While in Italy Mario Draghi desperately tries to carve out a role for himself in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as overwhelmed by the fear, rather than founded, of sinking into "anonymity", in France, two great leaders, expressions of opposing fronts, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen , compete in "single combat" by competing for the Presidency of the country. In favor of which of the two, therefore, should the French express their preference? What instinct, and / or what inspiration, should they follow in order to make an optional choice between two distinct conceptions of the country in its internal power relations and in its international relations? What circumstances can contribute to direct and condition such a choice in the awareness of the potential practical / legal / political and relational consequences of that option? Why, once again, can't Marine le Pen prevail in the electoral competition?
Let us be clear however: it is not a question of having a "magic lamp" and / or of talking purely and simply of an event which, all in all, appears to be over-evaluated due to the obviousness of its outcome. Rather, it is a question of understanding why the so-called "sovereign" right (as if to mean, and erring in this, that the left, on the other hand, are not), with the exception of the most well-known and vilified of "historical experiences", fail, at present, to impose themselves seriously and widely as government forces. And it is also a question of understanding to what extent, and how, Europeanism and its founding values are effectively rooted in the Francophone social fabric. Basically, and translating it in a nutshell, it is a question of understanding, therefore, how much and / or what the French people are willing to sacrifice since both one and the other choice will be far from devoid of consequences.
And I am convinced, indeed, deeply convinced, that it will be the respective narrative representations of the near future of the country that will make the difference, to act as a needle in the balance regarding the choice, to take hold on a People who, despite episodic phenomena of exasperated nationalism and anachronistically understood extremist, he is known for preferring the gratifying and reassuring moderation of his own "leader maximus". In other words, and to be clearer: if the Italians, generally, and especially in recent years, have shown themselves to be responsive to the instrumental solicitations of those who have shown greater sensitivity, albeit in the inconclusiveness of the practical act, with respect to the concerns of the people common to the newspaper, in France, despite Marine Le Pen's undeniable promotional commitment in this sense, such an equation may not reflect the expected and hoped-for effects.
The reason for this condition is so obvious that it does not even need further specifications. Meanwhile, because French "nationalism", the rooted one, I mean, passes through and is based on the Europeanist idea, strongly characterized by the belief that being French translates and declines into being above all "European citizens", despite everything and despite all. Therefore, why, the propaganda on migratory phenomena so insistently cleared by Marine Le Pen, not only ends up breaking down a door now open and as such with a painless implication, but cannot in any way break through the hearts of its People, accustomed to live according to the dynamics of integration and inclusion reflected, even, and for several years ago, also in the architectural and urban structures of your capital.
Finally, because, undeniably, anti-European sentiments are certainly less widespread than they were five years ago among a population that, "mutatis mutandis", has always shown itself willing to conceive its future in the context of a strengthened supra-national dimension. within which to express one's supremacy. From this point of view, Emmanuel Macron's strength, which undoubtedly will eventually prevail, was, and is, precisely that of indissolubly tying his daring internal reform programs to his no less ambitious and tightened conception of relaunching and strengthening of the process of European integration, placing its political action on the parallel competitive track directly parameterizing it to that of Berlin, with a view to the constant consolidation of an axis, the Franco-German one, which has always been successful in the Union context.
Compared to the one who is defined, almost sufficiently, as a "State Woman", Emmanuel Macron, as outgoing President, has always supported and favored the affirmation of a "global" and "globalizing" strategy aimed at amplifying the international role of Paris contributing, for this very reason, to make France a "mediating" and "median" power capable of proposing itself as a driving force for change in Europe and, as such, to propose it as a reliable interlocutor with respect to other world powers: China, Russia and the United States. If anything, the obstacle of times that has come to impose itself, should induce Emmanuel Macron himself to review certain strategic positions considered up to now reassuring, if he really wanted to become the interpreter and protagonist of an innovative challenge subsumed in the need to understand the global changes taking place in order to meet the needs of an old and disintegrated Europe that needs to be prepared to adapt to this innovative process of changing global assets which, evidently, Marine Le Pen, closed in her primordially understood nationalistic instincts, could never be able to represent if not contradicting its own political history and its educational growth path.
However, and likewise, it is unthinkable that it could be the sole will of a Leader (Emmanuel Macron), who is not inclined to share the conditioning and strategic structure of other European competitors, to make the aforementioned change process current and concrete, since the latter, far from being imposed sic et simpliciter on European citizens, can only build its foundations on the evergreen concept of respect for the values of pluralism that characterize the European Union as a whole as well as the different communities that compose it . Otherwise, Marine Le Pen, in the hypothesis, sincerely not believed, of victory, will have before her the task, perhaps less simple, of preparing the country to welcome its re-positioning within the European political dynamics, and of redesigning the structure of relations between France itself, Brussels, Moscow and Budapest.
As for Italy, on the other hand, and the recent policies carried out by Mario Draghi as a solicitous vassal of the Atlantic Power of Stars and Stripes, certainly, the entry of Marine Le Pen to the Elysée would help to make relational relations more uncertain and vacillating. dialogue between the two countries, favoring not only their progressive isolation, but also the gradual process of crumbling of what still remains of the European Union as traditionally understood. In short, if we carefully consider, the central node around which the complex of potential answers to innovative world questions is structured, seems destined to unfold in the context of an opposing dynamic dialectic between pro-European forces and extremist forces opposed to integration, which, obviously , are inclined to find their strength in the battle waged in the name of the re-affirmation of the popular class which, in turn and curiously, in its alternative political implication, also constitutes the necessary element for the establishment in an attempt to counteract the populist rise. Having said that, the near future of the European Union remains linked to the outcome of the French presidential elections, and certainly, that for Emmanuel Macron continues to appear as the least traumatic choice.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer - Nuoro)
