Politics has only one programme: beating the other side
Citizens’ welfare comes later. Defeating the opponent comes first.
There is only one verb left in Italian politics: win. Not solve, not govern, not build. Beat the other side. Not because there is a right and a left, nor because different ideas, conflicting interests and incompatible visions of the country coexist: all that is normal, indeed necessary. The fault lies elsewhere. Beating the opponent has become the only result that counts.
We no longer reward those who solve problems, but those who divide most effectively, mobilise best and discredit most. The citizen is hardly ever the intended beneficiary of government action: he is the audience, the cheering section or a target to be captured at every election.
What happens to every opposition proves it. Forces that share nothing — economics, rights, work, foreign policy, the environment — suddenly find themselves together. Not because they have built a common vision. Not because they have found better solutions. But because one objective, just one, is enough to hold them together: throwing out the government. First bring down the other side; the programme, if any, can wait. This is not an alliance: it is a coalition against someone.
This is where politics ceases to make sense. When conflict becomes the end, governing is reduced to a means of occupying the opponent’s place. Those in government spend their time defending themselves, blaming every difficulty on their predecessors and preparing a countermove to the next attack. Those in opposition have no interest in acknowledging a positive result: it would be an embarrassing admission. Better to deny it, play it down, turn it into a fresh accusation. Even a good idea becomes unacceptable if it comes from the wrong side.
This is no way to govern a country. It is an election campaign that never ends.
A serious solution requires study, time, quiet. But stopping to think means leaving the field open: someone occupies a television studio, posts a video, raises their voice. The other side replies. Then comes an accusation, outrage, another crescendo. What is needed is a quality now rare: the temperament of someone who does not chase the noise, listens to sound ideas even when they come from the other side, and can change their mind without feeling defeated.
Above all, however, we need a politics willing to measure what it does. Every promise should specify a precise objective, verifiable deadlines, methods of implementation and criteria for judging the outcome. And then someone should return to the citizens and say clearly: this was done, this was not; this worked, this failed. Without propaganda, without looking for someone to blame every time, without hiding behind a new enemy.
Finally, to regain credibility, politics must be able to offer long-term certainty. A country cannot reverse course with every change of majority. Families, workers and businesses cannot live knowing that every law, investment and project risks being scrapped merely because it bears the opponent’s signature.
Politics need not prove who is cleverest at bringing the other side down. It must prove it can keep the country standing.