of Nadia Urbinati
mutations concern the ways of politics, and the disappearance of the role of the opposition, at this stage of democracies.
There is a phenomenon that unites democracies and countries of different continents, with more or less solid constitutional traditions, with governments of left and right: The fraying and helplessness of the opposition. In the U.S., the victory of Obama and the Democratic Party has been accompanied by an unprecedented collapse of the Republican Party, which despite the radicalization of the reactionary language of some of its leaders fails to regain credibility with its own electorate, and most importantly it is unable to define a policy that is serious and effective opposition. You say the defeats are always accompanied by disappointment and loss in those who subisce.Nulla new under the sun. Is it not true that after Reagan's victory had fallen to the same fate as the Democratic Party that took two decades to be reborn? Yet there seems to be something new. In Brazil, for example, President Lula is in his second term and has a very wide popularity, such as that of our Prime Minister, Sarkozy and Obama. Unlike other countries, its majority has a history of longer duration and this should have allowed the opposition to better equip its role and refine the language and strategy. Instead, as observers also note that share the policies of President Lula, the test giving himself the minority parties (both the extreme left and above right) is deludente.Eppure a government that makes good policy and consensus has not has less need to be pressed by the opposition of a government that is bad policy and a tight consensus. In Europe, the situation is no different. In France, the Socialist Party does not enjoy better health of our Democratic Party, and dissatisfaction of his constituents is less pronounced. Pierre Rosanvallon had the opportunity to comment of the reasons for the recent crisis of the French left and noted that it is misleading to talk generically about the crisis of ideologies. In fact, to be in crisis is only the ideology that comes from defeat elezioni.L 'identification with the athletic competition of the elections, the electoral outcome in terms of reading-and-defeat victory is a sign indicating that to understand I would call the syndrome of the futility of post-election political discourse. Suffrage, as we know, has two rights: to form a majority (the votes are counted) and to be represented (the votes translate into seats). The second is no less important than the first because Parliament to enjoy a legitimacy not only in theory, should be able to reflect the higher number of components of the ideal society, even those who did not win. Who has "lost" the election is absent from the executive but it is not and can not be absent from Parliament. In this sense it is incorrect to use the language of victory and defeat because it suggests the idea - is misleading and dangerous - which counts only those who vince.Nell 'perspective of victory and defeat, the opposition seems to have no other role than to testify the losers of the winners from the public. And the loser in a competition which generates only one who wins is certainly useless or helpless, do not count. But this is neither logic nor the process that operates in a representative democracy, even if it is true that the electoral system are proportional to those predisposed to support this mentality. But the intensity of the problem that manifests itself today goes beyond the function of electoral systems and calls into question the political culture, if you want the ethos, the thinking that takes shape public opinion. Contemporary democracies seem to be more and more governments in the majority, not just systems in which the participants agree to parliamentary decisions according to the principle of majority. The ethics of the race for victory is a sign of a reversal of participation in the construction of national policy, it is clear that even those who have not won a majority helps determine national policy: he does is because it sits in parliament and his vote is decisive, however, even if it is only to record the outcome of a vote, and because its presence is still active, through the voice, the challenge and the ability to influence a bill. The work has great dignity and opposition voting in a party that does not win is not a vote perso.Ma the ideology that seems to dominate the field today is the one that would have us believe that the popularity polls of the opposition makes it useless that the majority alone should govern and that leaders should be like a permanent campaign. An element that can not escape this political celebrity and the head of the majority is the deposing of the legislative assemblies. The Parliament shall lapse to the extent that only the majority has a voice and visibility. The function of the opposition is crucial also for this reason - his defeat numerical never translated into a defeat of his political role, because her voice and presence are our guarantee of democratic freedom. More than that: the political opposition is the repository of our conviction that democratic change is not a utopia. There should be imposed not to listen to the sirens of the futility of the ideology of the losers because the democratic process ensures that there is not end of story.
La Repubblica, May 7, 2009
