“We are, to say the least, amazed by the arguments that the president of Coldiretti, in an interview given to a local newspaper, put forward to justify – after the silent scene in the chamber council of his representatives – the political choice to break the unity of the agricultural world to utilitarian positions of his organization”. This was reported by a joint note from CIA Capitanata, Confagricoltura Foggia, Copagri Foggia and Confcooperative Foggia after the election of the new head of the Chamber of Commerce.
“If the choice of Coldiretti was made in the superior interests of the territory because the Chamber of Commerce is fundamental for the development of the Capitanata, it is not clear why the president of a trade association does not present himself at the installation session of the Council which must elect the president of the organization. Other association presidents, although not indicated as members of the Council, were in the room to testify to the political importance – perhaps too forgotten – of that meeting”.
For the writer, the statement that Coldiretti had to make this choice because no way could be found to create a synthesis within the agricultural world is, to say the least, fanciful. Coldiretti did not name a name that was an expression of agriculture and remained at the sector table, which has always explicitly advanced its political demands, until the other productive sectors found, with a sudden separation of someone, a summary of a name expressed by Confcommercio. At that moment Coldiretti immediately made a run to grab the place. We reiterate: nothing shocking but only the plastic testimony of the interest in the armchair”.
And they conclude: “Having said this, we do not believe that the controversies benefit this area and our businesses and we do not hope to continue on this ground, but we do not want and cannot tolerate falsehoods and mystifications to justify opportunistic choices. The unity of the world of business representation is a value if recognized by all, if not – as someone pointed out, alliances are better. However, these often lead to problems of stability, in particular when the glue is not some shared vision or program, but the simple and brutal division of leadership positions”.
