax evasion, reforming inheritance tax on large estates, and rebalancing the tax burden between investment income and earned income.

Secondly. For the centre-left, embracing this prospect of real change means overturning a completely far-fetched notion of reformism, which has also taken root within our own camp. Reformism is, historically speaking, the project of achieving an improvement in the people’s living conditions through democratic struggle and republican institutions. The ‘zero hour’ of revolution and the maximalism of abstract, ideological confrontation are a thing of the past. The choice is to operate in a granular, gradual yet determined manner, gaining ground in various fields. Unfortunately, from 1989 onwards, reformism has gradually come to be understood in an entirely different way, even amongst democrats. No longer is it the expression, in the forms just described, of a social impulse arising from the heart of society, but rather the stifling of such impulses, based on the requirements of a social and productive order now deemed the only one possible. Reformism characterised by ‘compatibility’, austerity, the sanctification of spending caps and budgets, iron-fisted discipline for the vulnerable, and the transnational freedom of capital, finance and tax evasion. Our difficulties with the people stem from this misunderstanding of the word reformism: it has become a blunt weapon against the Left, capable of transforming every protest into populism, every social wound into a demand for welfare, and every disorienting sense of isolation into laziness, antisocial behaviour, indifference and a lack of character.

Thirdly. The points made form the basis for the unity of our camp. However, they are not sufficient. We need to answer a question that is more relevant than ever: why is it that the right-wing led by Giorgia Meloni, despite having governed so poorly, is faltering but not collapsing? Its failure to deliver results does not seem to be undermining a deep-seated core that remains resilient. This resilience, I argue, stems from the fact that despite their failures, our opponents have managed to leave a stubborn imprint on the Italian psyche. Not through politics. But through metapolitics. Not through the listing of policies. Rather, through metaphors – that is to say, the true language of the political mind. Their metaphor is ‘I will protect you’. It isn’t true, of course. Yet the conviction remains. I’ll protect you from immigrants, from street violence, from European regulations, from taxes, from the actions of judges, from the meddling of a left that wants to undermine your stability. However, you must accept a certain institutional and social model. In short: hierarchies. Those at the top and those at the bottom. You will bear the weight of feeling your superior’s heel pressing down on your head, but you will have the satisfaction of being able to press your own heel onto the head of those subordinate to you. It is an age-old means of silencing the anguish of existence. Vannacci is a sort of centrifuged smoothie of this world view. It produces lives that are shattered, hollowed out, inauthentic. And yet, it is a political ‘form’. A worldview. A response – for us, a poisonous and deceitful one – to the disintegration and chaos of modernity. What has been our response? ‘Forms’ must be answered with other ‘forms’.

In response to one vision of the world, we must imagine a different vision of the world. In the face of points of reference that provoke our indignation, we must establish other points of reference as credible alternatives. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Left, amidst the rubble, has left behind not only unsustainable and, not infrequently, criminal regimes. It has left behind the confidence to critique the present. We have been on the defensive. We have generally governed well, saving many cities and the entire Republic. We have, however, operated within the broad parameters set by others. We have sailed close to the wind, heeling the boat beyond measure. And today we still lack a shared vision – a shared idea of the future. To achieve this, we would need to swiftly change a fundamental stance that we have gradually adopted over the years. To build our own alternative form, just as in a person’s development, a process of ‘individuation’ is needed. That is what Jung called it. At a certain point, the child, having moved beyond the phase of curiosity about everything and a voracious appetite for the world, begins to understand what truly resonates within them – their talents and predispositions. It is not a matter of accumulating, but rather of pruning. This also applies to a political entity. We have absorbed, incorporated and accumulated a great deal: new ideas, innovation, desires. As a result, our forms have become distorted. Everything has become mixed up into a muddled mess. An alternative society, if it is to be such, must instead choose, select and define its boundaries. Boundaries confer identity. Without boundaries, there is not even the possibility of engaging in dialogue with others. Of including others. Of creating the opportunity for an encounter, for mutual influence. Admittedly, these are boundaries opposed to those of the New Right. But without boundaries, one is submerged in the indistinctness of extreme consumerism, of the polished world of appearances, of the inauthentic realm of social masks and fashionable behaviour. Without borders, Europe itself could not open up to the Mediterranean, to the other great cultures that have crossed and shaken it. It could not access that ‘meridian’ way of thinking that comes to life in the most uncertain hours of dawn and dusk; where mutual borders touch and embrace one another; in favour of a gentler, more peaceful, more thoughtful encounter between different peoples.

Fourth. But what is our vision of an alternative world? The right wing offers reassurance by confining people’s lives within pyramidal structures. Our world, on the contrary, must expand the life that still yearns for life. We need days capable of weaving together rest, play, artistic and cultural enjoyment, work, family, loved ones and friends. Even boredom. If the essence of our message becomes: a better life for everyone, founded on the miracle of existence, on the privilege of possessing the talents granted only to us, then we might be able to reconstruct the idea of another world. Then we might be able to address the unease of those who do not feel listened to, cared for or protected. Forget crippling hierarchies. Instead, unexpressed life that becomes authentic life, welcomed and respected.

Fifth. Naturally, nothing will be possible without peace. Berlinguer once said: ‘If there is no peace, there is nothing left afterwards’. The world, divided into two blocs, maintained a balance between the two superpowers that was capable of averting war. They were bitter adversaries, yet they sought coexistence, called for disarmament, encouraged diplomacy and calculated the balance of missile forces. Great ruling classes who felt the responsibility of holding in their hands weapons of mass destruction, capable of wiping out our species. In 1963, Togliatti delivered an inspired speech, in harmony with the views of John XXIII, in which he asserted that, above and beyond class and ideological conflicts, the fate of humanity was at stake. A shared reflection was therefore imperative. Today, the word ‘peace’ seems to have vanished. Western ruling classes, and indeed European ones too, have replaced it with: final victory, rearmament, hatred of the adversary. We were absolutely right to help Ukraine – treacherously invaded by the autocrat Putin – including with military aid. But alongside that aid, we should have immediately pushed for negotiations, to end the conflict, to impose peace, and to work towards a compromise that did not justify the aggressor’s motives, but sought to understand them within the context of previous historical events. Europe has done the exact opposite. It has fanned the flames of belligerence. It has portrayed Russia as the embodiment of evil. It has compared Putin to Hitler. It has instilled fear in Europeans. And as Nazism has shown us, the fear of aggression – even if imaginary – fosters and paves the way for war. Europe has failed in its traditional role as a land of peace, a bridge between East and West, and a benevolent link in a multipolar world. It now finds itself silent, embarrassed, and even incapable of appointing a single representative to mediate between the two combatants. If action is to be taken—as I hope it will be—the key players will be China, America, and Russia. The desired outcome is a truce. Almost a million young people have fallen on the battlefield between Russia and Ukraine. The truce along the front line must be accompanied by a border zone protected by international forces, and, as soon as possible, a conference must be convened – similar to the Helsinki Conference – capable of guaranteeing security throughout that region of the world. This mutual security can only be achieved if, in ways yet to be determined, Europe’s intervention is guaranteed should Russia attack again in the future, and if Ukraine’s accession to the European Union is secured within a reasonable timeframe. Conversely, there must be a commitment not to extend NATO to Russia’s borders – one of the factors that triggered the aggression. If none of this comes to pass, sending further weapons for an endless war – which will ultimately, and inevitably, become nuclear – no longer makes sense. If, on the other hand, we embark on a virtuous process, in which Europe can play a leading role, whilst that process unfolds, it would make sense to supply Ukraine with defensive weapons – capable of intercepting enemy munitions – to prevent surprise attacks whilst peace negotiations are underway.

A final conclusion. We have chosen to counter the right with a broad alliance. The left cannot win on its own. It only had the chance to do so in the mid-1970s. But Berlinguer said that 51 per cent would not be enough to govern. And he proposed the ‘historic compromise’. A broad alliance must make all its components feel at home, including an innovative, socialist, republican and civic centre. Each component must be able to express its own distinct identity and rally its own electorate, without friction between groups. At the same time, all must be driven by a unified mission, a spirit of struggle and hope capable of winning over the electorate as a whole. It requires surgical precision, attention to detail, and the finesse of embroidery. And at the same time, it requires a steady hand and strategic direction. We have decided on a path that should define a shared programme. We are not starting from scratch. We have also chosen the route of primaries to select our leader. Perhaps other options were available. But that is how it is. Today, they must be conducted to the highest standard. We must avoid rifts, conflicts between parties, and crude clashes between the strongest personalities. It is obvious that the PD as a whole has endorsed Schlein’s candidacy. She fully deserves it. Just as the Five Star Movement has endorsed Conte’s, with whom we have governed very effectively together. But if the primaries were to be limited to mobilising the parties, activists and leaders, they would amount to very little. They would betray the spirit of an electoral contest aimed at citizens, at the people; a contest whose purpose is to gauge support for whoever is to lead the coalition, having the greatest authority and the best chance of victory. This internal process of ours is important. But it must not be overemphasised, nor should it be imbued with a decisive significance that does not belong to our culture, our tradition, or our rejection of the electoral and institutional model envisaged by the right. A system based on plebiscites, top-down decision-making and centred on the figure of the Prime Minister. For this reason, everyone must step out of their own little patch – the one where we stamp our feet so much without taking a single step forward. We must raise our sights to the decisive issue: winning the next general election.

If Meloni were to win, she would establish a regime. She would take everything, including the President of the Republic, dismantling the very bulwark of safeguards and freedom that has enabled the Republic to endure. At the age of 74, after 60 years of activism, far removed from management and any form of power, I have, together with a group of friends, revived the old and glorious publication Rinascita. Rinascita will leave each of its contributors free to vote in the primaries as they see fit. Its role is not to take sides, but to offer contributions, in-depth analysis and insights to make progressives stronger and more combative. Whereas in the past Italian communists used to invoke the hope of not dying as Christian Democrats, today our hope is not to perish within the disturbing clump of a right-wing that uses the symbols of the past to act, in the present, as the real obstacle to full human freedom.