“With old identities, even from a purely electoral perspective, you can only go so far.” That is why, according to Arturo Parisi, “we need to broaden and deepen the debate.”
The debate revolves around the identity of Italy’s Democratic Party (PD), which has been shaken in recent days by the departure of one of its most prominent figures, European Parliament Vice-President Pina Picierno.
Mr Parisi argues that “the old reformism is no longer enough. It is time for new reforms and new reformers capable of meeting the challenges coming from the world. But their definition can only emerge from a genuine intellectual endeavor that is open, innovative, and free of exclusions.”
Q: Professor, Romano Prodi recently published an article in Il Messaggero that concluded with an appeal: ‘Reformists of the world, unite.’ Who are the reformists he is addressing today, and what kind of project should they build?
A: Although both the headline and the text refer to so-called reformist parties, we should not overlook the appeal with which Prodi concludes his analysis by revisiting Marx. “Reformers of the world, unite” is not exactly the same as “Reformists of the world, unite.”
- At a time when words have become increasingly weightless, “reformists” and “reformers” have been treated as synonyms for far too long. Perhaps Prodi chose “reformers” because it resonates with the “conservatives” on the other side. Perhaps I am overcomplicating things because of an old intellectual obsession of mine. Or perhaps this is only the beginning of a broader reflection, constrained by the inherently ephemeral nature of a newspaper article, a medium designed, by definition, to last only a day.
- Maybe Prodi will return to this argument elsewhere and develop it further. Yet in that conclusion I read far more than what is explicitly written in those six words.
- Had I been writing the headline, based on what I read, I would have titled it: “Reformism Is Not Enough,” or at least, “No Longer Enough.” Not as a response to populists, as the headline suggests, but as a challenge to reformists themselves.
Q: Why?
A: Prodi’s final appeal for the unity of reformers is preceded by his recognition of the need for “a global proposal” capable of correcting the revolution currently underway, one born from an intellectual effort able to mobilize “the vast portion of humanity that is now marginalized.”
- This goes beyond the gradualist approach that characterized the Olive Tree years: seeking the best possible outcome within the existing system, based on the belief that society, the economy, and politics can be improved step by step through laws, agreements, and compromises that do not overturn the established order.
- That approach—pragmatic, consensus-driven, and rooted in mediation among parliamentary forces—is what we usually associate with reformism.
- If Prodi deliberately wrote “reformers,” I believe it is because he has come to the conclusion that the old agenda of practical, incremental measures is no longer sufficient. The transformation currently taking place at the global level is nothing short of a revolution, and it requires a reform of comparable scale.
- A global revolution calls for a global reform. Reformism, as we have known it, is no longer enough. Does this represent a profound shift in the thinking of the political figure who, more than anyone else in the Italian center-left, embodied reformism through practical government action? I am convinced that Prodi will further develop the reflection he has opened and provide an answer to that question.
Q: Pina Picierno justified her departure by arguing that the Democratic Party has lost part of its reformist and governing vocation, becoming more identity-driven. Do you share that assessment, or do you think it is unfair?
A: The growing number of voices within the Democratic Party that no longer recognize themselves in the vocation that inspired the forces that founded it in the spirit of the Olive Tree is more than just an impression.
- Too many people no longer identify with the project still embedded in the party’s symbol: a new party, neither a continuation nor a simple sum of old parties, an inclusive party open to innovation and to everyone, provided they share a belief in democracy.
- A democratic and reformist party in the sense I have just described. What destination has ultimately been reached—or what new destination is now being pursued nearly twenty years after the journey began—is harder to say. It is equally difficult to identify when, why, and by whom the course correction occurred.
- Identity-driven, you say? If by identity-driven we mean the search for a clearer identity than the intentionally open-ended one summarized by the adjective “democratic,” then perhaps.
- The problem is that when most people speak about identity, they are not referring to an open debate but rather to a struggle over which of the old identities, labels, and definitions that the party sought to transcend should once again prevail.
- It is true that, commenting on Picierno’s departure, Elly Schlein reaffirmed inclusiveness as a defining characteristic of the party. Yet for too long political reporting has documented departures motivated precisely by the perception that inclusion has been abandoned.
- Worse still, the creation of groups, factions, and electoral lists designed to accommodate identities defined as Catholic, centrist, moderate, or liberal-democratic fundamentally contradicts the pluralism and inclusiveness that are proclaimed in words.
- More worrying than the departures themselves is the roar of “finally” that echoes across social media every time someone leaves. It reflects a growing search for purity and purges, driven by the illusion that once the “bad elements” are removed, the party will somehow become a community composed only of the good.
Q: Together with Prodi, you managed to bring together centrist and reformist forces through the Olive Tree coalition, from which the Democratic Party later emerged. How could such an experience be replicated today, including with forces such as the Five Star Movement?
A: It was another millennium. One only needs to think about the electoral system of the time. The majoritarian model based on single-member districts, introduced after the 1993 referendum, rewarded unity.
- Everything changed with the 2005 electoral reform known as the Porcellum. It reintroduced a proportional logic of political fragmentation while adding the disgraceful innovation of a Parliament effectively appointed by party leaders.
- Combined with a broader trend toward social and political fragmentation, this radically transformed the landscape of political competition.
- Every party is now pushed to define an exclusive identity, and within every party those who gain control tend to exclude those who do not belong to the leadership group, encouraging them to create their own parties, each built around another exclusive identity.
- This has been going on for twenty-one years. Competition has intensified and multiplied. Voters are mobilized more by what they oppose than by what they support—or they withdraw into indifference and abstention.
- After all, what matters is simply obtaining a higher percentage than one’s competitors. Whether the electorate consists of forty-five million, twenty-five million, or fifteen million citizens becomes everyone’s problem—and therefore nobody’s.
Q: What is the Democratic Party missing today if it wants to become once again the central pillar of a reformist culture capable of bringing together these different political sensibilities?
A: Returning to my interpretation of the reflection Prodi initiated yesterday, the point is not only recognizing that old identities have limited electoral appeal. It is understanding that the conversation itself must be broadened and deepened.
- The old reformism is no longer enough. It is time for new reforms and new reformers capable of meeting the challenges coming from the world. But their definition can only emerge from a genuine intellectual endeavor—one that is open, innovative, and free of any form of exclusion.
