Articles by: Rodrigo Praino

  • Facts & Stories

    Ambassador Ronald P. Spogli at Casa Italiana Zerilli-Marimò


    The grandson of an Italian immigrant from Umbria, Ambassador Spogli built his way out of Los Angeles, California, with an exemplary career in the business world. After receiving his degree in History from Stanford University, Mr. Spogli obtained an MBA at Harvard, classmate of President George W. Bush. He later founded Freeman Spogli & Co., one of the leading private equity investors in the United States. Appointed Ambassador to Italy by President Bush, he returned to a country he already knew quite well, and not only because of his ancestry: he lived in Italy between the 1960s and 1970s working with Stanford University and worked in Milan on an important research project about internal migrations in Italy.

     

    The host of the evening was Stefano Albertini, director of the Casa Italiana. The room was filled with many distinguished members of the Italian-American community of New York, including Baroness Mariuccia Zerilli-Marimò and Congressman Frank J. Guarini, all eager to listen to Ambassador Spogli's remarks on the relations between Italy and the United States.

     

    Recognizing that "large waves of immigrants helped build our great nation" – including, of course, incredible numbers of immigrants from Italy –, Ambassador Spogli addressed the so-called "Atlantic divide", that according to many is causing Europe and the United States to drift apart. According to the Ambassador the divide is less important than many tend to think. He explained that the analysis of the relation between two great nations cannot become a trivial analysis of relations between political coalitions in power or, even worse, personal feelings between heads of state. "When you look to the complete picture you'll see that Italy and the U.S. are coming together", said the Ambassador. He admitted that there are differences in the handling of several fundamental issues, such as the degree of openness of the free market and the idea of what should be the role of a great power in the international arena, and slightly criticized the current Italian economic policy, warning that overtime the Italian economy will decline in comparison to other developed countries if no action is taken.

     

    The Ambassador recognized the outstanding role Italy has been playing in the international arena, including its diplomatic and military activities in the Balkans, in Iran, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon and in Iraq. He defined Italy's military withdrawal from Iraq a "model withdrawal" conducted on a responsible basis and originated by a change of the government's policy. Ambassador Spogli also recognized the key role NATO is playing in the world, defining this organization "the most successful military alliance in history", that unlike the UN only has democratic countries as members.

     

    After the remarks by the Ambassador an interesting debate started, during which Spogli declared that while Americans can learn a lot from Italy, its culture and it's history, Italians should try to learn from American meritocracy, competition and risk-taking mentality, in an advantageous relation of mutual growth. Ambassador Spogli also pointed out that the U.S. is and should continue to be a “magnet” to top-level researchers in all fields, even though nowadays there is no need to physically move from one country to another. Indeed, he described the prospect of working with others at a distance as “the beauty of the age we’re living in”.

     

    Baroness Mariuccia Zerilli-Marimò presented to Ambassador Spogli the Zerilli-Marimò Medal. The Ambassador was only the fourth recipient of this prestigious award that is a token of appreciation for an outstanding role in the promotion of Italian culture in the world. Previous recipients of the award include Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, former President of the Italian Republic.
  • Facts & Stories

    Talking About the Italian Vote Abroad...


     On Wednesday, April 2, 2008, the John D. Calandra Italian/American Institute hosted a conference presenting the book Altreitalie: Cittadinanza e Diritto al Voto, edited by Mario B. Mignone, Director of the Center for Italian Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. The book was compiled very quickly as soon as news of the general elections in Italy was announced, and it includes an introduction by the Italian Consul General in New York, Francesco Maria Talò. It brings together a number of presentations given at a symposium organized by Prof. Mignone in the fall of 2007 with an additional essay by Stefano Lucconi presented during a conference at the Calandra Institute held in the spring of 2007.

     

    The evening was hosted by Anthony J. Tamburri, Dean of the Calandra Institute. Tamburri presented the speakers and made an extremely important plea to save the AP Italian program. His words were the final authoritative appeal after a number of outstanding requests for help to save this landmark achievement by the Italian/American community that is in now in jeopardy.

     

    Stefano Vaccara of Oggi7 was the first speaker. He attacked the electoral system used by Italy abroad, a system that makes all Italians living abroad “lions in a cage.” Vaccara was followed by Rocco Caporale from St. John's University, who defined Italian emigration as “Italy's Great Revolution,” akin to the American, French, and Russian Revolutions. According to Caporale there are unresolved problems with the exact number of Italian citizens living abroad who have the right to vote.

     

    The third speaker of the evening was Vincenzo Pascale from Rutgers University. Pascale spoke about disinformation and right of citizenship, followed by Mario Mignone. Mignone brought the discussion about citizenship to a more complex level, attacking the Italian electoral system at large – which is referred in Italy as the porcellum system, where porcellum stands for the irreverent Latinization of the Italian word for “pig.”

     

    After the official presentation, a very interesting debate began with a number of pointed comments by a diverse audience. Prof. Robert Viscusi inspired a second speech by Rocco Caporale about the idea of an extra-territorial concept of a new “global Italian citizenship.” Domenico Mignone, brother of Prof. Mignone and the Christian Democratic Union (UDC) candidate for the 2006 Italian general election, along with the Emilia Vitale, candidate for the Chamber of Deputies with the Democratic Party (PD), and Deputy Salvatore Ferrigno (ex- Forza Italia, now UDC) brought the audience right into the current political debate.

     

    Towards the end of the evening Gianluca Galletto, cordinator of the PD’s electoral efforts in New York, raised what I would characterize as the most interesting discussion point of the evening: the problems between hosting countries and Italian – or other nation's – politicians and political campaigns taking place within their borders. This problematic relation is already taking place in Canada where Italian candidates and political activists may not gather at public meetings or engage in any political advertisement. Unfortunately, Mr. Galletto's preoccupations were not addressed by the speakers.

     

    Another interesting remark was made by Mary Ann Re, Executive Director of the New Jersey Italian American Heritage Commission. Dr. Re expressed concern that her office receives a great number of telephone calls from Italian citizens asking for technical instructions on how to vote in the Italian elections.

     

     

     
  • Facts & Stories

    Here They Go Again: Debating, Italian Style (Monologuing!)


    Let’s look for a moment at one of the nice debates we’ve been organizing election after election in the United States. Within one of those, take out all the pesky rules of engagement. Who needs them really? Now take out all the bothersome questions journalists, experts and people from the audience are always nagging the candidates with. Who needs those? While you’re at it, take out every single time limit to the candidates' statements—time constrictions just block the wonderful flow of their ideas and propositions. Finally, just take out the opponent altogether, that annoying person beside your candidate who’s always telling lies and making bad proposals. Who needs him? Certainly not the Italian candidates for Prime Minister! What you’ve got at this point are two separate monologues. A non-controlled, non-guided, non-interrupted monologue! It's wonderful, isn't it? A candidate can speak, explain everything he wishes, go through his own platform and then some journalist will (maybe!) put the monologues together during the evening news. Yes, that's what democracy is all about!

     

    American voters are used to seeing their candidates debate live on national television. The first debate to be televised was between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Following that there were the famous and infamous performances of Gerry Ford, Ronald Reagan and Al Gore, just to cite a few among the most famous. Almost always there is a winner and a loser, but on a higher level of analysis, a level that leaves little room to fallacious political contingencies, the only winner is always Democracy – yes, last time the word "democracy" in this article was written with a small "d", but now we need a capital "D". Democracy is based on debate. All Parliaments in the world work thanks to debate. The voters have the right to see a good old fashion debate between their candidates for public office.

     

    It doesn't really matter whose fault is it. It seems that Berlusconi holds that the current Italian law on "equal conditions", a law designed to protect the basic rules of pluralism in the political debate through the media, does not allow a direct confrontation between himself and Veltroni. On the other hand, Veltroni stated that he had already accepted to debate any political adversary a long time ago—although it seems he is not working as hard as he can to set up this particular confrontation with Berlusconi. I'm using the expression "it seems" because all this long-distance "debate" about the debate is almost a taboo; there are very few declarations and articles about it, as if it were something that one must not talk about at this delicate point in time. Quite an odd situation if you think about it. Only two years ago all the major Italian cities were full of petitioners calling Mr. Prodi a "chicken" because "it seemed" that he didn't want to debate against Mr. Berlusconi—yes, I know, Italians don't say "chicken", they say "rabbit", but that's what they meant! And all this talk seems even more weird if you can think all the way back to 2001 when it was Mr. Berlusconi who refused to debate against the then center-left Prime Minister candidate Francesco Rutelli, declaring that Mr. Rutelli was not the real leader of his coalition but only a front-man.

     

    The bottom line is that a simple debate between candidates for public office is something that Italian voters cannot take for granted. But then again, in a country where voters—thanks to an electoral law approved right before the 2006 elections—don’t get to vote for their own representatives in the national Parliament, and must simply give their vote to a political party that chooses the candidates for them, maybe the fact that these "candidates" for Prime Minister (an office that is not elected by the Italian people, but by the Italian Parliament) are not eager to debate face-to-face is not the worse threat to Democracy in Italy.

     

    At this point the famous sentence pronounced by Ronald Reagan during the Presidential debates of the 80’s that publicly embarrassed President Jimmy Carter almost sounds like a warning to the Italian people: here they go again!

     

  • Come scontentare greci e troiani: le elezioni italiane all’estero



    In questa ennesima fase di “democratizzazione” della politica italiana, fatta di elezioni primarie e rinnovamento della classe politica, le novità per gli italiani del collegio Centro e Nord America saranno poche. Ci sono però due peculiarità, due storie in un certo senso speculari che pongono alcuni interrogativi sui rapporti tra i partiti e gli elettori e tra gli elettori stessi.

     

    La prima storia è anche cronaca politica di questi giorni e riguarda l’esclusione dalle liste del centro-destra dell’On. Salvatore Ferrigno, deputato uscente di Forza Italia. L’Onorevole, che era stato eletto nel 2006 per la prima volta, all’ultimo momento non è stato confermato tra i candidati azzurri. In una lettera ormai famosa, pubblicata da un sito internet, Ferrigno ha dichiarato ai suoi elettori che il PDL “predica bene e razzola male”, e ha definito “personaggi sinistri e perfidi” i responsabili della decisione sulle candidature del partito.

     

    La seconda storia è abbastanza diversa, ma l’esito è simile. Riguarda il direttore della Casa Italiana “Zerilli-Marimò” della New York University, Stefano Albertini. Italiano, residente a New York da circa 20 anni, Albertini è un personaggio di spicco della comunità culturale italiana di New York. Conosciuto ed apprezzato in diversi ambienti, un gruppo di amici e conoscenti lo hanno proposto come possibile candidato del PD. In modo molto “grass-roots”, la candidatura è stata solo approvata, non richiesta, da Albertini. Nonostante l’indubbio prestigio del potenziale candidato, ed il sostegno ottenuto non solo dall’intellighenzia italiana-newyorkese, ma anche da personaggi di spicco di altre zone degli Stati Uniti, il PD ha declinato l’offerta.

     

    Questi due casi sono emblematici, nel senso che mostrano come ai partiti italiani non interessi tanto, nella scelta dei candidati all’estero, il sostegno sul territorio. Con la sua elezione nel 2006, l’On. Ferrigno ha dimostrato di avere un seguito elettorale di tutto rispetto. Si presume che il suo elettorato di riferimento sia composto soprattutto da italo-americani radicati sul territorio statunitense che mantengono tuttavia forti legami di vario tipo con l’Italia. Stefano Albertini, dal canto suo, raccoglie indubbiamente un forte consenso soprattutto da parte della “nuova immigrazione”, fatta di giovani, ricercatori, professionisti che lasciano il Bel Paese per motivi di lavoro o di studio, spesso legato agli ambienti culturali e universitari. Due personaggi dunque molto diversi, ma entrambi in grado di raccogliere il sostegno di tipologie importanti di italiani residenti negli Stati Uniti.

     

    Purtroppo questi due gruppi non si parlano spesso, e a volte sono in contrasto tra loro. Insieme alla lettera di sostegno ad Albertini, firmata da decine di personaggi di spicco del mondo universitario e culturale taliano a Nwe York e negli Usa in generale, alcuni blog hanno pubblicato anche un intervento scritto da Daniela Cavallero, docente di lingua e cultura italiana all’università di Chicago. Cavallero dichiara di far parte di un gruppo di italiani residenti negli USA che non si riconosce negli “interessi della comunità italo-americana”. Cosa ancora più interessante, questo intervento si chiude con un appello abbsatnza crudo: “basta con questa storia del mandolino, o sole mio, e dei prosciutti che pendono dai soffitti! Noi non siamo così!”

     

    A parte il fatto che alcuni potrebbero trovare offensivi questi toni, il punto essenziale è che lo stereotipo italo-americano che la Cavallero utilizza è legato al passato di tutti gli italiani, non solo di quelli emigrati in America. Quanti di noi non hanno una nonna o una zia anziana che ancora oggi, in un paesino di montagna in Italia, prepara con cura prosciutti e salami appesi ai tetti fatti con un maiale allevato in comune con la vicina di casa? Quanti non ha un nonno che ancora oggi, mentre giriamo il mondo in qualità di ricercatori per questa o quella università, ascolta canzoni suonate da un mandolino mentre gioca a carte seduto in un bar, rigorosamente frequentato da soli uomini anziani? Forse per affermare la “modernità” della priopria identitià non è necessario rinnegare il passato e la propria storia familiare e personale...

     

    Tra l’altro basterebbe guardare ai raffinati ambienti culturali degli Italian American Studies, in cui scrittori e studiosi di origine italiana, che appartengono senza alcun dubbio alla cultura mainstream americana, riscoprono la letteratura, il cinema, la storia di questa nazione emigrata negli scorsi 150 anni. Sono sofisticati intellettuali che non si sognerebbero certo di negare la capacità di una parte della “comunità italo-americana” di “produrre cultura”. E questo è un approccio che a noi sembra Stefano Albertini condivida in pieno.

     

    Tornando invece alle scelte dei partiti, è curioso notare che i due più grandi partiti italiani non hanno dato ascolto alle pressioni dal basso: né a quelle della “società civile” che avrebbe appoggiato Albertini, né a quelle delle reti di lealtà elettorale già sperimentate, che avrebbero sostenuto Ferrigno. Mentre l’elettorato litiga e si spacca e i partiti non prendono in considerazione le richieste presenti ed il comportamento passato degli elettori, sarebbe naturale domandarsi cosa i futuri parlamentari eletti all’estero riusciranno a fare, come e perché (o per chi!)
  • Facts & Stories

    Race, Sex, Ancestry, or Religion: How Should We Vote?


    How many Americans are willing to vote – or not vote – for a candidate because of his/her race, sex, ancestry, or religion? These are becoming the four key questions in this primary season. Front-runners include an African-American, a Woman, a Mormon and an Italian-American (who happens to be a Catholic). And one could also argue that being a war veteran, John McCain too could trigger an emotional identification chord – especially among soldiers, veterans and their families.



    But do people actually vote this way? The answer is not an easy one, and perhaps there is not one answer to the question.


    For most people politics is local, family-based, and machine-governed. Political machines large or small control the votes of entire families, groups and communities all over the country. They may well use ethicity, religion, and gender among their election slogans, but what they specialize in is connections and patronage – and many people are quite happy to trade their vote for all sorts of personal favors. This is an iron rule of politics (albeit not the only one) especially when politics is – as it often the case – eminently a local activity.



    But today’s Presidential politics leaves little room for local, territory-based machine politics. The political appeal is too universalistic and the campaign, strongly influenced by old and new media, develops at a national, not a local scale. No ties to the territory, to the specific people and needs of the place. This phenomenon is typical of politics in large cities, where many people live for professional reasons without any special attachment to their neighborood and actually tend to vote based on principles, opinions, and ideas that are formed through the media rather than in community life. A similar attitude tends to be also typical of Presidential politics today, especially in the primaries. Voting for a candidate because of race, sex, ancestry, or religion would fall into this kind of attitude. How will it work?



    Many observers say it will not work. They argue that Obama is not a real African-American, that Clinton is not a real woman, that Giuliani is not a real Italian/American and that Romney is not a real Mormon. All their arguments are quite interesting.



    Sen. Obama is the son of an African immigrant. He has no strong ties with all the African-American cultural legacy that can be traced back to the dark periods of slavery and segregation. And make no mistake: being an African-American is much more than having a darke skin color. Sen. Clinton is an ex-conservative, the wife of an ex-President, a career-oriented kind of person whom politically-conscious women may not be inclined to pick as their gender’s representative. And make no mistake: being a political woman (as opposed to a political man) is much more than simply being of feminine sex. Then comes Mayor Giuliani: he is known for having gone after “his own kind” in his mafia prosecutions of the 1980s (?), and seems to be little interested in the Italian/American community, or at least less interested than other prominent Italian/Americans. And make no mistake: being an Italian/American is much more than simply carrying a surname that ends with a vowel. Finally, Gov. Romney is trying his best to make people forget about his religious faith. And make no mistake: people won’t.



    All these arguments are very interesting and can be sustained in conferences all over the world in different ways. However, we’ve all seen first-hand the kind of support the African-American community is giving to Sen. Obama, for example, which suggests that many academic analysis may not be so reliable after all.



    In an election where “ideology” can actually find room by itself, the actual outcome may well be dictated by one or two single issues. Why should we preemptively assume that one of these issues may not be race, sex, ancestry or religion?



    Clearly Sen. Obama is not only an African-American; he is also young and passionate. Sen. Clinton is not only a woman; she is also experienced and carries the legacy of a Presidency most Americans believe was good. Mayor Giuliani is not only an Italian/American; he is also the hero from 9/11 and an forceful mayor of an “unmanageable city”. Gov. Romney is not only a Mormon; he is also a successful Governor and is considered “Mr. Perfect” from a Republican point of view. And all these aspects of these candidate’s personal background that could influence voters equally, or more than the “ethnic” aspects discussed above.



    Yes, Presidential politics leaves room for this kind of speculations and no, there hardly is an “ethnic” or “minority” sentiment among the Americans so strong to influence – alone – the voting decision of large “blocks” of people.



    But the question remains: how will “minorities” behave towards one or two candidates that belong to theyr own minority group. There are only two historical precedents that can help us for now: Al Smith in 1928, who pundits believe lost the election also because he was Irish/Italian/Catholic and John Kennedy in 1960, who experts agree that received and lost more or less the same amount of votes for being Irish/Catholic.



    Is this “old stuff”? Sure, in 2004 John Kerry’s Catholic faith slipped by quietly, just as Rudy Giuliani’s italoamericanness and Roman Catholicism seems to be a great non-factor of these primary elections. But, after JFK, the “religion problem” was solved and almost forgotten – at least for Catholics. As for race, ethnicity, and gender let’s see what happens now… after all the male/Wasp model of presidential politics might have come to exhaustion.

     

     

     
  • Facts & Stories

    The U.N. Human Rights Committee Votes for a Moratorium on the Death Penalty


    ''The UN vote... is a great success for Italy and the cause of peace,'' said Italian President Giorgio Napolitano after Thursday night's human rights committee vote at the United Nations calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. According to President Napolitano ''now all that's missing is the final seal of the General Assembly'' on this initiative for which Italy has lobbied for a very long time. In mid-December the resolution will be brought in front of the General Assembly. President Napolitano stated also that Italy played a leading role throughout the approval process.

     

    On November 15, Italy's Ambassador to the U.N. Marcello Spatafora, declared:



    I strongly hope that, in approving this resolution, we will be starting a process in which we will be all working together, we will be all walking together along the same path, with equal dignity, with full mutual respect.


    This should always be the culture of the United Nations, the culture of all those who believe in the United Nations, not a culture of fighting each other, but a culture of building together, a culture of commitment to a common endeavor, with the guidance of the Charter, a culture of bridge builders among different visions, sensitivities, interests.


    I feel that it would be appropriate for me, in this delicate juncture, to recall what a former President of the General Assembly, Ian Eliasson, used to tell us, it is to say that “Without passion nothing happens in life, without compassion, I repeat compassion, wrong things happen in life”. I feel that this is the spirit with which we should approach the vote.

     

    Twice in the past the UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions on capital punishment, and Italy played a key role both times. The first was adopted in 1971, while the second came in 1977. Both stated that it was ''desirable'' that the death penalty be abolished in all countries. According to Amnesty International, leading worldwide human rights organization based in London, 130 of 192 member states have already abolished the death penalty in law or practice, while in 2006 only 25 countries carried out executions in 2006. It is also important to point out that since 1990 over 50 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes.


    Critics of the resolution have dismissed it as a mainly European affair, since it was drafted by 27 EU member states. It was however approved thanks to the vote of 99 countries and against the will of 52 countries, with 33 abstentions. Among the countries against it are the United States, China , the Organization of Islamic Countries, the League of Arab States and several Caribbean and Asian countries. About 90% of all executions worldwide are carried out by China, Iran , Iraq, the US , Pakistan and Chad alone. Since 1998 over five million signatures were collected in 152 countries around the world demanding a worldwide moratorium of the death penalty.


    A number of prominent international figures declared their sympathy for the moratorium initiative, including Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Argentinean Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Siti Musdah Muliva, prominent Muslim theologian, and Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace. According to Cardinal Martino ''you cannot punish one crime with another crime, and the death penalty is murder''.

     



     
  • Facts & Stories

    What is in a Name? Primary Elections, Italian Style


    What is in a name? William Shakespeare led us to believe that the answer to this question is nothing at all. Well, maybe when it comes to love affairs and family fights the poet was right. But if the object of interest is politics the answer should be quite different. No, this is not another article about political dynasties, family traditions in national politics, or other similar themes. Here we try to undertake a very hard, although fascinating “mission”: explaining to an American audience something virtually incomprehensible. Namely, what do Italians really mean when they speak about “primary elections”?

    In the United States primary elections are serious business. Currently they are required by state law in several American states, and are organized by the US government just like any other election. They are – or at least should be – legally flawless. In some particular cases, such as in the so-called “non-partisan primary” of the state of Louisiana, the winner of the primary can be directly catapulted into public office, skipping the general election. Setting aside the legal/institutional aspects, politically speaking primary elections are and always were a fundamental guarantee of political competition in the United States. On one hand, primary elections solved the huge competition problem that all the “one-party-regions” once had. On the other hand, the primary season is currently used by political parties at all levels to choose their leadership and bridge the gap among contrasting factions of the same party.



    In Italy the situation is quite different. To begin with, no Italian law requires primary elections. Italians started hearing about this funny type of election (invented in the United States!) around 2004. The Italian media covered the American primaries at some length, politicians started commenting and discussing this peculiar institution on national television, and the Italian people learned something they didn’t know about democracy: in a truly democratic country you get to pick your party’s candidate! That’s pretty much everything Italians know about primary elections. During an undergraduate Political Science class at the University of Naples in 2001, when a class of 300 students was asked about primary elections, not one student was able to give a complete answer. That’s quite a leap from not knowing what a primary election is to actually taking part in one!



    Italian citizens had a chance to vote in their first primary election leading up to the general political elections of 2006. Romano Prodi’s center-left coalition, created especially for that election under the name “L’Unione”, organized and held a primary election to choose their candidate for Prime Minister. But, wait a minute… Why should Italians choose a party’s – or a coalition’s – candidate for Prime Minister if they don’t even get to vote for this candidate? In fact, Italians do not elect their Prime Minister. They only vote for the legislative body: the national Parliament. It’s the Parliament that in some way “elects” the Prime Minister, when it votes to grant its "confidence" to a new government. Until recently the voters could only guess who would be the Prime Minister, for there was no candidate to the premiership during the election campaign. Actually, not many years ago it was virtually impossible to even know which parties would make up the coalitions before the ballots were cast.



    Since the Berlusconi earthquake the rules of the game have changed quite a bit. In 2006 the center-left coalition decided that the Italian people should have the ability to select theri candidate for Prime Minister in a “primary election”. Interestingly enough, the only candidate in this primary was Romano Prodi, a former Italian Prime Minister, President of the European Commission and “front-runner” of the center-left coalition since day one of the Berlusconi administration. Mr. Prodi had to face token opposition from the leader of the Green Party – which gathers something like 1 to 2 per cent of the national vote election after election – and from the head of the leading Communist Party (Rifondazione Comunista), which gathers the vote of all the extreme-left communist contingent– representing 7 to 9 percent of the total vote. All candidates in this “primary” admitted that their opposition to Mr. Prodi was only symbolic and that they would be part of his government as soon as he won the primary and the general election against Berlusconi.



    So, the 2006 Italian primary elections were quite peculiar from an American perspective: they were held by a private organization that somewhat resembled a political coalition; there was a sort of “polling tax” that people had to pay in order to take part in the election; the name of the winner was widely know way before a single vote was even cast. Nonetheless, with a little bit of imagination one could define that event a primary election.



    But then came along this novel idea of an actual political party replacing the strange coalitions that election after election put together a number of small and extra-small political parties. The new party will be called “Partito Democratico” (PD), maybe to recall the American Democratic Party. And, since this party calls itself democratic, the people are being summoned to elect its leadership - that is... to vote in "primary elections".


    Now, an American would ask: "What kind of candidate, for what kind of public office are Italians going to vote on October 14th?". The answer is surprisingly simple: no candidate for no office! What is going to happen next Sunday has indeed nothing to do with primary elections. Italians, or better yet, supporters of the newborn PD, are going to elect the head of the party and its board of directors. That’s it. No one will choose any candidate for any office. The Italian media and even some politicians keep talking about primaries, but there are not going to be any primaries, just an internal election of the party’s formal leadership. Of course, calling this election a “primary election” leads us to think that its winner will also be the new party’s choice for Prime Minister at the next elections, but - given the Italian political tradition, and the absence of any legislation in this regard - there is no assurance that this will be the instititutional outcome of next Sunday's internal party election.



    October 14th will undoubtedly be an exercise in democracy. At least one million people are expected to cast their ballot to elect the national leadership of the new party and its secretary (almost certainly Walter Veltroni, the popular mayor of Rome). But it won't be a primary election in any sense this term may possibly have - at least from the standpoint of the country that indeed invented "the primaries".

     

     

Pages