The point of view (which is not there) on the school and the South

What are the dividing lines that cross and divide the political field? It depends on the point of view, on the things that are close to your heart and on the judgment you make about priorities, interests and ideals. For example, if you are among the first hour grillini, there is no such line.

They are all the same, all of the same stuff, all corrupt.
If you are sovereign without Euros, perhaps without vax sympathies, the only line that matters is the one that separates you from all the others (and from the powerful powers: behind and against, there are always the powerful powers). There is no difference even for those who belong to the extreme fringes, for whom none of the parliamentary forces are really able to question the world order of the capitalist economy. However, there are so few voters left around (fortunately). Many, on the other hand, are those who, by abstaining from voting, implicitly make a similar judgment: they do not vote because they cannot see what can change, preferring one or the other.
The first task of politics – and I mean: for all political forces, wherever they are – is instead to demonstrate that these lines exist and make a difference. Now, judging from these first beats of the election campaign, the fundamental distinction that makes the right irrevocably, in the eyes of the Democratic Party and Action, essentially concerns democracy and Atlanticism: the coalition that puts together Meloni, Salvini and a Forza Italia now subordinated, far from the liberal tradition, it would not provide sufficient guarantees at the level of European and international rights and alliances in which our country is engaged. Seen from the right, on the other hand, you cannot vote for the left – I understand – because it is a confused crowd because it is the tax party because it does not defend national interests and security.

So be it, if you will. I will not now say what I think about these more or less caricatured representations that jump from one side to the other and what mobilizing capacity they have. But as the point of observation is important, as I said before, I confine myself to observing that lines drawn in this way do not take the South into account at all. That is, no one seems to think of voting with a program that answers one of the really crucial questions: what will happen to the South, what will become of the investments destined for the southern regions, what importance is attached to the reduction of inequalities between the different areas of the country and how it intends to manage the enormous flow of resources destined for the South.
Which is a bit paradoxical. Not only because everyone repeats like a song that much of the country’s future is linked to the NRP, and that a good part of it will be played in the South, primarily on the ability of public administrations to concretely implement the planned spending programs. . But also for strictly political-electoral reasons: Was the most significant figure from the last election or not 50% and more taken by the Five Stars in the southern regions? Well, what becomes of that promise? Is there anyone who asks himself, who wonders how to involve him, motivate him, keep him within the democratic participation? Now that the pentastellar tide has receded, how will the part of the electorate, which, from the startling manifestation of distrust in the traditional political offer, has not yet been able to dig a spider out of the hole, orient themselves? Will it flow into abstinence, will it fall back on clientelistic solutions, or will it be able to be linked to a credible reform project?

I take a sensitive subject where empty words and clichés are wasted: school. Which is or should be, in a democracy, the main driver of social ascent. And it doesn’t work, though, and it doesn’t work especially in the South, where data on school dropouts remains Third World. I don’t know what the election programs say about the school issue, and I would like to know. However, I can imagine that there are promises of the type more money for the teachers, and an end to precarious work. Thank you very much: these are things that are always there, I am not saying that they do not want us, on the contrary, but I am saying that they do not explain the delays in the school, they do not indicate the prospect of reform, they do not address the core of ​inequalities, they do not redesign the school cycles, they do not think about autonomy, in short: they do not remove a single incident of obstacle to freedom and equality, as the constitution asks to do. And the South pays the consequences.

But I go back to the question of discrimination and I conclude: which school are the two sides talking about? They have moved the line to the question of integration/immigration, which is a very relevant, even crucial issue, if it does not often serve as an ideological weapon of distraction, clouding any concrete hypothesis of reform, and obscuring the numbers – fewer kindergartens, yes fewer gyms – which describes the South’s backwardness.
So be it, if you will. But from the point of view of this paper, since views matter, it is the gravest of sins of omission, and it must be said.

Leave a Comment