But is "power" "male" or "female"? Or is it just and simply power variously interpreted when in the masculine and when in the feminine? The question is clearly provocative and, probably, sadly ironic as well, but the various and "poor" (in many ways) linguistic-expressive diatribes of the past week force a reflection that aims to go beyond the sterile linguistic altercation that has come to generate between those who would seem to define themselves and would like to believe themselves to be "right" and those who would like to recognize themselves, conversely, as passionate militants of the "left". Distinguishing themselves from each other, the former from the latter, solely according to the choice between an "o" and an "a" in the declination of one of the most coveted positions in our government.

A way like any other, in short, evidently pleasing to a political narrative that is no longer such in its qualifying connotations, to "discuss the sex of angels" through the mechanisms of "reductio ad absurdum".

If these are the qualifying premises of government action, then we will have to resign ourselves from now on to feel that marginal or irrelevant issues are given importance to the detriment of the much more serious ones present at the moment and which require immediate resolutive action.

Having removed any doubt that "the (lady) President of the Council of Ministers" remains the best expression with which to define Giorgia Meloni, that is, the first woman (like it or not) called to lead the government in Italy, it's time to end it: we cannot expect to always reduce everything to a question of "gender" only to underline a different vision of the political processes in progress.

The time has come to abandon, making it a sacrosanct reason, any useless, as strongly harmful, "forestry" and happily accept a historical process now well underway.

There is no question, then, on the circumstance for which someone intends to prefer the traditional male form, having the right to do so: Giorgio Napolitano, a notoriously leftist man, had preferred to "call" Laura Boldrini simply "the President of the Chamber" to mean, for the 'in fact, the insignificance of any discussion on the point, tendentious due to a defect of origin and not at all significant in terms of political relations. The choice between one or the other form, in essence, is the result of a pure and simple linguistic preference dictated by belonging to a certain generation or to a conscious ideological choice that would be, as in fact, rather ridiculous. impeach.

Let's be clear, and to make it very short: "dum ea romani parant consultantque, iam Saguntum summa vi oppugnabatur" (translating the Latin expression: "while the Romans were lingering in preparations and consultations, Sagunto was already stormed with great violence" ). Whoever wants to understand, understand. Because if even an irrelevant expressive discussion is connoted, as unfortunately duly happened, to be assumed as a paradigm of government, then we should forcefully be led to believe that the next future path of the newly born executive could remain conditioned in an extremely ruinous way for its potential aptitude to translate any possible emergencies into a small ideologism incapable of reflecting itself in concrete action. The impression one draws from it is that even today, probably at an unconscious level, it has not been possible to metaphorically go beyond the binomial "dominance / submission", preventing the most malicious from thinking in terms, which would be correct, of an established condition of equality manifesting itself in the management of a horizontally diffused power as an alternative, also political and social, desirable when it was correctly and functionally understood.

If in the distant nineteenth century, in short, women had "the keys to the heart and the pantry", today, "mutatis mutandis", those same women, "also hold the keys to the control room" having definitively overcome the social and economic barriers, political and cultural relying solely on its own resources.

The spasmodic need of some part of the "left" to continually reiterate the inferiority, true or presumed, private and public of women, the need to underline their obligation (if it still exists) almost obedience to the verticality of male domination, ends up resulting in the inability to accept a transformation that has now occurred, perhaps not yet fully completed, but certainly well underway, within which, the "disobedience" against an alleged male superiority represents only a distant experience in time and in the space at least in the social experience of our however problematic West. The same constitutional system guarantees, to the under-represented gender, a particular protection even though the so-called "gender quotas" and the mechanisms of "double preference" are to be "abhorred" as such considered beyond and beyond, very often, every question linked to merit to absorb, almost in a sadly reductionist way, the much more relevant theme of explanation of the principles of "equal democracy". To put it differently, the real problem, which emerged once again between the lines of a linguistic discussion of very little value to which Giorgia Meloni herself unfortunately wanted (I believe unwittingly) to follow up, is that even now the pregnant theme of gender equality is he finds himself confined between juridical and orderly “technicalities” that lead to neglect the ontological dimension useful for defining the significant systematic contours suitable to be reflected in consequent actions. One has the impression that the "feminine" in the political context of our system of government has passed from the dimension of "conflict" to that of pure and simple "litigation", and that the authenticity of every principle of equality has been desired to replace only a quantitative criterion (quotas) aimed at reducing the whole, and its significance, to a mere numerical fact that is difficult to decipher on a substantial level. Differently, in short, from what he would like to make himself believe, women in the political context, whatever that may be said, far from being poorly represented, are rather, poorly qualified in order to almost never be called to play key roles within their membership.

Giorgia Meloni is undoubtedly a happy exception, but it does not at all mean that her "top position" depends on her greater skills wisely expressed compared to those of other women of the same right or left who have remained in the shadows. The mechanisms are obviously other and can be summarized in logics that have little or nothing to do with sex, based, indeed, on the greater or lesser capacity to create "trust".

Right now we have to "rely" on the governance skills of Giorgia Meloni, whose political thought or ideological approach may not be fully shared, but has nevertheless prevailed in the electoral context and we just have to hope that as a combative leader of the opposition becomes a valid representative of the interests of the Italian people.

So, and whatever it is, good work Madam President of the Council. Whether he prefers an "a" or he prefers an "o", what matters is that this tricolor Giorgia leads us out of the crisis.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore - Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata