ROME — Italy’s center-left has spent months trying to build a broad coalition – the so-called “Campo Largo” – capable of challenging Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in the 2027 general election. But a dispute over defense spending has exposed a deeper problem: the opposition is struggling to define a common foreign policy.
A joint parliamentary resolution drafted by the Democratic Party (PD), the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Greens-Left Alliance (AVS) never reached a vote on Wednesday because of a procedural issue. Politically, however, it already achieved something else.
It highlighted the growing influence of former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte over the parliamentary minority’s agenda — and, perhaps more importantly, revealed that the Democratic Party itself remains deeply divided over defense, Ukraine and Italy’s broader international posture.
Why it matters: The episode goes beyond another tactical dispute between PD leader Elly Schlein and Conte.
- It suggests that the biggest obstacle to Italy’s Campo Largo may not be relations between different parties, but the absence of a shared strategic vision inside the largest opposition force itself.
- That matters well beyond domestic politics. As one of NATO’s largest European members and a key player in debates over European defense and Transatlantic relations, Italy’s future position on Ukraine, military spending and EU defense integration will be closely watched by its allies.
Zoom in: Conte’s leverage. Negotiations over the parliamentary resolution ended with the Democratic Party accepting several demands put forward by the Five Star Movement.
- The text called for avoiding “further increases in spending on weapons systems” and committed any additional fiscal flexibility to healthcare, anti-poverty measures and support for families and businesses, explicitly excluding military expenditure.
- Several Democratic lawmakers argued that such language could also undermine Italy’s willingness to use the EU’s SAFE defense financing instrument.
- Five Star leaders quickly claimed the outcome as a political success. Conte insisted that his position had not changed. “I have repeated the same things that I and the Five Star Movement have been saying for four years.”
- Rather than a compromise between allies, the negotiations were widely interpreted as another demonstration of Conte’s ability to shape the opposition’s agenda.
The real divide is inside the PD. The strongest criticism did not come from the governing majority. It came from within the Democratic Party. The party’s reformist wing openly challenged the agreement with the Five Star Movement.
- Former Defense Minister Lorenzo Guerini — now chairman of COPASIR, Parliament’s intelligence oversight committee — emerged as one of the most outspoken critics, arguing that the compromise amounted to an unnecessary concession to Conte’s populist line.
- He was joined by Filippo Sensi, Piero Fassino, Simona Malpezzi, Lia Quartapelle and other prominent reformist lawmakers, who argued that the resolution conflicted with the party’s traditional pro-European and Atlanticist identity.
- Go deeper: the Decode39’s interviews with Fassino and Quartapelle.
The debate is about much more than defense spending. For them, it also concerns support for European defense integration and the use of common EU instruments such as SAFE.
- Schlein, by contrast, chose to prioritize coalition unity. The broader question is whether that choice reflects tactical coalition management or a deeper political shift inside parts of the Democratic Party toward positions closer to Conte’s on foreign and security policy.
Between the lines: The dispute highlights a transformation that has received relatively little attention. The main divide inside Italy’s opposition is no longer simply between the Democratic Party and the Five Star Movement.
- It increasingly runs through the Democratic Party itself. One faction sees cooperation with Conte as both electorally necessary and politically compatible, including on defense and foreign affairs. Another continues to view the party’s pro-European and Atlanticist tradition as a defining element of its identity and remains wary of any shift on Ukraine, NATO or European defense.
- Conte has therefore become part of the PD’s internal debate itself: some seek accommodation with him to preserve the coalition, others broadly share elements of his agenda, while reformists increasingly question whether such convergence is politically sustainable.
The road to 2027. For Conte, foreign policy has become one of the Five Star Movement’s defining political markers. He has consistently opposed higher defense spending and argues that foreign policy should become a central issue in selecting the center-left’s future prime ministerial candidate through primary elections.
- That approach increasingly resonates with broader anti-Western constituencies — particularly those critical of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the European Union — while creating political space for narratives promoted by Russia, China and other geopolitical competitors of the West.
Schlein faces a different challenge. She must keep the coalition together without alienating the wing of her own party that sees Italy’s European and transatlantic orientation as non-negotiable.
- The dispute also extends to process: while Conte argues that foreign policy should be decided through the center-left’s future primary election, many within the Democratic Party believe Italy’s international positioning should instead be agreed beforehand as a core element of any governing platform.
The bottom line: For months, attention has focused on the differences between the Democratic Party and the Five Star Movement. The latest dispute suggests a more fundamental reality.
- Part of the PD no longer appears to regard foreign policy as a defining identity issue requiring clear distance from Conte’s positions, while another still sees Atlanticism and European integration as core elements of the party’s political identity.
- Before the center-left can agree on a coalition, the Democratic Party may first have to decide what its own foreign policy actually is.
