Explanation of vote: between the post-ideological society and the Cumaean Sibyl

This below is what I published in Italian on this blog 2 days ago on the eve of the Italian elections. Now that we know that the result is a kind of ungovernable situation, I would like to ressure all those who don't live in Italy. This is not a so bad result, after all. Financial markets may be worried, but among those who were elected in the M5S there's a clean and responsible Italy, at least no less than those who governed until now. They can fade away from their purposals (they are perfect unknown normal citizens, no history of reliability), but if they will not, this can be an acceptable new beginning. Financial markets and Euro-gurus can relax, just is what is just and not what is necessary (for whom?). And Italy needs justice first, now.
 
<<Five years ago, in the last elections for the Italian Parliament, I wrote on this blog a reflection that I ventured to call "Small essay on Italy humiliated at vote". Many things have happened since then. First, in the meantime I left my country because of the muddy wave that took possession of it, I spent more than two years in Istanbul, a kind of self-imposed exile. In the meantime, then I came back to Italy for 2 years and live in Naples, a difficult city that this monetary and social crisis is paying from the forefront. And, nevertheless, at the forefront I set myself.
 
I REPEAT 5 YEARS LATER
I do not know if Italy will be released humiliated by the vote this time as well. According to the parameters specified in the small essay of above, the result should be not different in substance, but it must be admitted that this time, after five years, at least a change is on the table, it is possible, this was discussed during the election campaign and not about Roma people who steal children or bayonets concealed in the Alps and other amenities. Change in the country, that does not mean it is necessarily a change for the better, but frankly, the view and the Italian political debate were so stale that a change has become a value in itself and a need. Regardless.
In the short essay I did a proposal that if not in the program, but it is certainly in the debate proposed by one of the lists candidate in elections today, 5 years later. My proposal was the referendum Saturdays. The list candidate in this election, which is discussing it, is the 5 Stars Movement (M5S).
In other words, without going now into the merits of the M5S experience, I find an overlap between what I want and what this election list grows: the overcoming of the "party" form. I think the concept of the party is a heritage or, to be less severe, a offshoot of the institution of Parliament. The Parliament, in all the republics of all times and latitudes, is the place where a small minority of persons, authorized by all others, discusses and decides the fate of the entire community or country (in the best case, but at least this is the definition). The Parliament is the heart of democracy. With the "d". Because is the beating heart of elective or representative democracy, the highest form of democracy ever conceived in the course of human history. Which is false. But Democracy with the capital letter is a state difficult to reproduce, but certainly perfectible mechanisms can be far devised by mankind.

DEMOCRACY AND THE LIKE
For the convictions I expressed in the small and motivated essay, I do not believe in Western democracy, that in fact representative. I do not feel protected in my rights and I see no reason why I should delegate my decision-making power to unknown people who have the (not legitimate) power for 5 years to dispose of my mandate in the most disparate and arbitrary way they like. I believe in the experience of direct democracy, a small group of people who get together and decide for themselves. I believe in the consensus process. I believe in the policy promoted by informed citizens, involved actors and not extras in columns along the paths traced by the parties.
The republican form of government in Continental modern history has established itself as the overcoming of monarchies and empires. The masses, made by people suddenly defined citizens, suddenly were allowed to decide the fate of their country. They were no longer subjects, they became direct owners of "their" country. But participate in the fate of the country was only possible through a form, no matter how noble the intent, of representation. For obvious logistical reasons. In reason of this representation, the need for citizens to gather in formations that defend the interests of some of their classes or simply resume the philosophy of the citizen in search of a representation. The parties were born to fulfill this function, collect and convey the consensus. Now, this is the representative democracy. One answer, the then best possible, to the problem of the convergence of the general will. The then best possible, at the time when European monarchies and empires have fallen. Now that answer is not enough. Or, to put it better, now that answer is exceeded. I say this without fear of appearing as a fanatic of new technologies. On the contrary, we live in a society of empty containers often and media often without meanings to be conveyed. But this time at least I think it would be to use the technology without idolizing it but using it to reach an utopia technically already at hand. Through a campaign of general alphabetization with the delivery of appropriate equipment, we could do so that the citizens of a country are directly involved in all decisions that affect them. Iceland has already done it for the drafting of the new constitution. Simply.

THE POST-IDEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
So I wonder naively (not question is naive, it is naive to make it), why undergo the ordeal of entering a booth to sign an "X" (in fact remained the same since the first elections at the time when most citizens were illiterate and an "X" was the only stroke of a pen on paper that it was fair to ask)? Why a citizen should support the program of people who does not know and with whom he never spoke entrusting him for five years the option not to implement this or that program, but basically to fend for the benefit of themselves and their relatives?
Of course, the so-called "moral issue" only makes it more clear (and urgent). But it is a matter of system. Abolition of Parliament, following abolition of political parties and the establishment of web referendum Saturdays extended to all citizens. This is what I want. This, at present, is the best answer to the problem of how to manage the society. And the only one that would, balanced and oiled, give me a sense of participation in the will of my country.
There are many people, some real gurus from the opposition (proverbially fierce in Italy ...), many even among those with whom I shared my social and political life, who abhor the post-ideological society and come to miss the figure of the party-family, house-party, party-dad and even a little bit mom. Criticizable, refoundable, forgivable, but still the party. On the contrary I do not feel orphaned. It 'a very long time now I've stopped believing the party, as lightning was my season as elector. But now I think that parties should dissolve, it is a necessity. Not only would fail when their parliamentary function is over, but because it is a form of participation exceeded and I have to say not at all a guarantee of democracy. I would like the policy of the citizens to be expressed through individual and targeted campaigns. This is the most efficient and reasonable form of political participation. Tell me what we are discussing: public water, roads to be paved, railway lines to be built, payable taxes, events to be organized, anything, about everything campaigns can be started. In a campaign is required one thing: joining the campaign. Then on other things you may disagree. Of each campaign, taken one by one, you can find a consensus pragmatically and reasonably operational. And we vote. From home. Each of us.
You don't need apparatus, commissions, political parties, programs. There is no money to spend, once they reach web alphabetization. Many campaigns offer many questions on which the citizen can directly intervene by taking part, supporting, modifying, integrating, voting. I, for my part, after all I have always been in politics by doing nothing but this. I have always been involved in campaigns. There is a question, a group of people, a common goal, a common struggle, a common commitment: that's enough, that's all I care about. Rarely, in fact we have seen a common vote then at the end of these campaigns and struggles, such as a referendum, but almost always only not legitimate choices of corrupt people imposed on our heads.
In the end, thinking about it, it would be restored the direct democracy of Athens, which needs to be completed by the inclusion of all social classes, of course. Today the agora can be the web, where other forms of aggregation and discussion are not possible for logistical reasons.
 
VITTORIO DOESN'T VOTE, FIGHTS
Last November, a documentary film titled "The man with the megaphone" was presented at the International Film Festival of Rome. I made it in the indifference of those who should have supported and is now roughly in the same situation despite the opinions always very positive. But it is not this work what I want to talk about, but of its protagonist, Vittorio Passeggio. Vittorio is a urban Don Quixote, a little hero who fought for nearly 40 years in solitary, from below, in the very first line, and on the side of the weak, in the toughest buildings (the "Vele") in the toughest neighborhood (Scampia ) of the toughest city of Italy (Naples). Only for this should be dedicated a statue to him.
For some months I do not talk with him any more, because a disease or rather a long wave of melancholy and disappointment that has wrapped him. So I can not ask him what he thinks of these elections. I'm sorry, I would have listened, as always, with great interest. But I remember a phrase he once said (about the then upcoming election for mayor of Naples held in the spring of 2011), one of his peremptory phrases that come out of the genius and there are fixed between the surprise and the unvarnished truth:
"Who is a candidate in the end? Morcone, Lettieri, De Magistris. Always them. And the worker when goes to power? Never".
This from a man who for 40 years (as he says) did the "yes-man" for the party is a tombstone on this Italy. He didn't want to vote De Magistris. Then he surrendered:
"I vote for him because I do not want them to return, those whom we chased in '45", the fascists.
I know, Vittorio, once again, has repented. And how much this last final disappointment is going through in this bad period only he knows.
I do not know if they will return, the fascists, dear Vittorio, but rather a blow to the back or an exile in some distant region of the world than this insidious mediocrity masquerading as civic engagement that never leads anywhere. Here there are only two powers facing each other, but this does not mean siding with one of the two can give meaning to our lives. The party for which you have planted a flag in a remote and forgotten corner of Italy, is nothing but a sham. Your party, everything that you have always struggled for, does not exist. It is in your example. And you are my greatest happiness as Italian returned to Italy. You are the proof that not all Italians were stoned and that they are the real insane.
You know, Vittorio, and if one day you find out that the parties create the ideologies and not vice versa? If it were not for the fascist party, perhaps there would not be even the fascists. For this ideological divisions today are the posthumous of a system of organization of consent. Without parties, ideologies die and ideas remain. And people would begin not to chase ideologies scattered in any direction, but to demand ideas, here and now.
 
EXPLANATION OF VOTE
Now, in conclusion, the explanation of vote. Which in my case is always a tedious exercise, because it is already very well known. I do not vote.
However I don't forget the more than two years abroad when reading the blog of Beppe Grillo was the way to hear something positive coming from Italy, something to proudly display to my foreign friends in times of bunga-bunga, layoffs and deliria of an old maniac. It was a way to imagine Italy not for what it was but for what it could have been.
I wrote: I do not vote. Therefore it is not my job to defend Grillo from many critics (almost all free and prompted by envy and fear for those who fear they must have, by the way: the management of the relationship with the Italian press this I can understand, just with him they complain if he does not answer questions, they, the Italian journalists, who in 20 years have not been able to make one question, the only one that mattered, to the right man: "Berlusconi, who gave you the money to launch your empire?" ). I tell you, there are some criticisms that I feel myself moving. Never mind the ideas of man Grillo (just to mention a topic, immigration, we're pretty far away), but is the structure 5 Stars Movement that does not convince me and worries me a little. "Each one is worth one" is the slogan. So it would be in the post-ideological society. But a couple of them are worth a little more, it seems clear. Beppe Grillo and "guru" Gianroberto Casaleggio have the mark of the party and the consequent and proven ability to expel from the party and then point the party. Of course, a party "must" do so (it was not the same when Grillo was rejected in the primaries of the Democratic Party?). Otherwise it would infiltrate exponentially as its percentage should grow until it would stop. And this is then the bitter medicine to achieve the purpose of a post-ideological society?
I would not bet that this is the right medicine.
Well, if you think about. However, the question is not whether M5S evolve towards a form of fascism, or if it will open a new political season of participatory democracy and the post-ideological society. In other words, the question is not whether the good and revolutionary intentions of the and M5S be one decoy or the substance of the motion, whether Grillo is a populist or a prophet, in other words if he is so or simply he does so. It's that I don't give my delegation for 5 years to anyone. I do not have as voter to do the Cumaean Sibyl and divine about what Grillo and his movement are or are not, say or hide, will do or not do. This the history will tell once again. Tell me what you do, and where, now, and I can express my will. If I have to say today that I agree with one thing you will do tomorrow, maybe, with different scenarios, opportunities and interests, then this is a scam!
I just want to reserve the right to share the fate of my country. Put an "X" on the ballot has now become like to play the board, in fact, in that case there are usually more likely to guess.
But Italy is a country of weaklings. The Grillo tank is large enough, come on: a big jump.
You know, if you imagine Grillo on last friday during his final rally before a packed Piazza San Giovanni in Rome while saying: "Countermand guys. I don't ask you to vote for M5S, I ask you not to vote at all in mass". Goal: less than 50% of Italians to vote, thanks to the abstention of the supporters of M5S. At this point, discouraged the political system all, a transitional government and in the meantime to hold a referendum within a reasonable time for the abolition of the institution of Parliament and establishment of the referendum saturdays. Ah yes, that I would have liked.
But if I'm wrong about M5S and within two legislatures will be established in Italy the referendum saturdays, I swear, then I will vote.
But for now, for this reason, for this time again, I do not vote>>.

"Cumaean Sibyl", by Giacomo Di Chirico.

 

sviluppato dalla MFM - ottimizzato per una visione a 1024x768 su Mozilla Firefox