The
end of 1997 brings us a judgement that hit the headlines: the general acquittal
for Ayrton Senna's death on Imola's track in 1994. On Imola's other track,
that of the trial, the winners were Formula 1, engineer Frank Williams
who gave his name to the car that crushed on that May 1, and the so-called
realism: in practice speed, said magistrate Antonio Costanzo, was to blame.
I don't know why, but another
judgement comes to my mind. It was delivered a month earlier, in November
1997, and it was of a rather different nature: the acquittal of the Greek-Cypriot
shipowners for Haven's disaster, the oil-tanker that exploded in the Ligurian
Sea, off Arenzano, in 1991. Five people died, fifty thousand tons of oil
spread in the sea to liven up its flora and fauna... And yet, they were
all acquitted. I don't think I'd move away from the truth if I'd compare
Senna's judgement to Haven's. No one was guilty, there was no criminal
intent, sailing is risky, the weather should not be taken lightly, one
cannot rule out that... In the first case, the whole Formula 1 circus would
have been jeopardised by reality's heavy blackmail: the whole business
inside, the number of people working in that field that would have been
fired. And the political implications: just think of the secret agreement
between Bernie Ecclestone and shrewd premier Tony Blair, with long repercussions
also on Prodi and, I'd bet on it, on many others, about cigarettes advertisement,
the key platform of Formula 1 racing (it seems). And internal implications,
too: just think of the regularity of the last world racing championship
won by Villeneuve Jr. vs. Schumacher after a final sprint, with the pirate
attack of the latter on the first and the following suspects of agreements
between the stables (Williams and McLaren) to trick the winning Ferrari.
In the second case, that of the Haven tanker that sank, the crucial point
of this millennium's final years was under discussion: that of safety.
Of man, of the environment. That of variable safety's role in the relationship
between costs and revenues.
To tell the truth, I know
perfectly well the reason why Senna's judgement makes me draw an analogy
with Haven's: first of all speed, considered to be responsible for a death
(of all deaths?) during a Formula 1 race can metaphorically be interpreted
as the responsible agent for the planet's decay. Development goes very
fast, it cannot control things in bends any longer. Political and mainly
economic power, the masters of globalisation's vapour, have provided tracks
with cars so fast that they can hardly keep up with the road because their
steering-gear is not adequate to the speed.
Furthermore, and let's put
metaphors aside, rules do not mean anything any longer, or they are not
important enough, for both circuses, the Barnum as roaring as that of the
planets. Rules are not important when there is death on Imola's track,
they are not important when there is death in the sea (and of the sea)
if a sentence like Haven's might set a precedent that questions priorities
within the context of an “expensive” safety I was mentioning before. What
does “economic” refer to, if not to the “household and its management”?
Thus, talking about the future from an “economic point of view” means re-examining
some of its norms. It is better to keep the old ones that grew on rather
unfair settlements. In this way the lid can be kept on the big saucepan,
relying on another incredible vector of the “running” times, that of memory
repression.
|
|
|
.........
Only Italian
Italian - English
Mensile di Economia, Attualita` e Cultura
