These are the words of the President of the European Parliament David Sassoli uttered days ago and which I take up again with a reflection because I am convinced that we have erected a simulacrum around certain words emptying them, in practice, of their real meaning. In this case, it is clear, not by those who pronounced them but by those who should make daily use of them in their political and institutional actions. This makes me say that there are two distinct, and sometimes incommunicable, languages ​​if we think about what Europe is and what we would like it to be. Let’s not forget that the idea of ​​a united Europe had for the constituent fathers a first important goal: to provide for a safe conduct to avoid the onset of other world wars that would have their trigger in Europe in the future. But we have not dealt with individual states and their aftertaste. Germany, for example, which caused two world wars and lost them, now seems to be making up for it with its financial and industrial power and wanting to claim to be democratic in the logic of primus inter pares but in practice by staggering its meaning to remain “primus” without “pares”. Today we are experiencing this behavioral disconnect even more as we are experiencing a season of radical changes in society that has become complex and fragmented with the consequent crisis of traditional mass parties and their ability to represent well-defined sectors of society itself. At this point we should say that the word “democracy” remains but at what price? We debased and humiliated it, making us lose the vision of a form of government capable of ensuring stability, decision-making efficiency, clear functioning of the political responsibility of the rulers and of the same role of stimulation and pragmatism of the oppositions. At this point, I ask myself, should we continue to talk about democracy without ridiculing it?

Riccardo Alfonso