After this long break, we resume the analysis that we have been developing in this blog to Berlusconi and the current Italian political situation.
In the next post will present a systematic summary of its arguments and conclusions so far to which this leads on choices about the future.
As a premise to this summary, will reclaim below the short document "Ten theses on justice, freedom and democracy" that the writer had circulated in 2003 in the Laboratory for Democracy, the group of "professors Florence "at the time animated by Paul Ginsborg and Pancho Pardi. The content of this document is largely still valid, relevant and, unfortunately, far from obvious.
So much so that no argument. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have already been argued in this blog (see posts of 17 and 24 October, 2 November, 18 December) those not. 6, 8 and 10 it will be necessary while the claim no. 9, of crucial importance for the future of our constitutional settlement, was taken over in a few years by Democrats, unfortunately, however, did not act accordingly, changing the art. 138 when he had the opportunity to do so.
final preliminary observation. Raised any objections within the LabDem, the fact that, in the thesis no.1, the neo-authoritarian political project was purely for Berlusconi and Fini, Bossi not. It 's a theory that repeat. The political project of Bossi is radically different from that of Berlusconi and had deep roots and origins different, even if it is (almost) perfectly compatible with it. I think it was a serious error of the center-left to hold up for years in the Lega the greatest danger to this country to argue that the stain often more serious than was its alliance with Berlusconi Bossi, when it is true, if anything, quite the opposite. But on this we shall return. As for Fini, I have already indicated (in post by 6 December) that seems to have changed his mind.
; Ten thesis
on justice, freedom and democracy
1. Berlusconi and Fini are implementing a project which aims to articulate and precise subject the entire Italian political system to a single center of power potentially immovable. This political project provides for the introduction of new institutional arrangements that allow to refer to the control of executive power as the other branches of government (legislative and judicial) powers as those of order para-institutional or extra-institutional framework could help to determine the the political system, the media power first.
2. In a modern political system, the separation of media power from political power is equally essential that the separation of the judiciary.
3. If the legislature, the judiciary and the media power were brought back under the full control of executive power, the Italian political system would emerge from under the rule of law, because the power is no longer under the law, but it could bend to its interests.
4. there is no democracy without rule of law. In other words: not enough free elections because there is democracy. If the person gets, even by democratic means, the power can be exercised without restrictions and then build their own dismissal, then there is no democracy. And where there is no democracy is unlikely that there is freedom.
5. This is the danger that runs Italy today: if we can not speak of authoritarian rule is not only because this design it is still made in full. But we are on track. The long series of measures on justice is just one link in the chain as it prepares to shackle the country.
6. While placing outside the framework of democracy, the institutional framework that is emerging has the profile of a totalitarian regime, that is not the bearer of a particular faith, a particular worldview that proposes to abolish the other. It is rather an architecture that can be defined as neo-authoritarian , in which a power Single-pluralism can coexist with the formal. The neo-authoritarianism, also prefer the more subtle violence-conditioning systems.
7. In this context it should be noted that the neo-authoritarian project could be achieved even in the absence of a formal conflict of interest on the control of the media: a television system entirely in private the hands of supporters of this plan, or a public broadcasting system entirely subject to the executive, or any combination of the two would get the same result to destroy the right to information and make it impossible to sequence.
8. Our Constitution contains a system of principles that must be safeguarded from any overall changes which would promote the implementation of this project. Both presidential republic that any further strengthening of the executive would now functional in this project. These proposals must be fought with the utmost determination.
9. At the same time we must recognize that the safeguards of the rule of law and democracy in the Constitution in force is proving to be ahead of this design, inadequate. appears particularly weak such as the mechanism for constitutional review under Article. 138, which left at the mercy of a parliamentary majority (which may represent the majority regime, as now, a minority of the country) the whole apparatus of constitutional guarantees. In this light it is wrong and dangerous to persevere in the constitutional amendments by simple majority, as is unfortunately the case for the Title V.
10. In view of this authoritarian approach, including the unresolved conflict of interest is the most obvious symptom, not institutional reform can be treated by this government, which is a real danger to democracy, justice and freedom.
Florence, January 2003
0 comments:
Post a Comment