As far as we know, the secretary of the Democratic Party received an invitation to participate in Atreju, the historic FdI event. Elly Schlein, it is explained in Nazarene circles, would have agreed to participate but on one condition: the possibility of a direct confrontation with the prime minister and party leader Giorgia Meloni.
The sudden stop to the vote on the consensus bill has produced new consequences between Giorgia Meloni and Elly Schlein. protagonists, if not a real political convergence, of a game of mirrors in which both have an interest in positioning themselves as champions of the fight against gender violence, while avoiding giving up ground in the identity battle that opposes them.
For Giorgia Meloni, the postponement was an uncomfortable transition. The prime minister has built a good part of her public image on the idea of a modern right, capable of defending women without giving in to patriarchal temptations. The stop, decided not by her but by her own majority, risked turning into a communication boomerang, portraying her as held back by internal resistance. Meloni, meanwhile, maintains a balanced line: he does not disavow the principle of consensus, but leaves the task of preparing a legally unassailable text to the experts – and to Senator Bongiorno.
On the other hand, Elly Schlein seizes the moment to raise the pressure on the majority, painting the stop as a sign of political uncertainty, if not fear. But the dem secretary also proceeds with caution: the issue of consent is one in which the left feels strongest, but requires calibrated communication so as not to appear as the party that wants to regulate the intimate sphere without taking legal complexity into account. The fact that La Russa himself underlined that Meloni and Schlein think the same way is revealing: on a narrative level, the leader of the Democratic Party finds herself in an unusual position, almost forced to distance herself to avoid finding herself aligned with the prime minister on a symbolic matter. And in fact his strategy is twofold: defending the urgency of the reform, but at the same time denouncing the slowness of the majority and the weight of internal vetoes.