Disability is a controversial topic and emblematic of our country's system. The phenomenon of falsely disabled people is useful for understanding this reasoning, especially when questioning the inefficiency and inadequacy of the welfare system, which is now incapable of meeting people's real needs. Sociologist Anderson would argue that the Welfare State, as it is known, arose in response to a Fordist society based on the family institution. However, today, women are emancipated and working, and the family is no longer able to guarantee its function as a social safety net. Therefore, there is a need to develop a welfare system capable of interpreting new needs and rights.
The principles of Independent Living (UN Convention) represent an attempt to keep pace with social transformations, recognizing the limitations of certain definitions that are the product of specific cultural legacies and typically welfare-based approaches. The pietas that still characterizes the care system for people with disabilities (total institutions, RSAs, and RSDs) hinders the modern vision of indirect care capable of building awareness and autonomy in managing daily life practices. This type of hardship is caused by the inability to build a city that is inclusive and fully accessible to all citizens, regardless of diversity and belonging to certain social categories.
The opposite approach should begin with the full recognition of rights, first and foremost guaranteeing the independence of people with disabilities. The UN Convention is already a major step forward because it proposes moving beyond the current welfare approach and toward a concrete system of equal opportunities: the overall goal is to abandon old deterministic cultural models and effectively structure a mainstream approach capable of framing disability as a resource for regional development, not as a limitation. Specifically, the UN Convention is a framework law with respect to Articles 2 and 4 of the Constitution —referring, therefore, to the principles of the inviolability of human freedom, to express one's thoughts and profess one's religion, to start a family, and to have a job—which guarantees the anthropological and social specificity of people with disabilities. Quoting the manifesto of intent published by ENIL Italia , it can be stated: " The disabled person must be able to self-determine his or her life according to the principles of the Constitution, just like an able-bodied person ." Instead, deciding that a disability pension generates income—today's debate focuses on the recent ruling by the Rome Regional Administrative Court (TAR) that established the ISEE parameters as unfounded in the light of human and universal rights—effectively prevents disabled people from starting a family, finding a job, and thus ultimately striving for independent living.
In short, we need to explore new forms of social inclusion, targeted interventions, and active social policies to improve citizens' living conditions and ultimately initiate a new welfare system centered on people and implemented locally.
Flora Frate
