Feltri: the jungle of Rome held hostage by radical chic and incapable leaders. Voting is the only recipe

I recently had the pleasure of going to Rome, a city that I love but where unfortunately I go less and less due to my increasingly limited propensity to move and travel. My stay did not last more than forty-eight hours, yet it was enough for me to realize that little or nothing has changed since the democratic mayor Roberto Gualtieri, who succeeded the grillina Virginia Raggi, took office at the helm of the capital. Potholes, rubbish, disorder, slowdowns, various inefficiencies are just some of the problems that Romans deal with on a daily basis, now so accustomed to this status quo that they almost no longer feel its weight and annoyances, even though the stress of an existence led within of this urban jungle makes itself felt and produces its symptoms. The good food, the pleasant climate, the playful and entertaining character of the Romans, the majesty and beauty of the city which offers emotions and thrills at every step undoubtedly contribute to mitigating the worst aspects of the city of which the administrations that are are alternated and that each time they promise to change everything and then leave everything as it is.

I wondered about the reasons that make the undertaking impossible. In short, why is imposing order, rigor, discipline, cleanliness and efficiency so difficult in Rome? Could it depend on the morphology and geography of the city? Could it be due to its gigantic size? I do not believe. I think that there was a lack of real will on the part of those who governed the capital to make it more efficient. Perhaps there was a lack of love for Rome, that Rome caput mundi of which each of us is ultimately a citizen since each of us originated from it. I couldn’t help but reflect on a paradox that was reconfirmed in the very recent European elections. This is the differentiation between voting in large cities and voting in the rest of the country. Each time what emerges from both the national and European votes are two Italys: the Italy which prefers the left in the regional capitals and the Italy which chooses the centre-right with ever greater conviction. In short, the true Italian dualism does not lie in the North-South contrast but in the gap between the minority that lives in the heart of the cities and the majority that is outside of it. It is surprising that the inhabitants of large cities have this form of fury against themselves, continuing to prefer the progressives and entrusting the management of the area to a left which cannot be considered a model of efficiency and which is furthermore perceived as distant by the citizens.

This differentiation has always been explained with the theory according to which those who live in metropolises, particularly in their centres, are usually rich and do not encounter the economic problems that concern those who live outside the big cities who therefore tend to vote for “anti-system” parties to express discontent and rebellion towards one’s lifestyle. I can’t agree. Right-wing parties cannot be defined as “anti-system”, even more so now that they govern the whole of Italy. It would be reductive to say: those who are wealthy are on the left and those who are poor are on the right. Prejudices and stereotypes that do not provide a sufficiently satisfactory explanation of the anomaly that I have just illustrated and which has always persisted. All we have to do is resign ourselves to the bad government of the metropolis, permanently held hostage by the radical-chic, or commit ourselves to the next round to revolutionize things in the only possible way, that is, through the vote.