Can the left respond to new cleavages in Italy?

Abstract

ABSTRACTOver the last forty years, there has been a mounting societal shift towards post-materialist values in all countries adhering to the democratic tradition. This has fuelled demand for increasingly personalized content, reflected in political and electoral preferences that, shaped by new agencies of socialization, have gradually distanced themselves from former loyalties. The political supply has been reorganized as a result. The old mass parties have morphed into the so-called catch all party and the more recent variations of the professional-electoral party, forced to drum up votes however it can, chiefly by concocting new issues to compensate for the weakening of traditional subcultures and the fact that the social groups and classes that were the mainstay of twentieth-century parties have now exited the scene. In Italy, this process has led to a political system that is – to say the least – fragmented and unstable. Taken as a whole, the Italian left is even harder pressed than other European lefts, though they too have shown themselves incapable in recent years of sensing the changing pulse and adapting to the new milieu and how it will affect the left’s legacy in terms of the industrial conflict between capital and labour. This is a cleavage that has marked the platforms of liberal-democratic political systems and the form that parties accordingly take even more than it has affected their value content. The Italian left’s perennially upwelling legacy has thus prevented it from retooling for a changing society and formulating policies that can build a solid voter base by interpreting the expectations of the more moderate portions of the electorate who, though sceptical about the centre-right coalition, harbour even greater doubts concerning the centre-left’s ability to actually govern.RIASSUNTONel corso negli ultimi quarant’anni in tutti I paesi a tradizione democratica il mutamento sociale orientate alla progressiva affermazione di valori post-materialisti ha fatto emergere nuove domande dal contenuto sempre più individualizzato, riflesse in preferenze politiche ed elettorali che, condizionate nel loro formarsi da nuove agenzie di socializzazione, si sono progressivamente emancipate dalle appartenenze tradizionali. Tali domande hanno innescato una ristrutturazione dell’offerta politica, caratterizzata dalla trasformazione dei tradizionali partiti a integrazione di massa dapprima nei cosiddetti partiti pigliatutti, per giungere fino alle più recenti varianti di partiti professionali-elettorali, sempre più costretti a costruire il proprio consenso in maniera trasversale e mutevole, soprattutto attraverso l’elaborazione di nuove issues, per compensare il cedimento delle sub-culture tradizionali e superare la scomparsa dalla scena di classi e gruppi sociali di riferimento che costituivano l’asse portante del consenso organizzato dai partiti novecenteschi. In Italia questo processo ha determinato, inoltre, la formazione di un Sistema politico quantomai instabile e frammentato. La sinistra italiana nel suo complesso fatica più delle altre sinistre europee, che pure negli ultimi anni si sono dimostrate anch’esse incapaci di interpretare efficacemente i mutamenti in corso, ad adattarsi a questo nuovo ambiente in ragione della permanenza dell’eredità della sua definizione nei termini della dimensione del conflitto industrial tra capitale e lavoro. Frattura che ha caratterizzato lo sviluppo dei sistemi politici liberal-democratici più ancora che nel contenuto valoriale, nella proposta politica e nella conseguente forma partito. I condizionamenti esercitati dall’indistruttibile e sempre riemergente radicamento di questa eredità hanno impedito alla sinistra italiana di intercettare i mutamenti della società italiana e di formulare conseguenti politiche in grado di costruire consenso, interpretando le aspettative di quella parte di elettorato mediano e moderato che, pur scettico nei confronti della coalizione di centrodestra, è ancora più dubbioso verso la effettiva capacità di governo del centrosinistra.KEYWORDS: individualizationItalian leftnew cleavagespolitical partiespost-materialist valuessocial citizenshipPAROLE CHIAVE: individualizzazionesinistra italiananuove fratture socio-politichepartiti politicivalori post-materialisticittadinanza sociale Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Here we adopt the conceptual and theoretical framework advanced by Melucci (Citation1982), who defines identity, be it individual or collective, as a complex system of relationships and representations on two levels. The first of these levels, which concerns people’s capacity to differentiate themselves from their environment and maintain this difference over time, corresponds to a process of ‘individualization’. This level concerns people’s capacity to feel themselves part of a common unity with their environment, identifying with it via a strong sense of affinity or kinship, and corresponds to a process of ‘identization’ which takes place through the reciprocal recognition of belonging to a group. Analytically, individualization and identization are the two complementary poles of identity as a relational and social construct. For our purposes here, ‘potential for individualization’ refers to the dynamic connotation of individuals’ identity in the process whereby they gradually become autonomous (Melucci Citation1982, 65).2. Between the 1980s and 1990s, the idea took hold in the major democratic countries that public administrations are incapable of meeting even their citizens’ most basic needs. The services that are actually offered fall far short of the burgeoning demand for public services generated by the explosion in the populace’s needs and expectations. What is called into question here is the relationship of trust between citizens and public institutions, the foundations of the ‘social contract’ between the parties. This problem cannot be solved simply through technical and legal tweaks in how powers are defined or by redistributing resources among the various levels of government: building a new relationship between citizens and the State calls for a thorough rethinking of the methods and forms of public action (Martinelli Citation1996).3. Immigration is the ultimate wedge issue. Put bluntly, vilifying migrants, whether at the top of your lungs or with more articulate arguments, is a vote-getter. Moral, social and political majorities come together, and large chunks of society from all social strata are increasingly likely to support the so-called anti-foreigner parties or those that are highly sceptical about hosting immigrants in the country. The issue, in any case, does not affect Italy alone, but roils almost all of the countries in the liberal democratic tradition. This new social rift now spawning new political parties and movements has to do with the scope of the immigration issue. Two major topics cutting across party lines featured prominently in the latest electoral campaigns: immigration and the European Union. Without overshadowing the traditional left–right cleavages, these issues work alongside them, at times widening and at times narrowing the gap (Kriesi Citation1998). Moreover, while it is true that elections at all institutional levels and in all liberal democratic states reflect dynamics peculiar to their own national, regional and local context, they nevertheless show certain trends or signals that carry considerable significance for our societies’ present and future, and for the effects elections have on every government’s immigration policy. From the supranational level to that of local administrations, immigration splits public opinion and political parties, as well as figuring largely in the decision-making process (see Pasini and Regalia Citation2023).4. As Ferrera rightly noted (1998, 79–80), ‘we now speak of targeting, or the adoption of a more selective approach in delivering social services. This is an option at the centre of today’s welfare reform debate in all countries, but it is interpreted differently, and encounters different obstacles, in each country (or at least in each family of countries), depending on the current welfare regime’. As regards solidarity, its models and empirical consequences, in addition to the classic text by Martinelli, Salvati and Veca (Citation2009), see also the extensive comparative study Solidarity in Health and Social Care in Europe, edited by Arts, Ter Meulen and Muffels (Citation2001); for a descriptive and normative analysis of the concept and the situation in Italy, see Pasini and Reichlin (Citation2001) and Gori and Pasini (Citation2001).5. See the Surveys of Department of Social and Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, under the coordination of Luciano M. Fasano and Paolo Natale. These polls were conducted in the years 2009, 2013, 2017, 2019 and 2023, corresponding to the election of PD National Assembly.6. For this purpose, surveyed delegates who assigned scores of 9 and 10 to a given value were considered to believe strongly in that value.Additional informationNotes on contributorsNicola PasiniNicola Pasini is Associate Professor in Political Science at the Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milano. His research interests focus on rethinking the welfare state and citizenship (i.e. health policy and immigration) in democratic societies; analysis of public administration and local government, transformation of relationship between politicians and civil servant in Italy and in Western Europe, transformation of parties and party systems in Italy in comparative prospective, ethical frontiers in public and private management with an interdisciplinary approach. Recent publications include ‘The immigration issue in the Italian general elections’, in Cesareo V. (ed.), The Twenty-eight Italian Report on Migrations 2022, Fondazione Ismu, 2023, pp. 167–178 co-authored with Regalia M.; ‘Relaunching Labour-market Integration for Migrants: What Can We Learn From Successful Local Experiences?’, in Journal of International Migration and Integration (2022, 1, Springer Nature, pp. 1–24, co-authored with P. Coletti).Luciano Mario FasanoLuciano Mario Fasano is Associate Professor in Political Science at the Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milano. His research focuses on the transformation of Italian political parties and party systems in comparative perspective, party ruling classes, party leadership and delegates, electoral behaviour, normative political theory and public ethics. His recent publications include Il Partito Democratico dei native (Edizioni Epoké, Novi Ligure 2019, co-edited with R. De Luca); What is Left of the Italian Left? The Evolution of the Italian Democratic Party ‘Drift’ in Comparison with the British Labour Party (Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming Autumn 2023, co-authored with P. Natale and J. Newell).Giovanni Antonio CeruttiGiovanni Antonio Cerutti is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milano. He is director of Fondazione Marazza of Borgomanero and member of scientific board of Istituto storico della Resistenza of Novara. His main research interests concern the origin and development of democratic systems in Europe, the normative theory of democracy, the history of European and Italian Resistance. Among his publications, ‘Dopo il partito di massa’, in Sveglia. Visioni e azioni in un mondo che cambia, in D. Rossi (ed.) (Marotta & Cafiero Editori, Napoli 2014); ‘Cinquant’anni di storia italiana’, in Oscar Luigi Scalfaro. Dalla Costituente al Quirinale, cinquant’anni di storia italiana, in G.A. Cerutti (ed.) (Interlinea, Novara 2019).