But what does Enrico Letta want
What are his strategies and tactical choices
What will he do to try to win the Quirinale match and how will he behave if, after the election of the President of the Republic, everything falls apart and the option of go to the early political vote
It is not that the other leaders convey an image of clarity and unambiguousness on these points, but more because they say and contradict each other, change ideas and weave relationships, without perhaps even having a compass themselves. But everything happens, in their case, in the light of the sun. Thinking about it well, it is to be ruled out that Giuseppe Conte and the Democrats are not doing the same, but the fact that nothing leaks makes everything even more ambiguous.
The only significant sentence pronounced on these matters by Letta is now a few weeks old: it ensured that he would not favor the early vote even if it would suit him. There is to believe him on the one hand, but on the other it must be admitted that aiming at government stability some other inconvenience for the Democratic Party must also have it. In politics nothing is done for nothing. Even if only that of appearing as the only ones endowed with a “sense of the state”. Then there are also those who say that Letta is lying and that in truth she has a pact with Giorgia Meloni to bring Mario Draghi to the Quirinale and immediately go to the vote. Who most of all believes that this story of the pact has its own plausibility and perhaps Matteo Renzi.And in this sense it would explain what could be a misdirection action, that is to “make peace” with Paolo Gentiloni and make it clear that he would be willing to vote for him: that Gentiloni who, in addition to being liked by Europe, and therefore being a naturaliter eligible for the Colle, could not fail to have the approval of the Democratic Party, that is of his party, and perhaps he could also draw something in Forza Italia.
That the thesis of the misdirection is not far-fetched and for me it is possible to deduce it from two factors: from the fact that Renzi never reveals, or even hints at, his true intentions; and from the fact that he is playing the real game against Letta and the Democrats, and only in this perspective would he also be willing to converge on the vote with the right. It is in this context that the Berlusconi hypothesisit is by no means implausible, even if to someone, stuck a few political seasons ago, it might seem unlikely.
Obviously, all these hypotheses and counter-hypotheses, these “games”, come to terms without the host, that is, without Mario Draghi. In fact, if the prime minister decided to take the field, Letta would certainly not be able to oppose it. And not just him, actually. What can be said for sure is that Draghi would put his name on the table only under very specific conditions: that the majority willing to vote for him is large and above all that the risk of “snipers” be minimized; that it is convinced that from the Quirinale it can in any case play, and for a longer time, its role of guarantee towards the markets and towards Europe, and therefore continue to do the good of the country; that the risk that the new government will throw everything up in the air, however what is being tried to build is reduced to a minimum, whether or not we go to early elections.
Obviously, of the three conditions, the last is the most difficult to achieve by eye: if the parties or any majority had been able to guarantee this, perhaps the former central banker would not even have been called to “save” the homeland . Sure, Letta would like to try. But even for him it is not easy: allied with a force in crisis and substantially “unreliable” like the Five Stars on the one hand, ostracized by Renzi and in turn ostracizing him, on the other, he is perhaps realizing that his “wide field ”Tends to shrink more and more every day. With a “narrow field” you are not going anywhere. It is therefore better not to talk and wait for the events to mature on their own. Of course, a Democratic Party that does not elect the Head of State would be a novelty. And perhaps the only real sign of discontinuity with the past of a legislature born under completely different signs. And even, I would say, with “revolutionary” guts.
