The end of the political year coincides, by tradition, with the discussion on the budget law for the coming year. It is – or at least it would be – a nice opportunity, provided by the calendar, to reflect on what the near future should be and on what basis those who have the task of governing the country must decide, in a time of people’s lives dedicated to affection and rest: a time suitable therefore for thinking about important things, such as the political debate concerning strategic issues is – or should be. In fact, in these weeks we decide where to get the resources needed to finance healthcare, schools, economic and industrial development, programs to support childhood, birth rates, old age and any other fragility, and many other things.

The usual mechanics of brawling

By deciding what to tax and what to detax, you decide what to incentivize and what not, which sectors, areas and activities. Every year, however, the debate on the budget maneuver sadly resembles the political debate that accompanies us for the rest of the year, and around some details the usual mechanisms of dialectic and brawl arise, without however any possibility of a frank, open and constructive discussion in Parliament, given the systematic recourse to the maxi amendment and vote of confidence. In this way, public opinion receives important issues reduced to shreds, and a society that is increasingly less attentive and generally unwilling to discuss its own prejudice quickly moves on from the last keyword thrown into the newspaper headline or the history of social networks.

Yet, in keeping with the themes of the latest budget, there would have been enough to make Parliament discuss it in an open, clear and comprehensible way, so that the discussion reached society, and made it truly participate in the orientations of politics on important issues, which really concern it, for today and for tomorrow. Let’s think about the debate on pensions, and the proposal – then quickly quashed – to make the contributions paid for the redemption of the years of study less effective in social security terms. Beyond the merit of the proposal, the issue would certainly have deserved a serious debate, as a rather significant metaphor both for the problems of social security balance in our country, on the one hand, but also as an emblem of a creaking credibility of politics, on the other.

Changing the terms of the debate

In fact, we would have found ourselves faced with a State that first asks for money immediately in exchange for future economic rights, and then changes the terms of those rights, while the money has already been collected and spent, and of its relationship with international placement, peace and war.

It is not a legal question, but an exquisitely political one, and it would have deserved a discussion. Likewise, it would be worth explaining the difference between the simplistic proclamations that one can afford when in opposition, and the effort of balancing the budget when governing. These are serious issues, not simple propaganda topics, and the question of the rearmament of Italy and Europe deserves a serious debate, in Parliament and in society, in a geopolitically completely new and decidedly unpredictable time in its evolution. We talked about the economic, social security and demographic balance of our country, and its geopolitical, international position and with respect to the great dilemmas of peace and war, and we could add other issues, ultimately no less important, which enter through the front door or the window when it comes to budget choices. But ultimately, we can also stop here, the picture is quite clear.

Complicated issues

We are talking about a time, ours, in which walking arm in arm, the ruling classes and the people seem to be increasingly disinterested in serious and complicated issues, and carefully avoid putting them at the center of their thoughts and actions. Once the tiring issue of the budget maneuver has been overcome, the government’s main concern will be to win the referendum on justice, and the same will be true for the opposition. Let’s say it clearly: it is a mainly symbolic question, which has its own historical importance, but which really has little to do with the development model of an aged, impoverished country, incapable of having children, of keeping them when it does, of attracting those born elsewhere. Yet, you will see, from January onwards we will not talk about anything else, because that referendum is felt and experienced as a general test of consensus on the government and its opponents, and when it has passed we will talk above all about the electoral law, which Giorgia Meloni wants to change to be “sure” of winning, and which the opposition will oppose to have some chance of not losing.

All discussions centered on the prospect of one’s own power, and little else. What remains in us of the ideal sense of politics gives us hope that at a certain point things will change, and each political party will return to telling its own vision of the world, its own model of development, its own values, comparing them with those of others, with realism, competence, dialectics, even very heated ones, to challenge the prevailing indifference and rampant indifference. We want to believe in it, and we hope it is a more adult trust than the one that children, lucky them, still place in the bountiful magic of Christmas Eve. And, of course, a Merry Christmas from the bottom of my heart to those who have read this far.