As
usual, the situation is grave but not serious. I'm thinking of Nobel-prize
winner for literature Dario Fo, of Franca Rame raped in the seventies with
the aid (it seems) of the Secret Services, as far as what we know from
the documents found by chance near the Ministry of Interior's headquarters,
of the Nobel-prize winner's request to the President of the Republic to
shed light and to do justice; what I'm mainly thinking of, however, is
how we go (inevitably?) from tragedy to comedy to farce riddled with history
and newspaper accounts in this country: it took fourteen days for Pres.
Scalfaro's
letter with the answer to Fo to reach Milan.
Do
we really want to comment this?
Yes,
of course, the year two thousand is approaching and the complexity of this
planet can make you feel high, anywhere, because of the fastness of transformations
taking away from you, besides your breath, your capability to understand
and, not in the least, to control events. I'm afraid, however, that it
would be very hard to find a situation as complicated and contradictory,
ambiguous, hypocrite, vital, dying, rich, poor (that is miserable...) futurist
and past etc, in other words “oxymoronic” (paradoxical to the third power)
as the Italian one in another place on earth.
We
are an event, as we actually have always been in history, we are too old
to be young but also too young to be old (technologically speaking), too
anthropologically cultivated and too ignorant for the year 2000's yardstick,
and, judging by our electoral frequency, too “democratic”, and too “uncivilised”
according to our public spirit, our capability to live together and so
on. Maybe Fo's story is made up of all this... Let's go back to the
famous and notorious interview that the Public Prosecutor of the “Clean
Hands” Pool, Gherardo Colombo, gave to daily “Corriere della Sera”, stirring
up that almost univocal hornet's nest we all know about. Colombo straightforwardly
interpreted the past half century of our history as the more or less karstic
history of a strongly illegal country conspiring with an only apparently
legal ruling class, whose blackmail-like implications still affect our
present time, the present time of the Bicameral Commission, of the rotten
relations between politics and justice, government majority and opposition,
supporters of “justicialism” and of “civil rights”.
Are
Colombo's theses new? No, they aren't, he already voiced them and put on
paper (books, interviews, speeches and so on). Are they new? Are they true?
The turmoil of this country's ruling class, mostly of the politicians,
I would say, because corporate bosses did not voice their opinions too
much and certainly not too clearly (???!!!), immediately answered negatively
saying that Colombo was wrong and that, however, he should have made names
and not level accusations indiscriminately.
Were
these opinions voiced by a “Clean Hand” Public Prosecutor appropriate?
Disagreement on this issue was basically general, with the addition of
the constitutional freedom of speech for all that, however, was neglected.
Let's
briefly see how the Colombo affair suits that cross-section of Italy I
was mentioning earlier about the postal farce concerning Franca Rame's
bad story. The Left Democratic Party's Secretary, D'Alema, the most influential
politician of the whole story, spoke of “left-wing extremism” about Colombo's
opinion, allowing his National Alliance neighbour across the road, Fini,
to make an easy comment: if D'Alema himself admitted this, then Berlusconi
is implicitly right when he says that he is being persecuted by left-wing
judges. So does this part of the story concern the “truth” of the theses
or their “appropriateness” voiced by a Public Prosecutor?
Let
me express myself better. With the benefit of hindsight, and clearly not
just with it, we all agree, the right, the left as well as the centre,
that the years when terrorism was rampant made our country regress, depriving
it from democratic breath, justifying emergencies later used for other
purposes and so on. For this reason, the armed attack against the State
was, besides clearly “criminal”, wrong. But was the analytical part of
this state's flaws just as wrong? In other words, was the substance of
a country's critical reconsideration that also, if not completely, produced
a swindling political class as wrong as the terrorists resorting to arms?
Isn't it right that today, just like in the past, there is the tendency
to get rid of a question almost exclusively considered in terms of
“appropriateness” whereas today, just like in the past, there is no space
for substance and for a further recognition of the state of affairs? What
part of what Colombo said, for instance, is real and verifiable, independently
of the fact that he did not make a name list of the culprits (suspects)?
Put in a clearer way, aren't we always and only at the instrumental stage
of the use of statements without the analysis of their actual reliability?
Why don't they discuss this seriously instead of complaining gravely? Why
does a President's letter take fourteen day to reach another city?
 |
|
 |
.......
Italian
Mensile di scienza medica e attualita`
