This is how the reformists of the Democratic Party scold Elly Schlein
Theses and criticisms that emerge from the document by Stefano Ceccanti, Enrico Morando and Giorgio Tonini, the reformists of the Pd. Paola Sacchi's note
The document by the reformists of the Democratic Party, Stefano Ceccanti, Enrico Morando, Giorgio Tonini, published the day before yesterday by Repubblica.it , was like a stone in the pond of malaise of the so-called moderate dem, amidst criticisms and abandonments. The three exponents, also promoters of the “Libertà Eguale” association, have always been the reformist critical conscience of the left. But tones and words in which they say to Pd leader Elly Schlein, no "to a regression towards an identity antagonism", no to "Aventine" temptations on institutional reforms so as not to give the center-right "the wealth of proposals" that was Ulivo and then the Democratic Party, are clearer and more explicit than usual.
The exhortation is to build a "credible government proposal" and not, in essence, to chase after the Five Stars to get more percentages. The constitutional lawyer Ceccanti in an interview with Agi last night underlined: "No tears", but "between unanimism and nothing" urges the need for "debates, even lively ones", which do not mean "tears in parliament".
Therefore, referring to the Labor party, discussions such as those that took place between the radical Corbyn and the moderate Starmer, then "voting discipline with the secretariat". But "the reformists must be given practicability". Ceccanti, Morando and Tonini affirm in the document that it is a "duty to bring to life an alternative vision and proposal to that of Schlein". They explain: “Secretary Schlein has every right to attempt to implement the political-cultural and programmatic platform with which she won the congress. We, who have clearly opposed that platform, highlighting the risk of a regression towards an identity antagonism inconsistent with the very nature of the Democratic Party as a party with a majority vocation, have not only the right, but also the duty to bring to life (and to perceive outside the party) a vision, a political culture and a programmatic proposal that is distinct and, in many respects, an alternative to that of Schlein".
The three former parliamentarians of the reformist Democratic Party immediately say: no to splits but also no to excluding those who do not agree. They argue: "Splits by minorities defeated in regular Congresses, as well as the solicitations to sit outside addressed by unaware and arrogant majorities to those who do not share the political line and choices of the pro-tempore leader, are to be avoided like the plague".
When "Schlein – they continue – seems tempted in terms of institutional reforms to take refuge in the Aventine Hill, with the fallacious argument that it would not be a priority issue on the country's agenda, it is up to us reformists to openly contest a choice which, contradicting a of the architraves of the Pd platform and, before that, of the Ulivo of 1996, would end up transferring free of charge to the right a patrimony of institutional reformism constitutive of the very identity of the Democratic Party”.
"Of course, Schlein can ignore these solicitations from the reformist minority and continue on his path", they write again, but "it will be a pity, because in this way the Democratic Party will perhaps be able to recover a few percentage points to the detriment of the M5S, but will not be able to reduce distance from Meloni on the ground that really matters: the credibility of the government proposal ”. “The fear of not being able to change Schlein's orientation cannot, however, lead us to resigned silence in the post-congress phase: there is a large part of the centre-left electorate that needs a solid reference, and today cannot find it . The reformists of the Democratic Party, with a visible battle of ideas within the party, can provide it to them”, they conclude.
The three reformist exponents, in the document, also dispute the fact that merit is demonized in the Democratic Party. Morando, in this regard, in the annual appointment in Orvieto last autumn had recalled the elaboration of Craxi's Psi on "Merits and needs". As for the reforms, the three recall that the Ulivo in 1996 was already in favor of an indication from the government at the time of the vote.
With the Agi Ceccanti returns to the objective of the appeal: to give space and political viability to those who are not convinced by the position of the secretariat of the Democratic Party, without thereby arriving at traumatic "snags". The dem constitutionalist says: “There are several issues on which the position of the secretariat does not convince everyone. It is legitimate: Schlein won the congress and has the right to carry forward his proposal". However, he adds, "during the congress, a political and cultural proposal emerged which has full citizenship within the Democratic Party and which, in an updated way, must live". This proposal is the one represented by the former Bonaccini motion. “President Bonaccini rightly has other priorities, all the more so today, the citizens he governs ask him for,” explains Ceccanti referring to the emergency in Emilia-Romagna which sees the governor and president of the Democratic Party at the forefront. And, however, “we need to give space to those who don't share this approach. There is a request to bring to life another cultural and political paradigm. We believe that the Democratic Party is a contestable party. And that it is a good thing that alternative proposals to those of the pro tempore secretariat live permanently in the Democratic Party ”.
For Ceccanti, this does not mean that 'snags' in parliamentary passages or, worse, spills should arrive. On the contrary, “we can, indeed we must vote in Parliament in line with the indications of the secretariat, safeguarding the internal discussion. Parties with a majority vocation are made up of discipline in voting, but of freedom in internal expressions. Even Corbyn, in Labour, was criticized by the area that referred to Keir Starmer, but then everyone voted together in Parliament”. Keir Starmer of the Democratic Party, mutatis mutandi, who could it be?, asks the Agi . Ceccanti: c”It is not a current question, nor of preserving previous currents. Today Bonaccini has its own needs, even immediate ones. But a large party, as Arturo Parisi observed, does not place its adherents and voters between one congress and another facing the alternative between unanimism or nothing, either as splits or as abandonments. Discipline around who won and even unscrupulous vitality of debate must go together ”, concludes the constitutionalist and former dem deputy, who has already voted three yeses with others from his area in the referendums on justice of the Lega and Radicali.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/ecco-come-i-riformisti-del-pd-rimbrottano-elly-schlein/ on Sat, 20 May 2023 07:32:15 +0000.