Therefore, the impossible did not happen. With a jolt of “national responsibility”, Silvio Berlusconi finally threw in the towel. It is difficult to say whether he surrendered to the registry office or to arithmetic. Whether his was really the first senile whim or the last dream of glory. That his “I had the numbers but I retire”, written in black and white in an official statement that sounds like a moral testament, is not very credible. And even incredible is the psychodrama that was unleashed around that statement, between the usual doubts about the health of the Chief-no-longer-suitable-figure and the usual suspects on the dark plots of the Forza-League rite. The fact is that his “Great Refusal” in the race to the Hill closes the pathetic phase one of the pseudo State-party negotiations on the election of the next President of the Republic, and opens a phase two that promises to be dramatic. The tattered center-right granted the Knight a useless ride, out of deference or foolishness. The shattered center-left got lost in the whirlpool of triangular and bilateral meetings at Casa Conte and Casa Renzi which, like the trains of Casa Jep Gambardella, “lead nowhere”.
In fact, after a week of false movement and just twenty-four hours from the fateful “first call” of the assembled Chambers, we are now exactly here: nowhere. In the non-place of a policy that has had months and months available to argue about the profile, think about the identikit and finally converge on the name of the new Head of State. And who instead now finds himself wandering aimlessly and facing the crucial appointment like a leap in the dark.
With an honest but outgoing president like Sergio Mattarella, who retires to Palermo in order not to attend the sad Roman liturgies, not before having set his indispensable priority for weeks: do not force my hand, because ours is a parliamentary republic and not a constitutional monarchy, and therefore it is up to you to assume the honor and the burden of choosing my successor. With an authoritative but intolerant premier like Mario Draghi, who for a month has drawn attention to his imperative need: the majority that elects the next tenant of the Colle cannot be different from that which supports the current government of (self-styled) “unity national “, under penalty of the fall of the same. And with an Italy still suspended, between the blows of the tail of an Omicron that kills and infects and unfortunately is not yet Omega, and the whiplash of an inflation that bleeds families and businesses not only with the expensive bill, but now even with the dear-bread, the dear-pasta, the dear-coffee.
This was not the “Quirinal Game” that the country expected, let alone what it deserves. It was not the usual painful little theater of secret meetings and crossed vetoes. The usual game of opposing candidates, thrown onto the field and shot down one after the other as happens in the grim South Korean reality show. We’re not on Netflix here, there’s no Squid at stake. We are in the Parliament of the fifth democracy on the planet, and what is at stake is the nation’s most important office. With unresolved emergencies looming, with more than 300 victims mainly No Vax reaped by the pandemic and an extra energy cost of 37 billion that threatens to jeopardize the recovery of the economy, it was legitimate to hope for a solid no-partisan pact, which would allow the large Voters to vote for the best that Italy can deliver. Maybe at the first try, as happened not so much for Francesco Cossiga, but for Carlo Azeglio Ciampi in 1999, a season of another emergency and another challenge, that of the euro, which the country was able to face and win. This time, in an even more critical bend in history, this is not the case. The first three votes that start tomorrow, with a two-thirds majority, turn into a meaningless stress test. And from the fourth onwards, with an absolute majority, they transfigure into Russian roulette. Yet another symptom of a country that does not heal. As the Suddeutsche Zeitung writes: “If the election were to go on for a long time, Italy would risk losing the international credibility it had just regained, and go back to the days of old clichés, when it was said” it is always the same Italy “… sad sight “.
We don’t want to take lessons from anyone. Not even by the Germans, since only two months ago the then Chancellor Angela Merkel said “I envy Italy for how it is dealing with the virus”. And a month ago the Economist awarded us as “The nation of the year”. But in the face of the “sad spectacle” of these hours, how can you blame those who within or beyond the borders are afraid of the same system crisis that had led to Draghi’s descent into the field, and who now risk block the most delicate institutional transition and perhaps drag the executive into the abyss as well? For these reasons, hoping for an orderly development of political confrontation and a transversal agreement on a “high-profile figure” whose secretaries fill their mouths unnecessarily, our newspaper had taken a clear line from the beginning: in a normal country a prime minister who governs well and has brought the nation back to the honors of the world continues to do so, while the parties find a head of state at the height, among the best resources or reserves of the republic.
If, on the other hand, this convergence is impossible, then we share the idea of bringing Draghi himself to the Hill. Because today’s Italy can afford everything, except to leave the man who is restoring credibility and trust on the bench, after having represented it at the highest levels at the Bank of Italy and the ECB. If for Berlusconi it could be said “better one day as a squirrel than another seven years as a caiman”, for Draghi it could be better said seven years at the Quirinale, as guarantor of the Constitution and of Atlantic and pro-European loyalty, rather than another year in government in nanny of a majority already in the electoral campaign in view of the 2023 vote. After what is happening, and barring sensational but unlikely reopenings on Mattarella, we remain convinced that this remains the main road. Sure, it gets there the worst way. But Draghi still remains the most convincing candidate and the “second best” of all the strengths (or weaknesses) left on the field. The best guarantee on the financial stability of an Italy with the highest debt in Europe. The most solid barrier to sovereign regurgitation. The only “life insurance” for Salvini and Meloni, if the Italians really choose to entrust them with the government next year.
I wonder what demon the leaders inhabit at this juncture. The only thing that matters is to protect the national interest. Seeking the common good. Sit around a table, all together, and choose the person who best meets these requirements. What does it matter to be the “kingmaker”? What remains of that medal over time? Veltroni, Fini and Casini were Ciampi’s deserving kingmakers, twenty-six years ago: has this changed his life politically? It does not seem. And it was not enough for Veltroni’s Democratic Party to avoid resigning after the defeat at the regional level, nor for An di Fini to die out (Casini deserves a separate reasoning, like all long-time Christian Democrats). Renzi was the excellent kingmaker of Mattarella, seven years ago. Despite this, according to the polls, today his Italia Viva fluctuates between 2 and 3 percent. Italy is in dire need of stability and trust. While the 1009 are preparing for the ordeal, we just have to invoke Benedetto Croce at the Constituent Assembly of ’46: come, Creator Spiritus.