There was a full house this evening at Sala San Leonardo. Eventually they ran out of chairs, and it was standing room only, with people lining the walls. All in all, it was an encouraging sight on a hot, humid evening, a good turnout to hear a presentation by the political coalition La Stagione Buona, composed of eleven predominantly left-wing Venetian parties, which was formally launched in March 2025. Unfortunately, no literature about the coalition was handed out at the event this afternoon, nor does the group have a website or a Facebook page where one can learn more about the coalition or its goals are. This afternoon, however, the group spelled out the issues it feels are most important to work on: transportation, housing, jobs, pollution, safeguarding the city and moto ondoso according to the flyer announcing the event. However, the group of presenters explained from the outset that although they certainly had ideas and proposals, they would not be divulging them here. Rather each speaker expounded on the details of the current state of their chosen topic.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the topics discussed and the details of the problems facing insular Venice are by now fairly well-known. It is also a fact that elections will take place in one year or so. Thus it was somewhat puzzling to hear these problems, and the related accusations against the current administration’s actions – or lack thereof – reviewed in a room full of people who almost certainly already know about them. It is not news at this point that public transportation has been partially privatized and is suffering, that housing and work are really hard to find in Venice, that better quality and better paying jobs are needed, that excavating the Vittorio Emanuele III canal will produce an unprecedented amount of toxic sludge, or that people are concerned about crime and safety.
Even more distressing was the coalition’s insistence that it is committed to beginning a process of working with the broadest range of (hopefully) motivated citizens and constituencies to build a shared and comprehensive plan for the city. While this hyper-democratized vision of politics and policymaking is unquestionably noble and ideal, it is also seriously behind schedule and out of sync with the times. More importantly, however, it also seems to miss a fundamental point of political leadership, especially in today’s context. Yes, people want to feel that they are heard, but they also want leadership. Voters want to hear concrete ideas that they sense will make their lives better. The details are not supposed to be their problem. Political leadership requires not just vision and ideals, but promised actions and a clear program. There is no need to look too far around to understand that most people – most voters, that is – are not interested in “doing” politics or engaging in a ongoing and complex, nuanced debate about possible future programs.
This is particularly true in a situation where no credible plans are being forwarded, not the least of which, but rather perhaps the most important, is a plan for acquiring the political power required to exercise that leadership and take the promised actions. A plan to win elections.
There was no talk of winning. Instead, the audience was exhorted to participate, get in the game, be protagonists, engage in the debate and be energetic. For what? Political movements are born from inspiration – the perspiration comes later. So, it is hard to understand specifically what this coalition hopes to achieve, having used their time today – in front of an audience whose size strongly suggests a general hope to hear some plan, some program, something new – to once again summarize some of the many problems that they maintain still must be discussed in detail before formulating any firm platform.
There was no mention of the election at all, in fact; only the need to start another public debate about the future of the city. So, unless getting upset about everything we already know is wrong and problematic here and the Brugnaro administration’s seeming indifference to it all is enough to generate energy and enthusiasm, this session offered essentially nothing to get excited about.
Perhaps this sensation would not have been quite so acute had the event itself been conducted more professionally. The presentation began late as the organizers were still taping up posters and trying to call the members to order over the barely comprehensible PA system. This was a serious shortcoming, as one of the microphones was badly distorted, and both of them died, repeatedly, after a few minutes’ use, thereby interrupting a number of the speeches and creating an almost comical scene of shrugging and scrambling to find a fix, re-test the audio, etc. The net effect was that a significant percentage of what was said by the presenters was either inaudible or incomprehensible.
Given that they were expecting a full house in a former church with questionable acoustics and a fairly poor PA system, someone really should have checked the sound equipment in advance. It would also have at least looked a lot better had the coalition members sat still at their places like a professional panel does while their compatriots spoke. However, this was not the case. The presenters who were not speaking walked around, sat on the floor, looked at their phones and even talked to each other during the other speeches. This hardly modeled the focused energy and enthusiasm the audience had just been urged to summon, and it created a considerable amount of background noise, making the speeches all the more unintelligible.
Perhaps that’s the word that best describes the presentation, and maybe even the coalition itself: unintelligible. They packed the house this afternoon at Sala San Leonardo, but failed to deliver a clear message, in whatever way you wish to define that. It was hard to hear, and hard to understand.
L’articolo Hard to Hear, Hard to Understand proviene da ytali..
4uMagazine
