Clemente Mastella is Innocent!
0 viewsIt’s true, Mastella really does believe that he has done nothing wrong. The reason he gave, in an attempt to justify the actions of his wife and himself, was ‘everyone is doing it.’ And we are talking about the former justice minister of a major economic power.
On the subject of power, I have, via links on Rob’s Wind Rose Hotel blog, managed to find out what Mastella and family had probably been up to. Apparently, it is alleged that Mastella’s wife was involved in the appointment of medical staff, but only those who were considered as ‘party faithful’ got the jobs.
All perfectly normal according to Mastella, the former justice minister.
The worrying thing about the former justice minster’s claims, is that he is most probably right. Everyone is at it.
The trouble is, just because everyone is doing it, does not make whatever it is, right. Apply an attitude like that, and you can excuse almost any act.
You would have expected a justice minister to have understood this. Well, I would have.
Luckily for Italy, Mastella is no longer the justice minister. Although one wonders how a gentleman of such integrity could have ended up in such a position.
Oh well, at least Prodi has gone too.
More articles on similar subjects:
Email This Post
Comments
14 Responses to “Clemente Mastella is Innocent!”
Have your say
News From Ansa- Buy stocks, Berlusconi says October 10, 2008International markets end week on the slide
- SuperEnalotto pot hits 80 million October 10, 2008Heaving betting a windfall for the state's coffers
- Ancient Roman stadium opened October 10, 2008Olympic-style games were held at emperor's arena near Naples
- Ethical changes needed, Napolitano October 10, 2008Credit crunch demands new rules for financial world
- Dante-mad thief nabbed October 10, 2008Robber 'turned on' to Divine Comedy by Benigni
- Arts guide: exhibits in Italy October 10, 2008Neo-Impressionists in Milan, Picasso in Rome
- Buy stocks, Berlusconi says October 10, 2008
- Beppe Grillo
Let’s tell Clemente and his lovely wife that everybody is throwing themselves off the roof!
Gotta hand it to him, though. He’s absolutely right - everybody IS doing it. Corruption’s the name of the game - is, always has been and always will be. And not just here in the, errr… Museum!
Alex, how do you figure that Mastella is “a gentleman of such integrity”?
So now that Prodi’s gone, who’s your dream PM?
Gege’
“Let’s tell Clemente and his lovely wife that everybody is throwing themselves off the roof!”
Lovely! That made me chuckle.
As for Mastella’s integrity, the sarcasm did not translate well to paper…
As to corruption in Italy, many Italians believe that what goes on in Italy goes on everywhere in the world. While this may, to an extent, be true, to non-Italians, like us, Italy appears to be excessively (and unnecessarily)
corrupt. But while many Italians continue to believe that Italy is no different from any other country, then it will not change. However, the www is starting to allow some Italians to understand that Italy is different from other countries. Over time, the Mastella’s will become an extinct species.
My dream pm? Di Pietro - until Montezemolo comes on stream.
If you have any other suggestions, I’m all ears.
All the best,
Alex
Oh thank DOG you were being ironic! ;oP
I’m glad I made you chuckle. Tho’ I meant it sereiously
Many Italians believe that the corruption that goes on here goes on in the rest of the world as well… and they are right. I am American, perhaps not the birthplace of corruption but certainly the seat of its perfection. In Italy the art is remains at its crudest level, which could be why people are so offended when it their participation in the age-old tradition is unveiled so flagrantly.
Di Pietro - an honest man. Maybe a bit too self-involved and give to drama. Montezemolo? Puhlease!
But alas, I’m all out of suggestions. For the second election in a row in my native States, the one and only decent candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has dropped out. All hope is lost.
“Luckily for Italy, Mastella is no longer the justice minister.”
I hope, but he went back to his old friend, Mr. B. (well, Mastella have a lot of old friends. I think that in his career he tried both electoral alliances almost a couple of times). Guess who’s going to win next elections? I hope not, but it’s almost certain.
Italy is Murphy’s law applied to politics.
Hi Cristian,
I guess you could be right, Mastella could become Justice Minister again! How wonderful! Not.
“Italy is Murphy’s law applied to politics.”
Another chuckle from this amusing observation!
Cheers Christian
Gege’ - if Mastella and wife were to disappear from Italy, it would be no great loss for the nation.
I know you have mentioned it before, but I’ve never really considered the States to be that corrupt. Oh, I know about Watergate and all that, but at least then investigative managed to uncover things. This probably would not happen in Italy, but this was a very long time ago.
Yes, I do hear from time to time of accusations of corruption levelled at people in the US, but in Italy these stories come almost daily. As you say, this could be down to the basic ‘I’ll give you money if you do something for me’ type of corruption which exists here.
I’m a bit out of date (read: I don’t really know): please give me some examples of sophisticated American style corruption.
Moving away from dishonesty, Di Pietro does seem to strike most as being honest, which is good, but a bit flat, which is not so good.
As for Montezemolo, you are not one of his fans, are you?!
Alex
Examples of american corruption:
–> Carlyle Group
–> Halliburton
–> Enron
–> Bechtel
–> Diebold
–> Blackwater
… must I go on? This is making me lose my appetite and dinner’s only a couple of hours away!
The reason why you do not hear much about corruption, american-style or otherwise, is that the mass media is part of the game. I’ll bet we all know way too much about Angelina Jolie and Lindsey Lohan (whoevertheHELL they are!)… and that’s because the mass media doesn’t want you paying attention to the “man behind the curtain”. It’s called “slight of hand” and it’s the oldest trick in the book - just ask any 3-card-micky player on the street. Works pretty good, too!
Montezemolo? He’s a fine businessman. When it became fashionable to equate “good politician” with “good businessman”, things started going down the tubes. Government is not business.
Gege’,
I knew about Enron, but I did not regard is so much as corruption as ‘creative accounting’ mixed in with dishonest accounting systems. But yes, you are right, the mass media keeps us so very well informed about people that don’t make any real difference to the world, but keeps very quiet about the characters that really damage this planet.
All down to who wields the checkbooks…
And finally, I can disagree with you about something! You may detest me for saying this, but I think government is business.
Countries are companies, their people are shareholders, the politicians are a board of directors, who should represent the shareholders interests.
A well run country makes a ‘profit’ for its people - in terms of better living standards, and conditions. Political policy is a form of business plan. I try not to confuse ‘profit’ with money, profit also has a social equivalent.
I could go on, but I won’t, although the more I think about it, the more I believe that there are many parallels between countries and companies. For example, like it or not, both have ‘cultures’. They are horribly similar, and you can either shun the fact, or work it to everyone’s advantage.
The difference between businessmen and politicians is that businessmen think in terms of money, whereas politicians think in terms of money and social benefits. Get a good businessman into politics, someone who can take into account social benefits, and potentially, I think, you have a great politician.
Now I have lit the fuse, I shall wait for the explosion!!
Cheers!
Alex
You’re right in observing the similarities between government and business. However similar they are, though, they can’t be equated. The exist for different purposes. The single, only, sole, solitary purpose of a corporation’s existance is profit. Period. As much as modern man like to comfort himself in thinking that the corporation has its employees’ and shareholders’ welfare in mind, it doesn’t. This is a simple fact.
Government’s, on the other hand, exist to ensure the safety, security, health and welfare of its citizens, who place in its (hopefully elected) hands the administration of its interests.
There’s a big difference between the two.
I don’t think I have to point out to you the danger of equating, rather than comparing, the one with the other. To give in to this temptation is to follow the definition of a disastrous philosophy - fascism.
Gege’,
I disagree and agree with you now! Yes, I know business exists for a singular motive: profit.
But countries need to profit as well, even if the ‘profit level’ is measured in different ways ie in terms of the safety, security, health and welfare of its citizens.
I don’t agree that there is a big difference between a well run country and a well run business. The administration of a country is its board of directors.
And know, I think you may be wrong to think that I am veering towards fascism. Fascist theory basically assumes that the state is all powerful and that the populace is subservient to the wishes of the state. Yuck!
What I want to see is much more accountability and transparency, so that the populace commands and is not half-led. The true spirit of democracy needs to be re-kindled in my not-so-humble opinion.
And finally, I may be a lot of things, but I’m not a fascist! At least I don’t think so! Although I know you were not accusing me of this!
All the best,
Alex
Alex
I’m glad you weren’t offended and didn’t assume that I was accusing you of being a fascist. You’re way to smart to be fascist! The reason why thinking along the lines of “government=business” points towards fascism is that Mussolini himself equated them.
While the similarities between business and government are obvious, their difference is essential and that is, their reason for existing. Their is one, and only one, reason for a business to exist: to generate financial profit. All else is secondary. Period. Government may define profit in many ways (e.g. economic, social, legislative, environmental, political) but they all have to some extent equal or similar importance. It is the balance of these various meanings of profit that reflect good government.
In business, true transparancy is not a goal. Businesses may be required by law to maintain (or create the illusion of) transparency for tax and other reasons, but we all know that the game is to get away with as much as possible. The game is well known and acknowledged both by business and by the law. In business, transparency between management and staff are neither required nor expected. When is the last time your boss asked you your opinion on a business decision or offered to let you examine the books? It would be nice to think that this kind of confidence exists among management and staff, but it doesn’t. It can’t and won’t because a business is a true autocracy.
So the things you say you desire from government - transparency, accountability, popular control - are the opposites of the way businesses are run. And this is why it is wrong to expect a business man to succeed at government.
Gege’
“You’re way to smart to be fascist!” - Thanks for the ego boost! But, alas, quite a number of ’smart’ people were fascists, sadly. The frailty of mankind.
Now back to the point. I do take your points regarding business and government, and what you say about the profit motive being the ‘mother of all motives’ for business, but I also think that modern politicians act rather like businessmen, only for them the ‘profit’ appears to be power.
I do agree with you that government may define profit in economic, social, legislative, environmental, political terms, indeed I would go further and say that it must define ‘profit’ in these terms.
Nowadays, what with marketing men guiding the careers of many of our politicians, I am of the opinion that the line between politician and businessman has become rather obscure. Certainly in terms of honesty, there is not an awful lot to choose from between the two.
With regard to transparency, you are right, bosses do not let their minions check the books et al, but, this assumes that, in the context of government, the people are ‘employees’, whereas, as I have mentioned, really they (we) are/should be ’shareholders’.
Businessmen know that they need to please their shareholders in the same way as politicians attempt to please the voters. In Italy, for example, Berlusco was voted in because some people genuinely thought that he could do no worse than the ‘politicians’. And I can understand why Berlusco gained power - he has given a lot of people a livelihood. And he has a successful business. The trouble is that Berlusco is an expert at manipulating the bad aspects of the Italian system, and he really used his period in government to protect his own interests, and the clever marketing did not manage to cover this up - hence his losing of the elections (only just) to Prodi.
However, Prodi has turned out to be as autocratic as Berlusco, and now further elections are looming, there is no choice for the Italian people - whoever gets in will represent a backwards step for Italy. But, despite your misgivings, I do believe that certain businessmen could potentially do better than many politicians.
“So the things you say you desire from government - transparency, accountability, popular control - are the opposites of the way businesses are run. And this is why it is wrong to expect a business man to succeed at government.”
Nope, I disagree with the above, I don’t believe that the things I desire from government are totally opposite to the ways of businesses, although I can understand why you make this point. I shall explain why.
Businesses, not all, but many, especially those listed on stock exchanges, and after certain events - Enron, Parmalat, Cirio etc, and through the introduction of new accounting regulations, Sarbanes-Oxley, Basel 2 etc, are being forced into being more transparent and accountable. Otherwise they lose the support of the markets - popular control. This is similar to the way in which governments lose power.
So, on the basis of the above, I would still argue that certain businessmen - those who see the populace as shareholders, could well do a better job of running a country than many of the current batch of politicians.
I am not saying open the floodgates to dictatorship - democracy must be preserved, but I do not think Montezemolo would attempt to set himself up as a new Mussolini - at least he does not appear to be followed around by odd types in odd uniforms.
For the moment Italy’s types, it’s politicians, have proved that they cannot run Italy. I’d like to see a new face being given a chance - even if this new face does belong to a businessman . He could always be kicked out at the end of his term by the voters anyway. And then there is the high probability that even if a businessman did obtain power (again!), he would still be surrounded by lots of politicians and this should help moderate the overtly business type moves of such a person, in theory.
I know I’ve strayed into the curious case of Italy, and perhaps what I mean to say is that, in Italy, a businessman - with the right beliefs could, possibly, sort out the mess that this country has been in for so many years.
However, if you can suggest other ways of sorting out Italy’s ills, let me and anyone else who is following this interesting discussion know.
Kind regards,
Alex
(PS I shall re-read and possibly revise what I have written above - I cannot see enough of it in this tiny comment window!) Done!
PS In my idle moments I’ve been trying to think of how democracy can be saved - and the only conclusion I’ve come to is really ‘out with the old, and in with the new’, and by ‘new’ I mean really new, not just recycled, as in the Living Museum.
G’morning Alex, and buona domenica to you.
See, it turns out we weren’t so far away from each other after all, politico/philosophically speaking ;o)
“With regard to transparency, you are right, bosses do not let their minions check the books et al, but, this assumes that, in the context of government, the people are ‘employees’, whereas, as I have mentioned, really they (we) are/should be ’shareholders’.”… No, this assumes that in the context of government, everyone is a shareholder. Government employees are first and foremost, citizens, and thus are as such are as entitled to clarity and transparency as anyone else.
I agree that a batch of new faces in government (and not only in Italy!) would be a welcome sight. I don’t know if you’ve been watching the U.S. primary campaigns, but they are also populated with a lot of the same old-same old, starting with Hillary Clinton. The media, ever at the service of the Establishment, puts all its effort into dissing newcomer Obama as being a too-green nobody. So what’s the alternative - more dynastic politics in the so-called democracy?
Montezemolo ain’t exactly the new kid on the block, and I might even beg to differ with his dress code and that of his clan - it’s been many years since I’ve donned a suit and tie and find they can be as menacing as any black or brown shirt.
My suggestions for curing the ills of this country? Alas, I’m fresh out. All I can do is grin in bear it. Or as Michael Caine so famously said, “Close my eyes and think of England” ;o)
Gege’
Buona domenica anche a te.
I’m not all that surprised to learn that our politico/philosophically views are not too different!
You certainly appear to a pretty reasonable kind of person.
Now, you said “No, this assumes that in the context of government, everyone is a shareholder. Government employees are first and foremost, citizens, and thus are as such are as entitled to clarity and transparency as anyone else.”
I’m not sure I agree with you on this, as I would say that government employees are as much shareholders as those who do not work for the government - because, as you say, they are ‘citizens’ and, again, echoing your point, this means that they are as entitled to clarity and transparency as anyone else.
Glad to hear that we share the same opinions regarding ‘new faces’! And I absolutely agree that Italy is by no means the only place in need of new blood.
I have been following the US primary campaigns - through the Italian news more than anything else, and I agree that Hilary is about as new as a Model T Ford. I prefer Obama, but I think he worries the WASP establishment - who happen to run the media…
And finally, I know Montezemolo is no new kid, but he would be new to Italian politics. As for his dress code, I too often wear a suit, and sometimes, black shirts! I don’t think I look too menacing;-)
But I don’t really care how someone is dressed - the important thing is not to look at the clothes, but what is underneath. This is something I try to do, although I was guilty of not doing this in the past, and having parents who labelled anyone with long hair as being a moron, did not help.
Shame you have no suggestions, and I don’t think ‘thinking of England’ will help Italy too much;-)
Kind regards,
Alex