Marattin: “Early elections? Maybe! Here’s how to bring the Center back… to the center”

“What if we vote soon? I’m not afraid of it. In fact, I hope so: it would be an opportunity to break the sick bipolarism that is suffocating Italy”. Luigi Marattin , former member of Italia Viva and now founder of the Partito Liberademocratico , does not hide. Neither when he talks about the populist drift of the two poles, nor when he launches the challenge to build a liberal, reformist, Atlanticist alternative.

In this interview he explains why he decided to found a new political entity, what his ambitions are and where he wants to go. And he doesn’t spare criticism, from the golden power to Unicredit-Bpm to the Pnrr, passing through Generali, Mps and the “out of control” taxation. But there are also words of appreciation: for the prime minister, “who is doing well in international politics” and for the other subjects at the center, from Calenda to Renzi to…

In an increasingly bipolar politics - sometimes even in the worst sense of the term - what need was there for a new party and what space are you going to fill?

After the end of the First Republic, Italy wanted to delude itself into thinking it was a country where it was useful and efficient to organize the political system on a bipolar basis. And many, including myself, believed it. Even though it was clear that the attempt was not entirely convincing, given that the institutional reforms necessary to fully support such a scheme (such as a fully majoritarian electoral law, or the reform of parliamentary regulations) were never made.

For some time now, I have been convinced that bipolarism has only caused enormous damage in Italy. A country cannot invent its own political and cultural DNA at a table. The countries where bipolarism works are the Anglo-Saxon ones, where for 200 years there have only been two political cultures (in addition to a fully majoritarian electoral law). In our history, however, we count at least 5 political cultures (socialist, communist, secular-liberal-republican, popular Catholic, social right): it is illusory to think that they can be forcibly reduced to two. Secondly, at least in the 1990s and 2000s, the fragile Italian bipolarism competed for the median voter: it did so with two sides that had two centrist leaders (Prodi and Berlusconi) and political forces that were essentially centrist and that had the political leadership of the two coalitions.

For about ten years, however, the political engines of the two coalitions have become the extremist and populist parties, and they compete for the extreme voter, not the median one. Salvini, Meloni, Vannacci compete to tickle the most sovereignist voter. Schlein and Conte do the same thing with the most radical left-wing voter. This leaves a part of the country, potentially even a majority, without political representation. It is no coincidence that we are observing rates of abstentionism never experienced in our history.

The Liberal Democratic Party was born to fill, together with all those who share this approach, this dangerous void of representation. And to give voice to all those who believe that Italy needs a wave of liberal reforms to return to growth and stop being the country that, in the last thirty years, has recorded the lowest average growth rate on the entire planet.

At the presentation of the Liberal Democratic Party there was a lot of civil society, some “important” names too: what kind of welcome did you receive?

We have a digital-only membership, with a mandatory payment of 25 euros for the membership card: this does not help mass membership! But nevertheless in less than 60 days we have gained more than 2,000 members, and we are growing a lot especially among local administrators. We are present in all the regions and in almost all the provincial capitals. Last month we already had a day of stalls in the squares throughout Italy and this weekend we will repeat it on the occasion of Europe Day.

On June 28 and 29, in Bologna we will hold our first congress, with the election of the national governing bodies. There is a lot of curiosity around our project. We will do everything to deserve the trust that is given to us. And let me thank from the bottom of my heart our militants and our leaders, who have been working several hours a day for our project for months, putting in time and money. But they do it for one reason only: because they believe that politics in Italy can return to being a serious thing, and not the teleshopping that it has become in recent years.

In a perspective always oriented towards the majority, is your home the center-left or the center-right?

We are certainly not the only ones to believe in a liberal-democratic and reformist platform, made up of loyalty to the Atlantic liberal democracies, support for Ukraine, guarantees, reduction of public spending, competitive revolution, meritocracy in public administration, etc.

But we are the only ones who think that the challenge of making this approach live within one of the poles has failed. The challenge of “tempering” or “conditioning” populisms has failed. Populisms must be fought on the electoral level, not courted. They have already done enough damage.

In the 2027 political elections, those who support an authentically liberal-democratic and reformist approach must present themselves with a single formation, strong, proud, autonomous and with a contestable leadership. To ensure that in the next legislature the populists of the right and left will only see the government of the country through binoculars.

Is the rift with Renzi and before that with Calenda healable?

We have no rifts with anyone. If anything, there are different political opinions. In particular, Italia Viva last year decided to abandon the third-party position (which it had held since its birth in 2019) and side with the center-left, with the M5S and in favor of Elly Schlein as prime minister. A legitimate choice but one that a large part of that party did not share, abandoning Italia Viva and giving life first to the association "Orizzonti Liberali" and then - together with other political entities - to the Liberal Democratic Party.

Azione, on the other hand, remains in the liberal-democratic area, and therefore is obviously an interlocutor. Here, if anything, the question is to understand whether the subjects remaining in this area should go to war with each other or, as we hope, take a common path aimed at offering Italians a united and strong alternative. After all, all the surveys agree that this area is potentially worth 15% of the electorate. If none of the existing subjects, in a few years now, has managed to cover more than a fifth of this sum, then perhaps we must do something bigger all together, instead of insisting that, alone, we are not only necessary but also sufficient.

Also because if voters once again find themselves with two or even more formations that say the same things but are divided because each one thinks they have it bigger than the others (the thought, obviously), I think they will send everyone to hell. As has already happened in the past.

Some say that by the beginning of next year we will go back to the polls, with the prime minister ready to cash in on the growing trust she enjoys: what do you think? Would you be ready for the elections?

Politics is an exact science for certain things. If a government coalition breaks up, it does not present itself – 45 days later – to the vote together again. And the center-right, with this policy and electoral law, can win only if it presents itself united. So the only case in which I believe it is possible to go to an early vote is a radical change in the political structure, in the direction of a breakup of this unhealthy bipolarism. And since this is ultimately the outcome I hope for, I certainly cannot be afraid of it.

On economic matters, some dry judgments: golden power on UniCredit, yes or no? Mps-Mediobanca? And the Generali game (just concluded but already topical again)?

Using the golden power in that way on the Unicredit-BPM operation was one of the most ridiculous things I've seen lately. That discipline was created to protect sectors crucial to our security (such as defense or telecommunications) from acquisitions by non-allied countries. Here, instead, it is used to hinder a possible merger between two Italian banks. Crazy.

Regarding MPS, since I am not nostalgic for state-owned companies or banks controlled by politics, I would prefer that the State first completely exit MPS's capital and then that this institution, and these new "courageous captains", try all the "assaults on heaven" they want. The market will decide. The State should mind its own business: in a modern market economy, public power on these matters intervenes only through the regulatory authorities, which in turn must intervene only to protect the principle of competition and to avoid the creation of dominant positions.

Finally, on Generali, I was very surprised by the hostility of a good part of Italian politics towards the merger between Generali Investment Holdings and Natixis. This is the same politics that claps its hands when Draghi says that within the EU we must create a capital market union, create transactional entities of European dimension, integrate national markets, etc. Then when it comes to doing it, everyone gets scared. The truth is that for Italian politics, things are good only when they remain intentions. In this case, too strong for some people the fear that the classic “moral suasion” phone call to Generali to keep the public debt securities in their bellies even when they lose value would be a little more difficult in the event of a merger with the French. Because in Italy, in reality, the only party in government in Italy is the PUSP (the Single Party of Public Spending), which includes both the right and the left.

How do you judge the relationship between Giorgia Meloni and Donald Trump?

I imagine that any relationship with Donald Trump is not exactly easy. One day he praises you, the next day he can tell you that you have to kiss his ass. The fact that President Meloni managed to stay in the Oval Office (even saying very effective things, like that the West must “become great again”, not simply America) without being mistreated seems to me to be an excellent result.

Regardless of your biased opinions, are you satisfied with these first 30 months of Meloni's government?

In international politics, yes, you would have to be in bad faith to deny it. In domestic politics, absolutely not. The tax burden has risen from 41.7% in 2022 to 42.6% in 2024 (source: Istat) and the government itself writes in official documents that it will remain at that level until the end of the legislature. There is not even a shadow of liberalization and competition, in Italy we have the only right-wing party in the world that is against the market. I will give you just one example: the government is preparing to launch another bill on competition. Will you accept a suggestion from us? Completely liberalize sales. The idea that a shop can lower the prices of goods only when the mayor decides is a legacy of a world that no longer exists.

And then: public spending continues to be out of control, there is no will to trigger a serious mechanism according to which before spending a euro of new public money we must verify that the 1,200 billion that we already spend are used in the best possible way. The PNRR is struggling: I was shocked when, a few weeks ago, Minister Foti candidly admitted that there are 12 billion already committed but that do not have an implementing body: that is, there are 12 billion that are lying around but it is not known to whom they were given.

The Arms Race: Just and Necessary or Hasty and Out of Time?

Security is a public good. Which does not mean free, but it does mean that it must be offered by the public authorities. For 80 years we have enjoyed it without actually paying for it, because the USA provided it to us. If it is true, as it seems, that they are no longer willing to do so (at least not to the extent that has occurred so far), then we must provide it ourselves.

I find childish the polemics of those who say "let's not spend on security, let's spend on schools and hospitals". They seem like a group of hippies. They don't understand that without the public good "defense and security", it is useless to talk about schools, hospitals, research and all the things that rightly are much closer to our hearts.

Can we talk to Putin?

In international politics you have to talk to everyone. But it seems to me that the only way the gentleman above uses to talk is with bombs and missiles. And so, unfortunately, you have to stay in the conversation, let's say. It seems to me that even Trump realized this in the end.

READ ALL THE LATEST POLITICS NEWS