- Letter from Benedetto Della Vedova in The Review of Thursday, August 5, 2010 -
Dear Arturo,
commenting on my membership to the Parliamentary Group of the Future and Freedom Chamber of Deputies, I've done a series of questions difficult. To which I will not give easy answers. But I want to answer not only for his friendship and esteem that binds me to you and your newspaper, but the duty, which I feel, to explain the meaning of my choice to many liberal and radical friends who followed my political history since 2005, first in the liberal reformers and then released.
answer the first question. It 's true that the break between Fini and Berlusconi has been worn on a matter of "internal democracy"? No. There was a break, but expulsion. Things are called by their names. Which model of "internal democracy" should be equipped with a modern party, he would have continued to argue. I was a model for very "American", by voters rather than by the participants, the logic of primary rather than the cards. But no one came to talk about that. Fini was thrown out first, because "out of line." And anyone who reads the order of proscription voted by the inadvertent comedy PDL understands that document Berlusconi-Leninist.
Second placed. I think - I asked Arturo - that "Fini renounce his vocation autocratic even before that of the Knight"? Yes However I do not think the transition between the First and Second Republic's one-man party of the center - that finiano, that Berlusconi, the box - respond to the malice of narcissistic autocratic leaders, but to a structural weakness of the political system. The readings "psychological" does not convince me. I prefer the rational policies. Gone are the parties of the First Republic, was missing from the second one, and they were substitutes for leadership on projects momentous: a constitution and the "Europeanisation" of the right, the affirmation of a liberal-mass popularity, and the construction of a union of Yankee territory. All are governed by "masters" Phase exceptional (and exceptionally long) from '94 that led to the collapse of the center. At that point it was back - or rather, it was thought to be back - to normal. The PDL is not the party of the "running board" is the party that wanted to build the common house of moderates and liberals in the coming decades. Decades, not months. A party that was bound to operate as normal. Debates, divisions, negotiations, compromises. They do all the parties of the center and western Europe. I also had to make the PDL. But no, after just over a year, it is "constitutionalized" a model of centralized party-charismatic and has established a service charge of stalking the ideological deviations. I have a question for you, Arthur, in what place of the West advanced liberal-conservative parties work well?
Answer to question number three. The idea of \u200b\u200bFini's party has in mind does not refer to the "archaeological model" of the First Republic? My answer is this: If the PDL final step, that is, if the bipolar jumps, and this gap is not absorbed and reassembled, the parties post-Berlusconi lot like that of the First Republic. The nature of the parties does not depend solely on the will of the leaders, but the incentives and limits to their action on the characteristics of the political system. But if you wake up in the PDL from the dogmatic slumber - there is still time, although I do not know - You can also save on the right and then left a model of the majority party of "party-town", capable of surviving the inevitable end of Berlusconi's political history.
Thanks for your hospitality. Benedetto Della Vedova
0 comments:
Post a Comment