Another gift to the right: the PD, populism, and art. 68
This blog was opened on November 16, 2011, the date of Monti's oath, to demand the need for intrinsically political decisions, such as those concerning the distribution of income, not to be devolved to technical governments, especially when these were hardly at ease with the technique they claimed to be inspired by, which made it clearly legible, for anyone who had a minimum of tools and the will to do it, how this technique was nothing other than the continuation of politics, with other means and outside the mechanism of weights and counterweights that characterize modern democracies, at least in theory…
Over the course of these long years we have investigated the subversive mechanisms that allowed the political will democratically expressed by the popular vote to be obliterated. This led us to delve into the theory of "external constraint", that is, in short, the devolution of crucial decisions to bodies placed " sheltered from the electoral process " (an expression dear, in fact, to Monti, who openly claimed the opportunity of prevent voters from being able to look after their own interests!) in the name of rule-based supranational governance . In short, the infamous "Europe is asking us!", to which I titled my first somewhat successful video, which was taken down at the time by the YouTube fascists (but we'll talk about this later).
The organic link between the two forms of anti-politics has always been clear to us: the sans-culotte and the grisaille one. The anti-politics of "if I know how to tycoon everything" went and goes hand in hand with the anti-politics of "rigor" and "rules". On closer inspection, the first served no other purpose than to create popular consensus for the second, or even simply to make it plausible, acceptable by public opinion. The most decisive strategic success on the part of the great economic powers was undoubtedly that of convincing the voters that the political game was a competitive game between them and the elected officials, a game whose aim was precisely to defeat the elected officials, to reduce them to impotence, as if there existed an incompressible quantum of power that could be exercised either by the elected officials or by the voters, and which, if taken away from the elected officials, would magically return to the hands of the voters, perhaps by virtue of the mythological online vote with which anyone could, from your own sofa, approve or reject, let's say, the amendments to the budget law!
If you are here it is because you are evolved enough to understand that it is very difficult to be more incisive by weakening those who bring your voice to institutional offices. Those who did not understand it immediately understood it, perhaps on the contrary, in the Rincoglionitico, that geological era in which we saw things that we humans could not believe. If you are here, you were not surprised when the useful idiots of the PD, i.e. the orthopterans, converged on the PD, as I told you many years ago . If you are here, you are also there because you have understood the role of the judiciary in preserving and imposing a certain political direction, but above all, preliminarily, in creating and nourishing that anti-political climate which, by compressing the legislative and the executive, gave way to the uncontested and unchallengeable action of the judicial power (which manifests itself not only in the ordinary judiciary, but also in the administrative and accounting ones).
As I have had the opportunity to highlight several times, in Italy there is not a problem of separation of powers: there is a gigantic problem of imbalance between powers, caused by the emotional reaction of the political classes to the Mani Pulite shock. At the bottom of this imbalance, constructed and justified by sowing discredit on the legislative power, there is no better world: there is only a world in which the judicial order will be discredited, exactly as at the bottom of the scientism with which the management of the pandemic we end up not with a healthier world, but with a world in which the scientific profession has been discredited. For goodness sake! Napoleon said never to interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake and it is sufficiently evident these days that the anxiety of doing politics is politically weakening the judiciary. However, I continue to be a sentimentalist, or, if you like, an institutionalist, and I would prefer to avoid this game of massacre, which is definitely a negative-sum game.
Just to connect to the theme of the previous post: in a phase in which the negative consequences of immigrationism emerge with daily prominence, episodes such as that of magistrates who cancel the transfer of illegal immigrants by referring them to the CJEU expose the judiciary to being considered a passive transmission belt of the external constraint. More generally, the justice reform that everyone hopes for, in one way or another, because no one is willing to say that it is not necessary, that everything is fine as it is, and that in any case our voters are asking us, clearly not can never be completed as long as the legislative power is under the blackmail of the judicial power. “I separate careers!” “And I'm putting you under investigation, so you can also learn how to take away my state flight!”… I don't know if that's exactly how it went, but the fact that it seems that way is enough to raise the doubt that something isn't working as it should.
In short, to make a long story short: restoring a minimum balance of power, in my opinion, would be very convenient for the judiciary, even if it would deprive its current political shareholders of an important lever to impose their own direction.
And since we are not "copy paste craftsmen" here, but we try to propose an anticipatory (and in any case original) vision, I will tell you how I think this story will end: exactly like that of the courts of truth that I told you about way back 2017, predicting that they would be a gift to the right across Europe . The left (adjective) did not understand, and today that the situation, as was easy to foresee, has been reversed, they whine about the hegemony of the techno-rights (?), when instead they could have made a speech in defense of freedom of expression (to me anti-fascism was taught like this: as a reaction to fascism's claim to impose a single discourse), building defenses of this freedom from which they could now benefit, or at least not dismantling those that were there, with a gesture of hubris that is incomprehensible to me!
I therefore predict that today the left (adjective) to defend the rape of the 1948 Constitution will kick the ball into the stands with demagogic appeals to popular sentiment (?), like the one I reported above, but since the world is moving to the right, and since a judiciary visibly aligned to the left helps, not hinders, this inevitable process after years of globalization and austerity, once again, in the end, leaving some victims on the ground, we will find ourselves paradoxically to benefit from an imbalance that we would have preferred not to exist. You have to be very optimistic or very stupid to want a more unjust, more unbalanced world, in a period in which you are destined to lose ground.
We lost the fight against the courts of truth, and we left people like Claudio Messora on the ground, who nevertheless got up and continued to fight (but the video I cared about more than all the others is no longer there), until Trump sounded the end of the recess… We will also lose the battle for a healthy balance between powers, but, in the end, we will benefit from the imbalance first indirectly (as a growth of consensus) and then directly (as majority shareholders) . This will allow us to arrive in the right place by taking the wrong path, but, as we know, a revolution is not a gala lunch, nor is it an academic seminar.
Meanwhile, I am pleased to have allowed the Einaudi foundation to find a press room in which to present its proposal:
I hope you appreciate the fact that when it comes to important issues instead of doing the ritual display of purity and hardness à la Rizzo, Trombetta, etc., I leave aside what I know and focus on what I want, and that, if a I know you a little, I who gathered you here and here I contributed to giving you an identity, you too want: a little more democracy, the possibility of influencing your destiny a little more.
Let's see how it goes.
I, as usual, have done my best to take the surprise away from you, but, as always, I hope to be surprised myself.
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2025/02/un-altro-regalo-alla-destra-il-pd-il.html on Mon, 03 Feb 2025 19:58:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.