Referendum reduced to cabaret: now they're even arguing about Sal Da Vinci.

We've finally gotten there: the referendum on justice, a huge, delicate issue, crucial to the balance of power within the state, has been reduced to a talk show skit and a social media brawl. There's no longer any serious discussion about the merits of the reform, its effects, its risks, or its opportunities.No. There's a fight over Sal Da Vinci. On a song. On a line. On the title. Forever YesIt's the lowest point of a campaign that, day after day, is demonstrating the full misery of Italian politics and communication.

Nicola Gratteri's phrase — “Sal Da Vinci will vote No"—pronounced with televised irony, made the whole thing explode. The "Yes" committee cried fake news, manipulation, and disinformation. And so, in a matter of hours, yet another serious issue ended up in the meat grinder of media theater. But the truth is even more disheartening: this controversy is not an accident. It's the perfect portrait of a public debate no longer able to sustain itself without pop crutches, easy slogans, and famous faces to pull by the jacket.

It has become a national crazeIf there's a vote to sway, a reform to sell, a battle to take on, you have to use a singer, an actor, a catchphrase, a viral joke. As if Italians were no longer citizens to be convinced with arguments, but consumers to be hooked with a refrainAnd so the hunt for testimonials begins, even when the testimonial doesn't want to be one. Sal Da Vinci, in fact, had already clarified that he hadn't expressed an opinion on the referendum. But it doesn't matter. In this campaign, it doesn't matter what a person actually says: it matters what's convenient to attribute to them.

And here the point becomes even more serious. Because politics that makes propaganda is one thing — he's always done it, often badly — another is to see a comparison on justice, The Constitution and the powers of the State slide into the most infantile and toxic level possible.Everyone's fighting over symbols, everyone's forcing interpretations, everyone's looking for the perfect phrase, and no one's bothering to raise the bar. It's the dictatorship of the communication shortcut: instead of explaining to voters why vote Yes or No, you try to colonize a Sanremo song. Embarrassing.

And no, it's not enough to dismiss everything by saying it was a joke. In an already poisoned phase, some exits don't stay beaten: they become gasoline. Especially if it is someone who pronounces them institutional figure such as Gratteri, whose public weight is enormous. Those in certain positions should know that every word, especially on television, has an immediate political and media impact. If everything is dismissed as irony, then we're back to the usual Italian game: you hit, you stir things up, you spark controversy, and then you hide behind a smile.

But it would be too easy to blame Gratteri alone. Il The Yes committee, which has every right to deny and protest, ends up in the same media swamp.. Because also This indignant response, transformed into a counter-video and counter-narrative, fuels the same mechanism: more noise, more fans, more chaos.And in the middle, a void remains. A void of content, of clarity, of intellectual honesty.

Meanwhile, the referendum approaches in a climate increasingly reminiscent of a stadium crowd than a democratic debate. And the real question is: who benefits from all this? Certainly not the citizens. Because a voter inundated with controversies, memes, slogans, and forced enlistments is a less free, less informed voter, more exposed to the most vulgar propaganda. This is exactly the failure: having replaced reasoning with reflection, complexity with the joke, the credit with marketing.

In this whole story, the most depressing thing is that no one seems to be really scandalized by the level reached. As if it were normal for a referendum to be discussed like this. As if it were inevitable that everything would turn into a permanent farce. But it's not normal. It's a degeneration. It is the sign of a political system that no longer knows how to persuade without shouting and of a media ecosystem that no longer knows how to delve deeper without trivializing.

In the end, more than Sal Da Vinci's vote, what counts is the deafening silence on real issuesAnd this silence says much more than all the jokes. He says that, once again, the country risks arriving at a decisive moment not with the clearest ideas, but with a head full of noise.And perhaps this is precisely the most convenient outcome for those who live off propaganda: not to convince, but to confuse.