Too many improvised “civic” candidates: thus parties adapt politics to their own inadequacy
But where is it written that voters must necessarily be great political experts? Wouldn't it be amply sufficient for them to be people with the right to vote? And that's not all: we could also ask ourselves what we mean by "politics". It is not enough to emphasize that there were too many candidates with little appeal when you want to comment on certain electoral debacles : this offered the market and those could be voted. Although the endless dispute persists over whether to nominate technical candidates or candidates of high political rank, we cannot deny that a considerable slice of the electorate is now fed up and disillusioned with the promises to change the general trend. Useless, if not annoying, the affixing of the usual and equally outdated names to the more or less civic local lists that we should vote for. We speak with disheartening superficiality, of the trite and abused concepts such as "let's change the city", "for a new city", "we love the city" and other stupid slogans that no longer convince anyone and look dangerously like yogurt advertisements.
The stark reality is that traditional parties have been dead and gone for years, and what remains of them is a jumble of purposeful unions and alliances of convenience between people who couldn't even survive a dinner without getting their hands on them. This is the case with the government and the same is the case at the local level. It is too often forgotten that the voter, too simplistically referred to as reluctant and lazy, is totally lost in the indecent cow market that surrounds him. There are two cases and tertium non datur : either those who vote are absolutely unworthy to vote, or they are too many candidates of no weight. I will probably be accused of populism, but I have the distinct feeling that so much absenteeism at the polls, so much lack of interest in those who will have to administer us is almost exclusively the result of the many gathered and improvised alignments that are smuggled to us as real electoral lists. Suffice it to consider that the civic lists, typical of the villages of the vast Italian province, are spreading even in the much more populous cities and the large parties themselves increasingly resemble large (improper) civic lists that gather people of the most varied political colors and less and less belonging to the same group cemented by the same ideological basis. Belonging to a civic list today (not just a local one) seems to have become a merit and a license of impartiality and fairness, from which the certification of being worthy to govern from the citizen to the nation would derive.
Due to a misunderstood sense of distributive equity, today we pretend to bring together absolutely incompatible people even from the character side, cloaking them in a "civility" that would overshadow everything. So we are offered without restraint aggregations of pluri-trumpets in previous elections, expelled from various parties, rampant entrepreneurs of nothingness and presumptuous boys pushed by the social wave who would like to govern us, at least formally not responding to any party, but strictly in line with a precise partisan orientation which, evidently, it is not convenient for them to flaunt. While admitting that even in the era of real parties, some sensational incompetent or unpresentable could be found among their representatives, today we have crossed the line of decency. Behind a ridiculous slogan (with a marked tendency to make "change" a merit in itself), people are being shown about whom we know little or nothing, who are proposed to us to vote with an electoral campaign that deals with everything, except their personal merits and their real skills. This happens and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. From there to being disinterested, lukewarm, whatever the step is short.
The only real indication of the latest electoral consultations seems to be the abstention to vote, to which I would add the infinite jumble of votes canceled with various insults written on the ballot. Finally, I would like to consider a sociological aspect, so to speak, of the current political situation, which should not be overlooked: not everyone should aspire to govern, at least in an ideal state. Staying in government is not a trivial matter and not feasible for everyone at a given historical moment. If you don't understand this concept, you risk a lot. Being in command of the vessel is not something for everyone and in every moment of one's existence. One could well be satisfied with the indispensable and noble role of the parliamentary opposition, at least when there are no candidates with the necessary administrative and cultural experience, the necessary capacity in politics, the necessary consent on a personal level. We see "no gentlemen" candidates, perhaps very expendable for an opposition role, but literally "burned" by those who put them to the popular vote even before making them acquire political experience and practical knowledge of administrative matters.
Okay, you are not a candidate to stand in the opposition, but you will agree with me that if a small list of little electoral weight finds itself governing today because it is united in the symbol to the large political groups, now also weak and so fearful of do not make it alone by bringing with them hordes of peons with no political future, everything would seem to be resolved in seeking convenient alliances rather than inserting candidates of value. Something, much more than something, is not working in this inextricable electoral system that everyone would like to change but that everyone is complicating more and more.
Even in these days we are talking about candidates of little weight who have flopped in this administrative round and this should, at least, suggest a reflection: it will not be that the big parties of today (even if it would be more correct to speak of aggregations of parties) are they too intent on looking after the image of their leader exclusively rather than looking for second-rate exponents of indisputable value and competence who can take home votes for their own merit rather than those of the leader of that coalition? We continue to discuss Salvini, Letta, Renzi and Meloni as if they should be the mayor in Milan or Rome, without even knowing what one of their candidates does in life in those cities. Would the alternative be the civic lists? It can be, provided that the citizens who have to vote for "Together for Vattelapesca" or "Cambiamo Vattelapesca" are no more than five hundred. In medium and large Italian cities, parties should be candidates, the real ones and without too many associated lists. Not if they are capable? Don't have the numbers or the candidates? They stay home and change jobs. Too easy and incorrect to adapt the rules of politics to one's own inadequacy.
And again, one last observation: but what is this story that the government wants to be in order to "control" its historical enemies? With whom are ministries shared? Who is in government, governments, and who is in the opposition face opposition. Let's put things right, once and for all.
The post Too many improvised “civic” candidates: this is how parties adapt politics to their own inadequacy appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/troppi-candidati-civici-improvvisati-cosi-i-partiti-adattano-la-politica-alla-propria-inadeguatezza/ on Wed, 06 Oct 2021 03:49:00 +0000.