Alberto Asor - from the Manifesto
Over the summer, thereby underestimating the risk that the hot sun had infrollito further the already small insight of the Italian political commentators and newspaper, I posted on this newspaper (August 6) an article ("More of fascism '), in which I tried to put Berlusconi and Berlusconi in the wake of contemporary Italian history. All hell broke loose: what there may be similarities between Berlusconi and Mussolini ever, between Berlusconi and fascism? Of course not: I'm not stupid. I have not heard - and I have not written - Berlusconi is like Mussolini or that Berlusconi is like fascism: I have heard and written - in the specificity and distinctiveness of their identity - are worse. Of this invitation to discuss, not the fictitious (and sometimes tendentious readings) of the text that have been given. To facilitate this (albeit unlikely) goal to add some argument already mentioned. Calling attention to (if there are still people willing to lend) on the 'incipit' of that article: "The Berlusconi government is the third lowest point in the history of the Unit in Italy then. " Subject of this sentence is implicit Italy: Yes, subject in itself abstract, difficult to define, as everyone knows if they are employed, however characterized, in spite of everything, from a story and some common long-term identity data; more abstract, perhaps, but more rooted in history and a common identity to some data, especially when you consider Italy as a nation ('the Unit on ...», fact), that is, that conglomeration of factors political-institutional-ideal, of which we are preparing to celebrate (2011) the 150 ˚ anniversary, just when - this is what I support - that conglomerate appears during dissolution. Well, to assess to what extent this process has come, and also to make some comparisons on a historical (old, I repeat, ethical and political), we must identify some indicators that make us understand better what we're talking about. We talk once in a while, if we agree on this starting point, Italy, more exactly of Italy as a nation (of course other points of view are legitimate and possible, to "class" of course is not a stranger, but us this time, for the exceptional situation in which we find ourselves, we prefer this). As we speak of Italy, and Italy as a nation, it seems to me that the key indicators that can not be these three: the 'unit (and the sense of unity), the ratio of citizens with the institutions (that is, too, the sense of the distinction between public and private) and the relationship of this with the Italian tradition (ie the sense of belonging and national identity). From all three of these points of view, the Berlusconi is worse than fascism, or at least tries to be so tenaciously. From the viewpoint of 'unity the validity of this statement is obvious. Sits as a minister in the Berlusconi government reforms (!) A man who fought fiercely (and explicitly) for the disruption and fragmentation unit politico-institutional and identity of the country. This is a process, obviously, but that creates a political culture and a common sense adverse to any topical definition of being "Italian." The Berlusconi incorporates this phenomenon and makes it his own, if only because the chairman of the board unit or national units are indifferent, as long as the machine of power rests entirely in any case in his hands. Second indicator: the ratio of citizens and institutions has never - repeat, never - been so mortified in terms of the prevalence of private interests over public ones. Of course, a dictatorship, however, protect its members from any public context. But no European dictatorship of the twentieth century (and thus even fascism) has made the private interest of the leader (and his acolytes), the fulcrum around which to rotate the development and promulgation of laws and even the pursuit of justice. The 'ethical state' is undoubtedly a twist intolerable in the long and troubled history of the "rule of law 'modern. But the level of corruption (this time understood the term in a purely fatturale: how to look, shape, mode of the machine of power) achieved by Berlusconi has no equal in the exercise of fascist institutions and power, at least formally remained compliance or even the exaltation of the law, as despotic (Of course it would be too ungenerous to get to opposing Alfano and Ghedini figures and Rocco Gentile ...). The third indicator precipitate and multiply all the disastrous consequences of the other two. Fascism had a relationship with the Italian tradition distorted but flashy: he wanted to restore his own way (a way execrable, there would be no need to say on my part) the continuation of the Risorgimento, the frustrated and stopped in his slow, disconnected and powerless liberal experience. The Berlusconi has no relationship whatsoever, neither good nor bad, with the Italian tradition: his eponymous hero is a homo novus, which pushes the extreme limits his total lack of roots, in essence nothing more than a clever businessman, using the public to increase and protect his own private and private to the public without restriction. Anything that has to do with ethics and politics of the modern rule of law is alien. He drew his strength from impotence and irreversible decline crisis of this liberal-democratic regime: that is born and lives a corruption, not a reaction, as is assumed to fascism (understood in this case, both the terms in political-institutional, non-ethical-political). Now, in the history of Italian post-unification, which they said, it is undeniable that the founding core of the nation's most enduring have been the first Risorgimento and the Resistance then: to consider the latter - As it was by many protagonists of different political parties and ideals considered - a more advanced implementation of the first but consequential. But if nothing matters to the Knight of the values \u200b\u200bof democracy and respect for the rules (the Constitution, separation of powers, relationship-voters institutions, etc..), What should I care not tell the Resistance, but of the Risorgimento, which has for better or worse Italian national identity and unity founded and started the process of building a company (albeit limited) in compliance with democratic rules? The "historical break" to which he effortlessly and without thinking is subtracted, is not that of 1945 is that of 1861-1870: Cavour further away from him Palrmiro Togliatti. Respond Now, to go towards the end, the last, more insidious and perhaps more legitimate objection to our reasoning above: you can compare a democracy (whatever) to a dictatorship, came to the conclusion that democracy is worse than dictatorship? Well, I do not know. But I do not see what is wrong with us groped a comparison, if only to better understand what is happening to us today (not that that form the parameters of historical judgments?). Fascism was "pure evil"? Let's think about what to be and to produce the "evil relative" in which we currently live, "its bad", but endemic deep penetrated in all fibers. What I think I see from my point of view is the growth of a sort of dictatorship (De Mauro, "authoritarian government in which power is concentrated in the hands of one man"), but new kind of populist Democrats, founded not on violence and coercion, but the explicit consent (as he did in his own way, even fascism ...) and operated with a cunning, very unusual in Europe mix of media influences, distortions and institutional brokerage business. The "model" - which, like all models strong, it is political and even cultural anthropology - is penetrating deeply and are doing out on the historical continuity which so far have been based identity and values \u200b\u200b'Italian' in front of the world. At the end of the process there will be a nation (albeit within limits well known that this process has evolved in the hundred and fifty years that lie behind them) but only a mere aggregate of vassal-states (of various kinds: economic, corporate, regional, etc.). They will find their unity only in referring only to the Cape. For this - for reasons more technical and limited, as someone succumbs to the temptation of arguing, feeling the dream of "shared reforms" - should be kept out of the joints far more autonomous and independent state, first and foremost, the judiciary and the school: they, in fact, in this moment, simply because they retain their independence, constitute a major obstacle to the complete realization of that design (of course, I realize that if things are as I say, the most interesting part of the discourse would be to ask why this destructive pattern proceed by consensus, but what has become the Italian people over the past twenty years, what it aspires to, what they believe, deserves a separate discussion, which takes even more head-on policy, and that maybe one day we will ). The conclusion reached by that in my previous article, it is now confirmed: as there is no political force in Italy, politician, currently capable of understanding and practice. To fight a it would take a similar scourge party, a movement, an option at the same time political and cultural, are able to join the defense of the homeland-nation with the multiple layers of new, more responsive and more at risk of contemporary Italian society (most at risk : s'accompagnerà to national disaster, there is no shadow of doubt, the economic and social catastrophe). But where? And since there is not, how long will it be born, or reborn? PS The best way to show solidarity to a newspaper is to write to them. I will add that the risks currently running a newspaper as the original poster is a manifestation of what is happening in Italy and I have tried to describe in the previous rows. The player throws the money and know what to do.
0 comments:
Post a Comment