… And conclude that Italy needs an automatic name generator for governments that are born without the normal democratic path. Seriously, now that you are Draghi (but what a surprise! No newspaper of the GEDI group had ever mentioned him before!), To do the government "of the president", "emergency", "quaternions", "bedarfo" , "Of [random word]", it is time for the cheering population to stand in front of a mirror.

Once in front of the mirror, you might ask yourself a question.

but democracy suits us, as a system? And why'?

I mean, if the population goes to applaud the Draghi of the situation, or at the time the Count of the situation, which were NOT the product of the political elections, and then they also like how they govern, the answer is simple.

You don't like democracy.

You don't like that the vote has winners and losers, you don't like that in the end the loser has to resign, you don't like that the government is formed by the winners, in short: you don't like the democratic process. You don't like how it works, just.

Now I know that those who say "but libbertahhh!" Will come.

Okay, so you like freedom. But beware, that democracy is not the only system that guarantees freedoms, at least some. What democracy adds respect, as I know, to Louis XVI's Ancien Regime are two things, "the right to vote" and "the right to express one's opinion".

Compared to the citizen of Louis XVI, the modern citizen has very few more freedoms, indeed: if we exclude the crazy tax systems of the Ancien Regime, it was a regime that in terms of personal and economic freedoms allowed even more degrees of freedom.

The idea that democracy is the only system to guarantee personal liberties comes to us from the century of totalitarian dictatorships, such as communism and Nazi-fascism, but if we had lived in the 19th century, we would have probably enjoyed more personal freedom than today, with the sole exception of some "political" freedoms. (freedom to strike, vote, demonstrations, freedom of speech).

And that is why the Italian today should stand in front of the mirror and ask himself what he wants. Because in the end the government requirements seem to be:

• a benevolent dictator who comes to power without all the jumble of elections, parties and various bullshit. In short, a president of the hereditary republic. Or a president of the republic elected for twenty years, with the power to give government posts and remove them.
• such a benevolent dictator must not get too pissed off if the people question him or make fun of him, and his associates must also be equally tolerant. In short, an agreement of live and let live: the people blame him but do not make revolutions, and he pretends not to hear but does not disengage from power.
• in exchange for not making the revolution, our president of the republic elected for 20 years limits himself to letting every citizen do a little bit of his own comfortable poses (also called liberties) as long as every now and then he hangs someone at random, an unpleasant one. What then just drive him out of the country, in my opinion: a beautiful ostracism like the Greeks.

If this hypothesis of having a venerable president of the republic elected for 20 years (at this point you do for life) who elects governments ad muzzum and without explaining where the idea comes from, and lets you make your pigs comfortable without protesting much having but 'care to exile an unpleasant on duty as a scapegoat for the costs of the comfortable pigs themselves, in practice you want a Pope without all the shit of religion, priests and the church.

You could therefore dedicate yourself to Pasta Farianism, or to the Cult of Bob the Subgenius, elect a Pope (I could suggest discordianism, but in discordianism ALL are popes: which works well in the barber shop and in the taxi, but produces some institutional confusion), elect a Pope, a surreal church of pirates or other drug addicts, and let the Pope elect a government by divine inspiration.

The result, mind you, would not be as catastrophic as you think: the Ancien Regime (excluding the fiscal problem and the budget of the catastrophic state) was not a bad period for citizens, if not at the time of default (in which it was established a kind of patrimonial, which triggered the revolution).

If a system of this kind seems perfect to you (and it seems perfect, otherwise having Draghi would have made you take to the streets with pitchforks), you should stand in front of the mirror and say:

“I don't want democracy anymore”.

I know that this speech will seem fascist to you, but this is due to the fact that you see fascism as the ONLY alternative to democracy. In reality, there have been several systems that guaranteed a great deal of personal freedom to people without being totalitarian regimes. Starting from the medieval lordships such as the Medici or the Sforza or the Estensi, for example, the citizens enjoyed considerable personal freedoms but they were not so ideological and totalitarian regimes as to require who knows what.

Even the Serenissima Republic was not so oppressive against the citizens, except in the phases in which it used the inquisition: sure, if you hid in a convent and fucked a nun you ended up on the lead, but it also had to be your sister . (I refer to Casanova). And in any case, even we ran away from the leads. (I always refer to Casanova).

So it is time for the Italians to start a serious debate: excluding fascism, which has been the shit of Italian political systems, what do we put in the place of democracy?

For example: a beautiful Duchy of the Este family. Think of it: it was normal, at the castle, that during a party at some point the girls not yet married were sent away (the unmarried males remained), and there was a stage with musicians and a theater company. The theatrical company and the musicians who until then had been playing normal music and acting normal scripts, stripped naked and did porn. On stage. No tricks, just porn porn. The lines of the play were very vulgar (stuff that Nappi seems naive) and usually written in dialect, and on.

I mean, no wonder then Lucrezia Borgia (who lost a son and the evil ones accused her of losing him "for dancing too much" in one of these parties) had a bad reputation, even if this format was quite widespread all over the country. The parties of the rich were like that, in short. It is not for nothing that women in show business have enjoyed a certain fame over the centuries: even porn was "theater".

I give these examples to make you understand that if you no longer want democracy there are systems that have guaranteed both a certain level of personal freedom and a certain level of quality of government: when we talk about the Estensi, the Medici, the Visconti, the Sforza or the Doges, let's not talk about the last fools in the world in terms of government.

So, excluding LVI, such a debate could have its own political dignity.

But the first thing you should realize, and start talking about it openly, is that democracy doesn't suit you as a political system.

I repeat: it does not necessarily mean being a fascist: fascism is probably the WORST of the systems that Italy has ever had. But if you ask a historian to explain in detail how the political systems of the past worked, excluding the Vatican which is the second worst political system, all the others were very respectable and wrote very sensible laws.

So you would find yourself, in Italy alone, debating about twenty political and institutional systems, all very respectable, which have taken place here and there.

If you then expand abroad and exclude ideological and religious totalitarianisms, you will still have master systems: the Ancien Regime, Charlemagne, the Tsarat, the Hanseatic cities, even Genghis Khan was not too bad, if it were not for those 31 years of compulsory military service (but also working in the fields or as artisans was military service, as long as you didn't go too far from home). Bhutan, for example, lives under a constitutional monarchy and is the happiest country in the world.

But, again, there is always one thing to do first.

Put yourself in the mirror.

Make eye contact and promise to be true to yourself.

Repeating aloud: “democracy sucks for us. The Americans imposed it on us as they did in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, but we never liked it. We want to go back as before, but not to fascism ”.

If you exclude fascism, in fact, the discussion is legitimate and has its own political dignity. Democracy is not an obligatory situation: if you like having Draghi, as you enjoyed having Monti at the time, just because the lords of the Italian stock exchanges like it so, then make yourselves your lordship with the lords of the bags at the top , and finish it there.

But at least you will have the dignity of the people who have DECIDED what form of government to have.
And it could also work quite well: you could even have the Dragons instead of the Medici and the Estensi, if you really want him.

But, I repeat, at least you will have whoever you want in power, by your choice and after an honest debate.