We haven’t seen a “totus politicus” character at the Prime Minister’s year-end press conference since the days of Matteo Renzi. Paolo Gentiloni was never party leader, Giuseppe Conte was more of a professor in his two governments, obeying the orders of Giggino Di Maio before emancipating himself and taking the 5 stars, and Mario Draghi, beyond the undisputed political sensibilities of a veteran exponent of the establishment , which everyone knows, he has always been the «technician» with a capital «T». With Giorgia Meloni, on the other hand, the figure of the “political” leader par excellence is back in vogue. What arrives at Palazzo Chigi after an electoral victory, and unlike what happens to the Republic’s reserves, who have been appointed to run an emergency executive, his stay in the control room is not time-limited by institutional arrangement, but feeds on the ambition to to survive the entire legislative period until the elections.
It is no small change, for it testifies to a return to normalcy for our country, which for an entire term past the previous one has been spearheaded by figures of a different type, who came into government as a result of political alchemy and not on the basis of was a clear response from the polls. Indeed, a political leader can answer questions for three hours in a row without performing acrobatics, using direct language. Just as it can use the weapon of partisan controversy since it is the expression of a party (“Qatargate is a socialist business”). He can be clear on both Ukraine and economic policy, perhaps espousing an economic philosophy close to some of his majority (“We will always work to prioritize budget balances”). And above all, it can give its executive a certain color after the harlequinisms of the yellow-green or yellow-red governments or the neutral colors of the emergency governments (“what has been done so far is right”). And she can still take bold positions of anti-judiciary and anti-guarantee slant, supporting a return to the recipe and correct and limited use of phone surveillance. Or tie his legacy to an epochal institutional reform like semi-presidentialism. After all, he can also take the “risk” based on a political assessment, for example that of a tripartite opposition (“Will the regional elections be a test for the government? I assume that we can get along with the vote”).
Also because it is obvious that unless one is protected by large majorities such as leading “superpartes” and does not lead bogus alliances imposed by the given conditions, government is always a challenge because one is offering an economic recipe, a vision of the world, a Philosophy for a country free to judge you, believe or not. It’s the risk of politics. Welcome back. Finally.