If the goal was to put a stop to poverty and social exclusion, then, with the introduction of the so-called "citizenship income", in 2019, the penta-stellati would seem to have gained the merit of having introduced, in the 'Tricolor system, a real "right to income" of constitutional significance. Not even for a dream: only a petty demagogic choice useful to determine a dangerous democratic drift fueled by the affirmation of an illusory principle of "substantial equality" never realized.

Precisely on the level of welfare policies, in fact, the disbursement of that "income", claimed as "miraculous" by its irreducible supporters, actually constitutes a real "danger" right in terms of the creation of a system of " social equality ”, and a clear disincentive to work for having eliminated, over the years, the competitive supply of work in relation, conversely, to the increase in demand. In short: “minimum income” and “minimum employment levels”, at least in Italy, are two sides of the same coin. So that, unlike what they have shown, and they show that they believe the penta-starred people in the circumstance, and despite good intentions, it is not absolute truth that through a decisive redistributive intervention in favor of those in a condition of "need" widely understood it is possible to defeat “poverty”, on whose precise meaning (lack of resources or lack of equal opportunities?), however, it would be necessary first of all to find a qualifying understanding.

The "poor" continue to exist, and indeed they are even "poorer". For this reason, the content, albeit only mildly adhesive, of the recent intervention of the "Premier" on the subject is astonishing. , and divides, the majority of the Government, on the other hand, assumes a politically controversial attitude if one considers, on the contrary, the aversion, at this point unjustified, evident towards the measure, however not acceptable for other reasons, of League matrix, namely that of the so-called "Quota Cento". The truth appears to be only one, and it appears likely in all its incontrovertible: beyond the formulas and various declinations, too often inconsistent with the principle, if it is true, as it is true, that the "citizenship income" cannot no way to correspond with a generic "right to income", for the latter to be of much wider scope and value, however, that same reviled "citizenship income", has the merit of having induced reflection, and paved the way, towards the debate on the necessary introduction of an authentic and autonomous "right to income" suitable for guaranteeing a dignified existence for the majority of associates to be a tangible expression of the reassuring intervention of the State.

Basically, the interpretative paradigm of the so-called "fight against poverty" should be expressed in the relationship between the need to strengthen employment levels and, no less important, to mitigate the negative effects of the potential collapse of those same levels. In the meantime, because, by doing so, one would have the opportunity to aspire to the achievement of a satisfactory condition of so-called "substantial equality". So, because if all men, to be truly "free", should be able to rely on an "income" of any consistency and derivation (work and / or welfare), then that "income" could not be configured otherwise than as "constitutionally" essential instrument to express the qualities of the individual both in private life and in that of relationship pursuant to and for the purposes of Article 2 of the Constitution. Finally, because, in any case, that aforementioned "right to income" should also be expressed in terms of the overall and equal distribution of available resources, that is, as a pre-necessary condition to guarantee the potential, albeit inevitably different, social affirmation of the individual. Finally, because only by reasoning in the aforementioned terms, the State can guarantee that "equality" commonly understood is not compromised and mortified by the affirmation of impeding social conditions that nullify the sacrosanct rights of the Sovereign People since the removal of all forms of inequality constitutes full expression of democracy.

Well. In light of what has been briefly observed, one concept among all cannot in any way be ignored. That is to say that for which there cannot exist, as moreover stated by several voices, the "work in the absence of a proportionate remuneration", and the "jobless income" as qualifiable, the latter, in the mortifying terms of a free State alms of legal legitimacy. The way out of an “invalidating” condition of endemic poverty can only be identified in the elaboration of complete redistribution policies that are certainly difficult to implement in the absence of reconversion of the general economic system. A condition, the latter, which forces us ruinously to the "starting line" and does not allow us to progress. This is why I strongly doubt that Mario Draghi will manage, despite his skill with "numbers", to square the circle. What needs to be changed, beyond the mischief of the Palazzo and the system of prevalence that characterizes the current executive, is above all the "Italian System" that has to be re-constituted. So let's resign ourselves, and let's not create false expectations: poverty exists, it will continue to exist, and it will not be the 5 Stars, much less Mario Draghi to put a stop to it, at least in the near future. We always remember the magic word: resilience. In other words, the alpha and omega of the "draghian" politics.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore

(Lawyer - Nuoro)

© Riproduzione riservata