The former President of the Veneto Region, Luca Zaia published his‘Appeal for a turn to the right’ in theFoglio of 5 January, what the daily newspaper directed by Claudio Cerasa called his ‘political manifesto’.

I read it carefully because I wanted to understand what is being proposed by those who could be candidates to change the internal balance of the centre-right that governs the country (and that in my opinion will still govern it for a long time). The manifesto seems (at least in the short term) designed more to aggregate consensus within one’s own party than to challenge the leadership of Giorgia Meloni, who is in fact often praised. However, it is clear that a League led by Zaia and no longer by Salvini would also condition the electoral campaign and the choices of the entire centre-right.

Below, in points, is my evaluation of what I appreciated and what I was not convinced by, starting with what is missing.

The cosmetic use of youth policies

It may be a professional distortion of mine, but the first thing that struck me is that in the whole text there is never any mention of school and education except as a heading in a list of policies that a right-wing party that cares about young people, defined as ‘the true national infrastructure’, should be concerned with. Mention is made – without proposing anything concrete – of housing, work and – precisely – education. Not much if one states that ‘laws must also be designed for those who are not the electoral majority’ and that ‘without young people there is no future; without a future, the beauty [of Italy] becomes scenography’.

Evidently even for Zaia, beyond abstract petitions of principle, it is not worth taking the risk of frightening the elderly with concrete proposals, given that they are -they are- the electoral majority.

International politics: zero (or almost zero) news on the ground

The chapter dedicated to foreign policy is not particularly original: it repeats concepts already expressed in many instances by the League itself (not only Salvini, but also Vannacci), as well as by many other ‘centrist’ political forces (e.g. Renzi, Calenda, Bonino and other exponents of the former Third Pole, i.e. the so-called reformist component of the PD, such as Picierno, Gori, Quartapelle or Alessandro Maran).

Europe,’ the manifesto states, ‘ should have more weight in the international scenario because “we are not a military power, but we can be a superpower of diplomacy and balance”. The aspect that differentiates Zaia from the Eurosceptic tradition of his party is that he says that the goal remains that of a strong Europe; what differentiates him from the liberal and reformist positions, on the other hand, is the usual wink to sovereignism.

This is the proposed summary: ‘there is no strong Europe without strong, responsible, authoritative states. Italy can be a bridge between Europe and the United States, and consequently barycentric in Mediterranean diplomacy’.

Autonomy as responsibility

The part I would like to endorse is the part on autonomy. Starting with the premise, “Autonomy is neither a concession nor an identity whim. It has been provided for in the Republican Constitution since 1948.” I agree with the historical reconstruction (‘the centralist model that came into being was the child of fear and fragility of a country that had come out of the Second World War battered could have had a logic then’).

The reading of the outcomes (“Centralism has produced two Italies, without resolving either the southern or the northern question. It has deprived the territories of responsibility, made public spending inefficient, and transformed inequalities into structural inequalities.”). Above all, however, the final reflection, inspired by a consideration made years ago by President Emeritus Sen. Giorgio Napolitano, is shareable : ‘I believe that autonomy is, first and foremost, the assumption of responsibility’.

He added : “Bringing decisions closer to the citizens means reducing decision-making chains and making those who govern measurable on results. It means building a more adult state.” The passage on guarantees for the South is also important and appreciable when, after branding a possible secession of the rich as an “act of selfishness”, Zaia writes that “solidarity and subsidiarity are complementary. North and South are not adversaries, they are parts of the same national destiny, they are Siamese twins. The death or life of one is the death or life of the other’.

Security, still Salvini-like

The least courageous part, from which emerges an uncritical adherence of the writer to traditional right-wing thinking and which I did not appreciate at all, is the part on security, where the usual watchwords are reiterated: certainty of punishment; overcrowding can be solved by building new prisons; more police in our cities; petty crime does not exist, there is only crime; we are not against immigrants, we are against criminals; goodness ends up justifying crimes.

Not a new idea, not a wriggle, not a shred of a proposal on how to intervene not only on crime but also on the causes of crime (I fear that Zaia would enlist even Tony Blair in the army of do-gooders).

Freedom and rights

More original is the concluding chapter, which aspires to a Copernican revolution on an ideological and cultural level, aimed at changing the traditional (but perhaps the more correct adjective is ‘archaic’) nexus between the right and freedom. It reminded me in some ways of the similar attempt made in his time by Gianfranco Fini, already with AN but especially when he founded his political movement FLI, leaving the PDL and distancing himself from those who would later found Fratelli d’Italia. The whole chapter is interesting and I recommend reading it in its entirety without prejudice, but I will resume the passages that caught my attention the most:

“The winning right wing is the liberal one. The liberal one loses’;

“Civil rights and end-of-life issues cannot be dismissed with a prejudicial yes or no. […] A mature right wing does not impose visions, but builds clear, respectful rules capable of holding together personal freedoms, collective responsibility and the role of the state.”

“You only have to enter a kindergarten or primary school classroom today to realise: Italian children are growing up alongside children from other cultures, histories and backgrounds. We can pretend not to see this, or we can govern this phenomenon intelligently.”.

“identity is not an automatic reflex: it is taught, transmitted, built. And it is also strengthened by respecting the identity of others, of those families that our country hosts and that are now part of it.”

Security aside, I would call Zaia’s manifesto an important innovative effort

“Only pessimists do not make fortunes”. The contribution concludes with these words. I do not know if he will have more luck than Fini (less is impossible), but Zaia certainly proves optimistic in imagining a right-wing capable of appreciating this small or big turn.