If the center-right loses, the center-left does not win, even though it wins, and the 5 Star Movement, for its part, despite the unedifying results justified by the inexistence of its own political history rooted at the local level, does not disappear. quite but almost. In spite of everything and everyone. However, if the numerical data on the Territories still manages to assume its relevance, net of the merits and de-merits of the individual party components, and beyond the judicial scandals that have invested the sovereign formations of the "pseudo-right" close to the electoral competition, a double order of circumstances emerged with extreme clarity: the now "institutionalized" abstentionism on the one hand, which is configured as a precise and conscious political choice, and the excellent "reservist" positioning of the Democratic Party in all the big cities that will go to the ballot for each other.
Well. The sum of these components opens up an absolutely unprecedented scenario on the basis of which the managerial apparatus of the next "tomorrow" could be built. All the more so when, in recent times, the progressive, almost uninterrupted increase in the phenomenon of "non-voting" seems to have affected electoral competitions of every order and importance, distinguishing itself, in terms of its intensity, solely on the level of the differential gap directly found in the single circumstance. "Mutatis mutandis", and in essence, I believe that in the face of the widespread apathy that seems to characterize the so-called "party mobilization", the levels of popular participation were more consistent only where the "personal mobilization" of the individual was significantly incisive candidate who, through his own subjective qualities, has been able to appropriately make himself known and recognized, and consequently orient the vote of potential voters.
It can be deduced from this, if in these terms we can really read the results of these "administrative", that the decision of individuals to participate in the vote was directly conditioned by a premeditated, well-oriented basic subjective "choice", which not only inevitably suffers all the uncertainties of the provisional nature may well not be reconfirmed on the occasion of the ballot, but, even, betrays the so-called "identification principle" party, in fact set aside as a distant memory of what was the "First Republic". Meanwhile, because through the mechanisms of "personalization" of the vote that also seem to have characterized this electoral round, the choice of the elector remains conditioned by the "appeal" exercised by individual candidates (more than by their leaders) regardless of their party militancy . Therefore, because, consequently, it was the action of solicitation of those same candidates, and in rare cases of their leaders (for example Giorgia Meloni for the right and Enrico Letta for the left), to push the citizens, those irreducible few , to take action to express their conditioning choice.
Finally, because only thanks to that "activism" was it possible, in the specific circumstance, to try to put a stop to the crisis of "party mobilization" by postponing its devastating consequences to a "tomorrow" uncertain both in the "if" and in the "when ". Therefore, valuation caution is imposed with the characteristics of necessity: I am aware of it. Especially in a context where the only constant is represented by behavioral inhomogeneity which, obviously, makes it extremely difficult to trace a medium-long term "trend", and above all because, in the same circumstance of time and place, it would not be possible, nor is it appropriate, to neglect the fact that electoral competition of municipal importance, and to some extent of regional importance, always and in any case places itself in a position of autonomy and peculiarity with respect to that of national significance in order to be dominated, the latter, by very different dynamics not always referable to a mechanism of "centralized personalization" of the vote. But that's not all: how to interpret, and / or justify, for example, the attitude of the less well-off social classes, those of the peripheries, to be clear, which have significantly abstained from voting, setting up a silent but still decisive rebellion on do you hesitate? Would it be correct to define such an attitude as an expression of the crisis of the populist right of Salvinian origin, inspiring the growing feeling of popular disillusionment? Is it possible that the poor, increasingly poor and forgotten, in front of a government (acclaimed by all political representatives) that seems to only serve the interests of the great centers of power, have decided to decline the vote?
Of course yes, it seems obvious to me: for this reason even the Democratic Party does not win even by winning. And the fact that he rejoices at the result reported among the wealthier classes of the big cities only testifies that it is now light years away from the "working class" of the past and present. It also testifies that it has not yet been acknowledged that what is lacking is an appreciable political proposal capable of bringing back to unity a social fabric definitively torn by an alleged "government of the best" populated by the "Methuselahs" of the old bankruptcy policy.
If these are the best, then it seems to me "it was better when it was worse". And I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Net of the hypocrisies, we entered the vortex of democratic and civil "decadence", and the party representatives, abdicating their role, preferred to rely on an apolitical "ferryman" to let the so-called "dirty work" do say) requested by the "stepmother" Europe that they did not have the courage to do. Everything else, even these administrative ones, are a direct consequence of this.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer - Nuoro)