Enrico Letta is increasingly embarrassed about the case Monte dei Paschi di Siena and this is more and more perceptible as the decisive date of the by-elections for the House in which he is a candidate for the head of the center-left coalition approaches. Monte is inevitably at the center of the political debate due to the consubstantiality between the dem-led policy and the controversial management that guided MPS in the years of the collapse, for the descent into the field of a national leader such as the former premier and for the involvement in the complex negotiation for the passage of Rocca Salimbeni in the Unicredit group of that Pier Carlo Padoan who as a minister promoted the public entrance to the Monte, as a politician dem was a candidate by winning the college in the city of Siena and, leaving him free, took the street of Piazza Gae Aulenti becoming president of Unicredit.
A complex mess in which Letta has slipped into a political test that now has national significance and in which the former prime minister must now extricate himself. Letta was forced by circumstances to talk about local dynamics and to talk about MPS, forgetting the historical “the party makes the party, the bank makes the bank” with which in 2013 Pier Luigi Bersani he tried to dispel the shadows of the scandal of the Mount from the Nazarene. “I will meet the workers’ representatives in the coming days, we want to safeguard employment levels, the brand, the unity of the group, we believe that the relationship with the territory, with the city of Siena and with Tuscany is essential”, said Letta on the day of 8 September on the sidelines of an electoral event in Siena. Important statements but to which, note Italy Today, concrete commitments are not followed up: what proposals do Letta and the Democratic Party have to enhance the Monte? How do they intend to defend the workers for whom there has recently been a return to talk of massive redundancies? What role can that Tuscany region play in which, let’s not forget, the Democratic Party is hegemonic?
Above all, how can Letta enter into an autonomous negotiation on Mps in a phase in which the dossier on the Monte is in the hands of the Draghi government and to that Ministry of the Treasury which is its main shareholder? The dem secretary does not answer these questions, perhaps because the possibility of a definitive answer simply does not exist. But it should be emphasized the subtle contradiction between the critical statements with which Letta has been investing the League for months and Matteo Salvini accusing them of destabilizing the Draghi government with autonomous initiatives deemed potentially harmful to the executive and his recent statements that do not suggest attitudes other than those stigmatized by him. And which risk creating a surplus of expectations destined, in the future, to remain unsatisfied given the complexity of the Monte dossier, on which the Democratic Party is not without responsibility.
Nor can Letta claim extraneousness from the mistakes of the old center-left on MPS. In 2007, for example, the center-left government led by Romano Prodi and of which Letta was undersecretary to the Prime Minister was crucial with his approval of the maneuver, which in his intentions should have favored the establishment of the third Italian banking group, which closed the bankruptcy Mps-Antonveneta operation, despite the negative judgment of the investors for a move that marked the beginning of the ordeal of Rocca Salimbeni. Nor were there any great discontinuities in the management of the Monte in the short season in which Letta was a tenant of Palazzo Chigi.
Letta has applied in a politically “hot” territory to send a national message, but now he risks getting caught up in the Monte dossier which has already caused him more than an embarrassment. The dem secretary declared that he considered “it is important in this phase of negotiations on the future of the bank that the workers are heard and that local representatives are involved”, actually confronting the need to deal personally with a context to which he is alien to personal political history and past experiences. In an election campaign in which the secretary of one of the major national parties, as a candidate, has hidden symbol of his party and asked for the support of Five Stars movement to defend a historic stronghold of the Left this does not appear to be the major problem, after all. The losers, as always, are MPS and its workers, on whose skin a small-scale political game is being played that does little to solve the most serious Italian banking problem