“News
from the Parliament” is the name of the column with which we inform you
about what's going on in the Parliament every month.
This time, unfortunately,
the most incisive events took place in the corridors of the “palace”, in
the so-called transatlantico, at the buvette etc., so that we can deal
more with sob stories than with politics this time.
A coup de théâtre
was the initiative of the former President of the Republic Francesco Cossiga
who tried to put together a group of deputies, who previously belonged
to the Christian Democratic Party, basically to recreate this party.
Let's get this straight,
the former Christian Democrats' desire to recreate their old party again
is a fair and natural thing: long-standing politicians who have been enjoying
a whole series of privileges for years may be rather unwilling to give
them up. In this way the former President Cossiga wanted to achieve his
goal, coming personally to the limelight as the leading actor and as the
director; one day, however, as he was not satisfied with the roles that
his deputies wanted to play, he clamorously disappeared from the scene,
only to declare immediately afterwards that he supported the referendary
group made up by rather heterogeneous politicians.
Let's then talk about the
supporters of referendums or rather about those who still believe in their
effectiveness.
Yet, the past experiences
suggest that referendums themselves should be revised in the first place.
The previous referendums
proposed with the current provisions, in fact, were completely disregarded
by the Parliament with the exception of those on abortion, divorce and
partly those concerning the majority system. We are referring, for example,
to the referendums on the judges' legal liability, on the parties' public
financing, on the elimination of the Ministry of Agriculture etc. where
the will of the citizens was clearly expressed with unquestionable percentages.
Given such preambles, thinking
that the referendum on the abolition of the pro-rata may eliminate little
parties is really utopian besides a further waste of money.
The issue of little parties
might be bypassed by simply forcing the members of the Parliament
to remain in the same alliance they belonged to during the elections. Conversely,
it would be legitimate to ask for the mandate received by the electors
to automatically expire. We bet that faithfulness and stability would triumph.
Controversy this week focussed
on the interview that Gherardo Colombo gave to “Il Corriere della
Sera”, where he made a brief excursus of Italy's history of the past fifty
years.
Colombo referred to the
landing in Sicily of the American armed forces during the last war and
claimed that it was supported by the Italo-American mafia. I have no intention
of disappointing Mr.Colombo but I must say that only few people, chiefly
in Sicily, do not know who and how the Allied's landing was made possible.
What we fail to understand
in this story is the pretext of Mr. Colombo's supporters and of some opinion
makers that a clear distinction between the role of the citizens and their
profession may exist.
It is the story of the two
hats, one belongs to the judge and the other to the common citizen, but
under the two hats there is always one single head. It is hard to believe
that Colombo speaks and acts differently according to the hat he is wearing
on his head, especially when making very serious statements.
Clearly some of the magistrates
took sides with Colombo claiming the right of freedom of thought and of
speech for the judges.
At this point, however,
if the crucial point is freedom, it is necessary for Colombo to say freely
who the blackmailers and the blackmailed people are.
Dear Mr. Colombo, this is
an extremely dangerous field. According to your philosophy, you should
account twice for your statements: once as a citizen and once as a judge.
The common citizen, in fact,
is not allowed to make certain statements without risking to commit public
defamation; as a judge, due the knowledge that such a profession entails,
if you do not proceed against these people you'd commit the crime of failure
to perform official duties because, as you know perfectly well, the prosecution
is compulsory.
Leaving things as they are,
it would be legitimate to make other assumptions.
The whole story, however,
will end up according to the Italian style: you'll get more popular (and
will be supported by the mass media) and so will the institutions that
dared to oppose your statements.
As far as the Italians are
concerned, such a disquisition just makes them bewildered and distrustful
both towards politics and towards the judges.
Are other performances of
our politicians on the way?
That's presently enough,
otherwise we should talk about the love story between Prof. Di Bella and
Minister Rosy Bindi that, to tell the truth, seems to be aimed
at distracting the public opinion from health care real issues.
Using somatostatin or otherwise:
why don't they let professionals decide the best therapy according to their
own scientific knowledge and consciousness?
* For those who might be
interested to know the full text of the recent hearing of Prof. Di
Bella by the Commission of Social Affairs can contact our editorial office.
|
Italian
Mensile di scienza medica e attualita`
