Scenes of unprecedented violence in Italy. Er, not.

11 Responses to “Scenes of unprecedented violence in Italy. Er, not.”

1. corpodibacco on September 19th, 2007 1:56 am

   er, can you give us a link to the source of what D’Alema said? I doubt he said that people were physically violent: more likely that the things said were violent: and as much as I dislike D’Alema, there certainly is a form of violence in putting all politicians in a bunch and argue, like Grillo did, that they’re all corrupt because among them there are some who have been sentenced for crimes, or some who have been in the parliament for more than two mandates. The arguments are ludicrous (see Luttazzi analysis here: http://www.danieleluttazzi.it/node/309), but even if they were not, it is undoubtedly demagogic the way Grillo and his people pretends to be all-good against the all-evil politicians. The corruption in Italy is rooted way deeply than the parliament, and its branches enter every other house of the “honest” citizens of this country. The way I see it, Grillo and his band are just helping to demolish the remains of the Republic. To replace it with what? A useful emptiness for new ugly things to come, no doubt.

2. Alex on September 19th, 2007 1:39 pm

   Thanks for dropping in Corpodibacco. You will find a link to the Republica article, in .pdf form, in the main post now - you are right, I should have linked to it before.

   And, you are right again, in actual fact, D’Alema insinuates that Grillo type initiatives may provoke violence, this is what D’Alema is quoted as having said: ‘mi preoccupa una carica di violenza totalmente inutile che non produce niente di utile’, although in politicospeak this could be read as saying that Grillo’s V-day event was an example of ‘una carica di violenza’. Please have a look at the article and tell me what you think.

   And I agree that ‘tarring all the politicians here with the same brush’ is not necessarily correct, but the political class here has walked right into this situation. In Italy, government one is voted in, makes a mess, and is voted out, then government two is voted in, makes a mess and is voted out. Government one returns, with the same old promises, makes a mess and gets voted out, and this sorry cycle repeats itself. Result? The voters get tired of the same people saying the same things and not achieving much. And it is not a great example of true democracy.

   Luttazzi’s analysis is interesting, but I don’t think Grillo is saying that his proposals are the solution to Italy’s problems, I think his real message is that change is needed, because the situation has got out of control.

   What Luttazzi says about Grillo’s actual proposals is, in some ways, correct. A good politician deserves more than two terms, and could serve the people well. However, Grillo’s two year term proposal is something of a negotiating ploy: ask for two, the other side proposes four and everyone agrees on three. Then at least there is a chance of seeing new blood in Italian politics, which has to be a good thing.

   Re the Grillo proposal on politicians with criminal convictions, Luttazzi seems to be making the point that everyone is ‘innocent until proven guilty’, which is fair. Only, in Italy, as Luttazzi mentions, the judicial system is so slow that, I believe, potentially, criminals can stay in politics forever. So something does need to be done. Personally, I’d like the parties to take the initiative on this and ask those who are involved in criminal proceedings to stand down as politicians until the case has been resolved, but if the people are convicted, they should never be allowed to take a place in parliament ever again. The fact that politicians have to stand down, may even encourage someone to get round to speeding up the judicial systems here.

   Now, is Grillo a demagogue? Possibly, but then he has to gain the attention of the people in some way if he is to bring about change. Indeed, most politicians become demagogic right around election times and it could be argued that all politicians are demagogues. So, Grillo is simply using the tactics that most reformers employ.

   I disagree that satire is a means of attacking power - it can be, but it is more of a way for someone to comment on what they feel is not right. And it also helps others see things in a different light. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the opinions expressed by Grillo and other satirists is one’s own decision.

   Grillo says that ‘parties are the cancer of democracy’, and, with regard to modern politics this is not an inaccurate description, in that the parties now do whatever they can to stay in power - marketing, make hollow promises etc, and often put so much effort into these activities that they seem to forget that they are supposed to be representing the wishes of the people, not just simply keeping themselves in a nice job.

   As a result of his being excluded from the TV here, it is no surprise that Grillo has turned to the Internet to generate interest - in Italy, it really was the only thing he could do.

   Now, back to your comment that corruption has very deep roots in Italy. This is true, but this does not make it right. Ending this situation would be a good idea, but it will not happen over night.

   And I disagree that Grillo and Co are attempting to destroy the Republic - they, as I believe, are trying to turn the Republic into what it is supposed to be - a society run by the people for the people.

   As to what will come of Grillo et al, well, that remains to be seen. Things could get worse, but being an optimist and knowing that there are good people in Italy, I hope something good will come out of this and that true democracy can be restored. Things are not good here, and something does need to be done - that is Grillo’s main message and he is right.

   Sorry about the length of my reply.

   Kind regards,

   Alex

3. corpodibacco on September 19th, 2007 6:58 pm

   Alex, thanks for providing the link. As I imagined, D’Alema was arguing that the instances brought by Grillo & co. are to destroy without building anything, thus he calls them violent. I don’t like the argument very much, but there is something there.
   Now to the points you make:

   – The fact that someone who has been accused of a crime, and even proved guilty on first or second trial, could be sitting in the parliament is a actually a good thing: it is precaution in case the judicial system falls in the wrong hands. We had Mussolini in Italy, and at that time it was sufficient for him to have a member of the parliament accused and sentenced for any “unpatriotic” crime to have him sent to jail. Mussolini or the King could outlaw entire parties like that. A member of the parliament represents the citizens –and his representation must be maintained at all costs, if democracy wants to have any sense.

   – The fact that individuals or entire parties who make business with the Mafia or who are known as crooks and criminals are elected and represented in Italy is not a problem of the parliament!! It is a problem of the citizens who should not elect them. It’s simple as that.
   But they do. And this is the real problem, right? And like Luttazzi says, you don’t change this by changing the rules. Neither you can change the minds of the people by decree. To get out of a corrupt mentality is a slow process, and in Italy that process never started.
   Where is corruption? Only among the members of the parliament? Or also where there’s the small artisan who assures you that you can have the same thing for less if you are willing not to ask for a receipt? How many of those who are eager to make exceptions for themselves were cheering for Grillo the other day?

   – The whole Grillo’s idea comes from the insulting fact that guys like Berlusconi, Andreotti, Previti or Dell’Utri, most likely affiliated with the mafia and notorious criminals, sit in the parliament.
   It is outraging: yet honestly I prefer if they do: the support they have is enormous, Grillo seems always to forget this. And anyway the resources they have are almost infinite, thanks to the fact that Berlusconi on one side and the Mafia on the other keep this country by the balls: should those not sit in the parliament, they would put new puppets there to represent them (cf. the lobbies at the U.S. congress). You decide which is better.

   – Abolishing or demolishing parties makes no sense: whatever will come as a substitute will either be a party or a dictatorship. Please define an alternative to a party: self-organizing movements of the citizens are a “party”: exactly the way any party ever started. Also, I don’t understand the problem: unlike other countries in Italy the vote still has a certain meaning. The vote is the enormous power to make change happen. Where’s the need to outlaw people or to make new moralistic set of rules when with a simple casting of a ballot you can send away who ever you don’t like? I don’t understand.

   – I see the Republic as a system of rules that are meant to prevent too much power to fall in the same hands. The “thing” is “public” in the sense that it should never be an object at the service of one or few forces. It is not “public” because “people rule”. Other than impossible, this is obviously the main road to dictatorship: as Orwell said, you don’t use dictatorship to preserve the revolution: you make the revolution to establish a dictatorship. A revolution to put “people in charge” is just a shortcut to dictatorship. What you want is to preserve the institutions, the rule of law, and the balance of powers. That’s the essence of a Republic.
   When accuses the institutions to be crooked, instead of pointing out the elements that still consent to the citizens to make the change happen with these institutions, with these rules, Grillo is helping to trash the republic big time. According to him the problem now seems to be that the Parliament is useless and the Constitution is useless and that the judicial system is useless. This is crazy. Those are the last remains of democracy things we have, and for incredible that it may seem they keep the whole thing standing, more or less. The alternative would be what? You tell me.

4. Alex on September 19th, 2007 9:07 pm

   Hi Corpodibacco - many thanks for replying.

   Now, you said:

   The fact that someone who has been accused of a crime, and even proved guilty on first or second trial, could be sitting in the parliament is a actually a good thing: it is precaution in case the judicial system falls in the wrong hands. We had Mussolini in Italy, and at that time it was sufficient for him to have a member of the parliament accused and sentenced for any “unpatriotic” crime to have him sent to jail. Mussolini or the King could outlaw entire parties like that. A member of the parliament represents the citizens –and his representation must be maintained at all costs, if democracy wants to have any sense.

   To an extent you are right, and I take your point - merely accusing someone does not and cannot make them guilty - but if the judicial system were to fall into the wrong hands, people would go to jail just the same - dictators do what they like regardless of ‘rules’. As you say, “A member of the parliament represents the citizens”, and this has to be the case, but the citizens may not be properly represented by someone who does not respect laws, and such a person is not likely to give a damn about democracy. Hence my suggestion that the parties should distance themselves from those accused of serious crimes - this would show respect for the citizens and respect for democratic rule. It would also send a strong message to everyone, politicians and citizens alike that breaking laws is not right. Politicians should lead by example - I want my leaders to be people I can admire, honest people with integrity. How can anyone have authority and command respect if they show themselves to be worse, or as bad as those they purport to lead?

   The fact that individuals or entire parties who make business with the Mafia or who are known as crooks and criminals are elected and represented in Italy is not a problem of the parliament!! It is a problem of the citizens who should not elect them. It’s simple as that.But they do. And this is the real problem, right? And like Luttazzi says, you don’t change this by changing the rules. Neither you can change the minds of the people by decree. To get out of a corrupt mentality is a slow process, and in Italy that process never started.

   Nope, I disagree, it is not that simple. People who are suspected to be crooks or members of the mafia should never even be considered as parliamentary candidates. The problem in Italy is, put simply, one candidate is mafia, the other is a crook - the poor voter has to elect someone - which means you end up with either a mafioso or a crook as your leader. This is not democratic, unless you think that Italians are either mafiosi or crooks. I do not think this is the case.

   I do agree that eliminating a corrupt mentality is difficult, but not impossible. Proper education (and the church could help if it chose to) and severe punishments are needed to discourage those who feel that corrupt practices are OK. A clear message, along with some high profile convictions may help remove corruption from Italian society. This process has not started - but it should. And as you say corruption is widespread, some of it minor, some of it, major. Start by eliminating the major corruption first, then you can work on the minor corruption. Maybe Grillo can start this ball rolling.

   The whole Grillo’s idea comes from the insulting fact that guys like Berlusconi, Andreotti, Previti or Dell’Utri, most likely affiliated with the mafia and notorious criminals, sit in the parliament.
   It is outraging: yet honestly I prefer if they do: the support they have is enormous, Grillo seems always to forget this. And anyway the resources they have are almost infinite, thanks to the fact that Berlusconi on one side and the Mafia on the other keep this country by the balls: should those not sit in the parliament, they would put new puppets there to represent them (cf. the lobbies at the U.S. congress). You decide which is better.

   Both you and Grillo are right - such people should not represent the interests of a nation - they are not democratic. But just because B, A, P and D have so much ’support’, does not mean they should hold power - and they only have the power because the voters elected them because they had no alternative. What you are saying is that if everyone goes and kills their mothers, that’s OK - I’ll kill my mum too. And yes, the puppet problem is there - this is why we must be presented with ‘clean’ candidates. I want someone I want to vote for, indeed, if I don’t like any candidate, I will not vote.

   Abolishing or demolishing parties makes no sense: whatever will come as a substitute will either be a party or a dictatorship. Please define an alternative to a party: self-organizing movements of the citizens are a “party”: exactly the way any party ever started. Also, I don’t understand the problem: unlike other countries in Italy the vote still has a certain meaning. The vote is the enormous power to make change happen. Where’s the need to outlaw people or to make new moralistic set of rules when with a simple casting of a ballot you can send away who ever you don’t like? I don’t understand.

   Again, I disagree - if parties are not doing their jobs and are full of criminals, they deserve to be abolished and or demolished, and for true democracy to prevail this process needs to continue until effective parties emerge. A “party” should be a group of people who are seen to be representing the wishes of the people. The parties in Italy do not really do this, they only pretend. A vote does have lots of power, but only when you can vote for the person/party you really feel can do something. In Italy at present a vote is not worth the paper it appears on, because there is no real choice - you’ve got lots of plates of vomit - whichever way you vote, you get vomit.

   It’s not a question of sending away people I don’t like, it’s a question of finding alternatives that I can respect and that I believe will do good for society.

   And then:

   I see the Republic as a system of rules that are meant to prevent too much power to fall in the same hands. The “thing” is “public” in the sense that it should never be an object at the service of one or few forces. It is not “public” because “people rule”. Other than impossible, this is obviously the main road to dictatorship: as Orwell said, you don’t use dictatorship to preserve the revolution: you make the revolution to establish a dictatorship. A revolution to put “people in charge” is just a shortcut to dictatorship. What you want is to preserve the institutions, the rule of law, and the balance of powers. That’s the essence of a Republic.

   Too late, your idea of a republic does not exist- power is already in the same hands, the “thing” is no longer “public”, it is now the object at the service of one or a few forces - that sums up modern day Italy very well. And in some respects, a dictator could do a lot of good (but good dictators are hard to find…), and then re-establish democracy, only dictators are not democratic, and I don’t think I can think of one example of a ‘good’ dictator, and, I would say, the way in which politicians in Italy ignore the wishes of the people and do little or nothing to improve the situation, makes them, in some respects a sort of group dictatorship , otherwise defined as an oligarchy. And revolutions do not always have to be routes towards dictatorships - that is just the traditional historical view. With regard to preserving institutions, all well and good, but only if those institutions are worth maintaining. As to the rule of law, I agree, but only if it is effective - in Italy the rule of law is not effective enough, in that people get away with things far too easily - a clear message needs to be sent to those who are not dissuaded from carrying on their disreputable practices. This message should be that your actions will have consequences.

   Balance of power? What balance of power? The sheer fact that the law is slow means that I don’t think there has been a balance of power for a good few years in Italy. Although it could be argued that the President of Italy does attempt to keep things in check from time to time.

   When accuses the institutions to be crooked, instead of pointing out the elements that still consent to the citizens to make the change happen with these institutions, with these rules, Grillo is helping to trash the republic big time. According to him the problem now seems to be that the Parliament is useless and the Constitution is useless and that the judicial system is useless. This is crazy.

   By accusing the institutions that they are crooked, Grillo is sending a message. This message is ‘change is past due’. The citizens do not feel that they have much power to make change happen, or rather, that they have lost this power - back to the oligarchy thing. Grillo cannot trash something that has already been trash for some time. Instead, managed properly, Grillo’s actions could lead to the restoration of a balance of power and with it, true democracy. And he is right, parliament in Italy is a good as useless - I mean, can you name any significant achievements made by politicians in the last 10 years? The Italian constitution is not useless, far from it, but the essence of it is not being respected, if Grillo thinks that the constitution is useless (I was not aware of this), then he is wrong. The judicial system in Italy is not useless, it is just slow and subject to too much political interference, and when it does get round to making decisions, they often appear to be good decisions, only the media focuses on the results of difficult and controversial cases because they are newsworthy.

   Those are the last remains of democracy things we have, and for incredible that it may seem they keep the whole thing standing, more or less.

   Sorry, but as I have already stated, democracy, true democracy does not exist in Italy, and this is why many things are not standing

   The alternative would be what? You tell me.

   Let Grillo, or someone else attempt to restore democracy, because it needs to be done. (And although we are on about Italy, there are several other countries where democracy is not much more than a mere word - but that is another story…)

   I think part of the problem is that modern government is still based on its origins and has not ‘moved with the times’. One of the countries that springs to mind as being a true ‘modern’ democracy is Switzerland. A stupid, but possibly accurate measure of the existence of true democracy is the happiness of the people - the fact that Grillo exists, and has more than a few supporters, means that something not right in this country. Change is needed- and only change will restore true democracy. But I do hope Grillo does not end up being Grissolini, although I personally believe that Bossi is much more of a potential dictator than Grillo will ever be. I cannot come up with a real answer to Italy’s woes - I am one person and I don’t think I have the intellect necessary to dream up a new way of running a society - but I do have a few ideas. I am rather self-opinionated, as you may have noticed, but hey, nobody is perfect!

   Interesting discussion CB.

   All the best,

   Alex

5. An admission re Grillo « Blog from Italy on September 20th, 2007 12:27 am

   [...] read posts Speeding, and other traffic fines in ItalyScenes of unprecedented violence in Italy. Er, not.Italians and bread.Three interesting facts about Italian TVMobile phones in [...]

6. corpodibacco on September 20th, 2007 12:58 am

   Alex, this discussion is interesting indeed! Thanks for hosting it. Now I really want to clear my points.

   I don’t care to defend this crooked oligarchy. Which you are very right to define so. I have defined it like that many times myself. I will be happy should they all disappear or sink in the mud where they belong. What I care for is to preserve the institutions and the rules because those are the only friends we have. Besides, the rules are not the root of the problem. They have been changed a thousand times already and nothing ever changed. I am sick of this course being taken over and over. There are enough rules and anti-rules in Italy already.

   Example: writer Leonardo Sciascia, known to be one of the first and few individuals who talked publicly about mafia and terrorism in the sixties writing more than a (great) book about it, insisted that there was no need of a new set of rules or even more police enforcement to fight the mafia: all it took was the will to do it. But there was no such will. Instead they wrote all these new laws and rules, invented the Anti-mafia, and gave to it superpowers, largely anti constitutional (including striking deals with mafia men to accuse other mafia men and giving to the first ones immunity, protection, and money). Results: they officially made of the Mafia a invincible, shadowy enemy. In thirty years of Anti-mafia methods nothing substantially changed in the Mafia v. State confrontation, but unmovable strongholds inside the magistrature were forever created. Thanks a lot.

   Just to remember history, I will only briefly note that today’s arguments of Grillo are exactly (believe it or not) yesterday’s arguments of Bossi: there was a time when everyone seemed sure that Bossi was many things but certainly not corrupted. They are all not corrupted as long as they stay out of power. Meanwhile, thanks to all the demagogy, the respect for our institutions touches another even lower point in the conscience of this country (and I so much miss President Ciampi because of this).

   And I am not saying that it is good thing that a mafioso can sit in the parliament. I am saying that this is the lesser of two evils (the major evil being a world where with a help of a complacent judge you can take out your opposition in the parliament– and lawfully).
   You write: “People who are suspected to be crooks or members of the mafia should never even be considered as parliamentary candidates.”
   But this can be a concern for whoever writes the hiring rules of a party! One can create a party that uses those rules, which if I understand it well is what Grillo in the end is doing. Yet, seriously: people who are “suspected” have all the rights to be elected, and rightly so. For the reasons mentioned. I do not consent to trash rules in order to achieve a vague end like “keeping criminals out of office”. The concepts shift so rapidly, you know. What is a criminal today might not be what is a criminal tomorrow.

   You write: “But just because B, A, P and D have so much ’support’, does not mean they should hold power - and they only have the power because the voters elected them because they had no alternative.”

   But this is how democracy works: if you have support you hold power. Nothing we can do about it except to fight back by the rules. Creating alternatives if they do not exist. Besides, alternatives always exist. Worst come worst you can abstain or annul your vote.
   This country must be looked right in the face: The support Berlusconi have is real. The one Prodi have is real. Even if those are rooted in corruption or suspicious alliances with banks, mafia, corporations, Vatican or whatever international influences, they still are real because they persuaded the people, which is all a party has to do (and what Grillo himself is trying to do). So many in this country endorse berlusconi’s way of thinking and behaving and considering the public office because they have been persuaded. How to outlaw him personally would do any good to the cause? And how not seeing that behind him or behind Prodi there are larger and stronger powers that would just use someone else instead? Are we sure this is the right battle? Isn’t it all a classic vendetta instead?

   It is true that like you write “a party should be a group of people who are seen to be representing the wishes of the people. The parties in Italy do not really do this, they only pretend.” But isn’t the implicit answer to this that one has to create a different kind of party and fight differently and make a difference? Here is the Bossi-like demagogy: Why trashing parties in general to just create a new party? why trashing the parliament where tomorrow you will want to sit in? why trashing the democratic system that tomorrow will give you the votes? Why blathering about the general corruption when tomorrow, sitting in office, you will have to come to terms with that to survive? (who imagines power without dealing with corruption doesn’t know anything about it).

   You write: “By accusing the institutions that they are crooked, Grillo is sending a message. This message is ‘change is past due’. The citizens do not feel that they have much power to make change happen, or rather, that they have lost this power - back to the oligarchy thing. Grillo cannot trash something that has already been trash for some time. Instead, managed properly, Grillo’s actions could lead to the restoration of a balance of power and with it, true democracy.”

   Fine, we’ll see. I agree that we can’t blame Grillo for trying, on the contrary. Yet my personal opinion is that all Grillo will or will not achieve is his personal political destiny. There is no way that his emphatic demonstrations and demagogic arguments will restore democracy in Italy. Nobody doesn’t even know how this should happen and nobody seems to care. Doesn’t this lacking of substance surprises you? Should it all happen using “Internet democracy and the power of blogs”? In Italy? And how? Please.
   And about that: I always saw Grillo’s fame on the italian internet blogland as a sign of the lack of imagination of that readership more than everything else. Now things are slightly better on that front, I believe, but there’s been a moment when every other blog in this country linked to him (making of him I think the only non-english speaking blog in the technorati top 100): it literally took hundreds of thousands of italian blogs to achieve that.
   Our insane love for comedians.
   Such an absurd plebiscite is not a good sign. Never a healthy sign.

7. Alex on September 20th, 2007 10:59 am

   I’ll try to get back to you on the above this evening CB. I’m a bit busy at the moment, so I feel I cannot devote enough time to the reply it merits.

   As for hosting this discussion - my great pleasure! Thanks for participating - in English (I don’t think I could do the same in Italian!).

   All the very best,

   Alex

8. Alex on September 20th, 2007 10:37 pm

   Ok, I’m back. I was watching Annozero on RAI, and guess what? Yes, you probably know. Grilloism is the hot topic.

   Now to your recent reply.

   I don’t care to defend this crooked oligarchy. Which you are very right to define so. I have defined it like that many times myself. I will be happy should they all disappear or sink in the mud where they belong. What I care for is to preserve the institutions and the rules because those are the only friends we have. Besides, the rules are not the root of the problem. They have been changed a thousand times already and nothing ever changed. I am sick of this course being taken over and over. There are enough rules and anti-rules in Italy already.

   You are right to an extent re maintaining the institutions, and Italy is indeed full of too many rules, 95% of which are not respected anyway. The fact that these rules exist is yet another reflection of just how useless the politicians are. They do not know how to lead, and they are too arrogant to realise that nobody is listening to them any more. What is needed is a new political class that can command the respect of the people. Politicians that lead by example. That can reinforce, develop and improve the institutions. As a matter of fact, when you mention ‘institutions’ what are you referring to?

   Example: writer Leonardo Sciascia, known to be one of the first and few individuals who talked publicly about mafia and terrorism in the sixties writing more than a (great) book about it, insisted that there was no need of a new set of rules or even more police enforcement to fight the mafia: all it took was the will to do it. But there was no such will. Instead they wrote all these new laws and rules, invented the Anti-mafia, and gave to it superpowers, largely anti constitutional (including striking deals with mafia men to accuse other mafia men and giving to the first ones immunity, protection, and money). Results: they officially made of the Mafia a invincible, shadowy enemy. In thirty years of Anti-mafia methods nothing substantially changed in the Mafia v. State confrontation, but unmovable strongholds inside the magistrature were forever created. Thanks a lot.

   Leonardo Sciascia was very right. There is no will to fight the mafia, firstly because this would mean infighting! Falconi tried to deal with the mafia, but he did not have the support, resources or the political will behind him. So the poor man was executed. The Anti-Mafia have the wrong powers - not a surprise really when those behind the Anti-Mafia were mafia themselves. This is why ‘clean’ politicians are so necessary.

   Just to remember history, I will only briefly note that today’s arguments of Grillo are exactly (believe it or not) yesterday’s arguments of Bossi: there was a time when everyone seemed sure that Bossi was many things but certainly not corrupted. They are all not corrupted as long as they stay out of power. Meanwhile, thanks to all the demagogy, the respect for our institutions touches another even lower point in the conscience of this country (and I so much miss President Ciampi because of this).

   Yes, I can believe that it is true that Bossi used to make the same noises as Grillo, after all, Bossi detests the south of Italy. Grillo does not detest the south of Italy, at least this is not my impression. The demagogy, which will always happen, has reduced respect in the institutions, because they have been man-handled by poor mangers for so long. So it is inevitable that levels of respect have been falling. And yes, Ciampi was a great man - he kept Berlusco in check. Even Napolitano has tried to make the politicos see common sense, to his credit.

   And I am not saying that it is good thing that a mafioso can sit in the parliament. I am saying that this is the lesser of two evils (the major evil being a world where with a help of a complacent judge you can take out your opposition in the parliament– and lawfully).

   No, mafiosi should not get near parliament - the fact that they have is part of the reason why the most of politicians are detested now. As for ‘friendly’ judges, kick ‘em out. Any hints of association with the mafia should mean that they are sidelined. Sending a message to one and all that siding with the bad will not do you any good, should convince people to behave with integrity.

   You write: “People who are suspected to be crooks or members of the mafia should never even be considered as parliamentary candidates.”

   I stand by this. If anyone even sniffs, even a little, of mafia, they should not be allowed anywhere near parliament. Simply doing this would reduce those who feel that mafia (and how do you define ‘mafia’??) acquaintances are a good way to power. Of course, this may reduce considerably the number of people in Italy who could enter politics - but this would not be a bad think in the long term.

   But this can be a concern for whoever writes the hiring rules of a party! One can create a party that uses those rules, which if I understand it well is what Grillo in the end is doing. Yet, seriously: people who are “suspected” have all the rights to be elected, and rightly so. For the reasons mentioned. I do not consent to trash rules in order to achieve a vague end like “keeping criminals out of office”. The concepts shift so rapidly, you know. What is a criminal today might not be what is a criminal tomorrow.

   Yes, this may be a concern - it should be, a big concern. And what Grillo is proposing is correct. Even if it is suspected that someone is near the mafia - no go. Then politics would only be open to those who are ‘clean’ and, possibly, honest. In the UK and the US, journalists uncover the unlawful actions of politicians and those involved end their political careers. This is democracy. In Italy any journalist (or comedian) who says anything about criminal actions and associations is silenced - this is not democracy. On Annozero this evening there was a young girl who supports Grillo, and she mentioned that she has a relation who was investigated for robbery, and this mere investigation would mean that she would find it very difficult to become a police woman. But she could become a politician. In Italy, criminals cannot become policemen, but they can make laws! This is ridiculous, is it not? And a crime means any action which breaks a law, although the severity of the crime should be taken into account. As an alternative to excluding criminals and those suspected of crimes, how about asking these people to declare their crimes and to explain them to the voters? Then the voters can decide, democratically, whether they consider this person to be good enough to lead them.

   You write: “But just because B, A, P and D have so much ’support’, does not mean they should hold power - and they only have the power because the voters elected them because they had no alternative.

   But this is how democracy works: if you have support you hold power. Nothing we can do about it except to fight back by the rules. Creating alternatives if they do not exist. Besides, alternatives always exist. Worst come worst you can abstain or annul your vote.

   No, I disagree - democracy for me means giving me valid alternatives - not making me choose which plate of vomit to eat. Yes, you can abstain, which means democracy has failed, or annul your vote, but this means society is stuck with a plate of vomit, for years.

   This country must be looked right in the face: The support Berlusconi have is real. The one Prodi have is real. Even if those are rooted in corruption or suspicious alliances with banks, mafia, corporations, Vatican or whatever international influences, they still are real because they persuaded the people, which is all a party has to do (and what Grillo himself is trying to do).

   Berlusconi does have support (and in part I can understand why), and so does Prodi (who only gets his support because of the plate of vomit situation - no alternative), but then so did Hitler and Mussolini, and Craxi, but you would not like these people back again, I imagine. As for Grillo, you overestimate the man - he could be as rotten as the rest, in which case the current bunch would have found something to blacken his name with. They will try. But Grillo did not really persuade the people, he simply told the truth and let the people make their own minds up. Even he is surprised at the reaction his actions have generated. Now, he could be faking, this is possible, but what if he is not? What if he really does make Italy the place it deserves to be? I’d like to give him a chance. And if he does not do anything, he can be democratically voted out, and Prodi/Berluso can come back.

   So many in this country endorse berlusconi’s way of thinking and behaving and considering the public office because they have been persuaded. How to outlaw him personally would do any good to the cause? And how not seeing that behind him or behind Prodi there are larger and stronger powers that would just use someone else instead? Are we sure this is the right battle? Isn’t it all a classic vendetta instead?

   People support Berlusco because he is more credible than many politicians, even if he has a misty past, he has provided many with work, but, Berlusco has had his chance. He had five years. He did not achieve enough. Bye bye Berlusco team. End of story. Next please. Yes, there may well be powers behind Prodi, which is another reason to remove him. Again, Prodi has tried to change things, in his own mysterious way, and he has failed. He lost power before - which proved that he should not be in government now. And, yes again, this is a vendetta of sorts. The politicians in Italy have been pulling Italy’s leg for too long. Time for them to pay the consequences. Out with the old, and in with the new, not as in Italy at present - out with the old, in with the old, out with the old and in with the old, again and again and again and again. I think you will understand my point.

   It is true that like you write “a party should be a group of people who are seen to be representing the wishes of the people. The parties in Italy do not really do this, they only pretend.” But isn’t the implicit answer to this that one has to create a different kind of party and fight differently and make a difference? Here is the Bossi-like demagogy: Why trashing parties in general to just create a new party? why trashing the parliament where tomorrow you will want to sit in? why trashing the democratic system that tomorrow will give you the votes? Why blathering about the general corruption when tomorrow, sitting in office, you will have to come to terms with that to survive? (who imagines power without dealing with corruption doesn’t know anything about it).

   Yes, the implicit answer is to create a different kind if party - which is what Grilloism is all about, I believe. As for the existing parties, they are not democratic, so trash them and let’s see what rises from the ashes. As for trashing the government - great. I would not want to be a part of it today, but I would like to be part of something I and others can believe in. It’s not so much trashing, as doing some long overdue spring cleaning.

   And yes, corruption will always be around, we are human, but cases of corruption should become the exception, not the rule - as it appears to be now. Back in the UK, I just did not hear about corruption on the scale that it takes place here - but the UK is corrupt, only it is not overflowing with this corrosive aspect of society. Italy is overflowing. Someone needs to do something about this. The boiling soup of corruption overflowed before in Italy, but the will was not there to cool the flame enough and the soup pot is once again spilling all over the place. Maybe Grilloism can put the ‘will’ back into Italy. As an aside, but related to all this, Italians hate paying taxes, and who can blame them? Who would want to give their money to a bank manager who then throws it all away?

   You write: “By accusing the institutions that they are crooked, Grillo is sending a message. This message is ‘change is past due’. The citizens do not feel that they have much power to make change happen, or rather, that they have lost this power - back to the oligarchy thing. Grillo cannot trash something that has already been trash for some time. Instead, managed properly, Grillo’s actions could lead to the restoration of a balance of power and with it, true democracy.”
   Fine, we’ll see. I agree that we can’t blame Grillo for trying, on the contrary. Yet my personal opinion is that all Grillo will or will not achieve is his personal political destiny. There is no way that his emphatic demonstrations and demagogic arguments will restore democracy in Italy. Nobody doesn’t even know how this should happen and nobody seems to care. Doesn’t this lacking of substance surprises you? Should it all happen using “Internet democracy and the power of blogs”? In Italy? And how? Please.
   And about that: I always saw Grillo’s fame on the italian internet blogland as a sign of the lack of imagination of that readership more than everything else. Now things are slightly better on that front, I believe, but there’s been a moment when every other blog in this country linked to him (making of him I think the only non-english speaking blog in the technorati top 100): it literally took hundreds of thousands of italian blogs to achieve that.
   Our insane love for comedians.
   Such an absurd plebiscite is not a good sign. Never a healthy sign.

   Yes, we will see if Grillo does anything. Blogs are one of the last bastions of democracy - they let the people speak. In Italy, the press is not free and the TV, well, most of it is a joke - which means the only way to express your democratic wishes is to use the Internet. And I am not sure that Grillo’s demagogic arguments will restore democracy, but at least he has started something. I can only hope that all the uproar leads to real change.

   Grillo’s blog is so popular because he is the only person who is really saying ‘Italy stinks and here are plenty of examples’. The popularity of his blog does not show a lack of imagination, quite the opposite, it shows that people want change and that Italy does need it. And yes, it is a sad reflection on Italian society that a comedian is the only person with the courage to stand up and say ‘Basta!’. But at least Grillo is funnier than the comedians that sit in parliament.

   And no Grlloism is not a good or a healthy sign. What we are seeing in Grillo is a last desperate attempt to restore democracy, and that is sad, really sad. That things have come to this. Your blog title sums this all up - Italy is Falling. But things that fall sometimes bounce and I hope that this is what the Grillo effect will be for this country. The Italians, real Italians, deserve this.

   Right, I’m done for the moment, but, if I don’t go to bed, I shall post another observation on this Grillo thing.

   Once again Corpodibacco, many thanks for discussing this with me. And any comments, both positive or negative, you want to make, are very welcome. I won’t ban you from the web for simply expressing your opinions! I can’t, which makes me very happy!

   Best regards,

   Alex

9. corpodibacco on September 21st, 2007 5:53 am

   OK… I’m on it again
   If Grillo was really the only who spoke openly about the problems of Italy on a blog, there you have the lack of imagination and initiative, and the gregarious attitude of the readership. If Grillo was not the only one, you certainly have lack of imagination because so many followed the same banner anyway, and so much so that in the end things got out of control and a monster was created. This is not how I imagine the freedom of speech of the internet happening. The way I see it, Grillo is not the product of a ferment, but of a lack of ferment and fantasy.

   For the rest, I don’t really agree with what you write… You keep saying that something new is needed, that all that there is is rotten and corrupted, and I am saying that 1) Grillo is nothing new or uncorrupted 2) trashing everything and especially the institutions of the republic will not help this country a bit 3) calling for something “new” only by pointing the finger to everything that is wrong is quite generic. It’s the sign of our times, for sure: one has only to think at a absurd concept like “war on terrorism” to see how everything that is generic rules these days.

   When I said that Bossi and Grillo are alike is because ten years ago or so, before Bossi became a force in the parliament, all he kept saying was how much the parliament, parties and politicians were corrupted etc. That’s how he got so strong, because his arguments were so hypocritically appealing. Same did Berlusconi. Same did Mussolini. Same is doing Grillo.

   Since you say you liked Ciampi too, well, Ciampi cared for the institutions because he knew that they were already too weak and too easy to be destroyed, and that they had to be protected at all costs because they were the essence of the Republic and the little good left in it. And they really are: the comedians can say what they want.

   What happens now is that all the jackals of the Republic, who enjoy to see everything trashed and rewritten always a little worse than before, are cheering for Grillo because in the end he is helping, like a Bossi or a Berlusconi qualsiasi, to destroy the remains of legality in this country. He is doing so by spreading these synthetic and demagogic ideas that the problems in Italy are caused by corrupted politicans, wrong laws, and too many parties. Blah blah, heard a dozen times. But these, sorry, are pre-Mussolinian arguments, and incomplete where not utterly false. Corruption in Italy doesn’t begin in the parliament. It is just extended to it. And I would happily agree to include among the problems the problem of corruption in the parliament, like one of the many angles. But making of it the first if not the only problem of this country is hypocritical and will just take us to another stage of the process of changing everything in order to change nothing.

   When you repeat that no one even only suspected of being a mafioso should get near the parliament, you keep expressing an abstract desire that, sorry, is too easy to be applauded. The thing is: how do you make such a selection lawful? There is only one way and this is by letting the justice take its course. Otherwise, if you write down “someone who is suspected can’t… etc” you are bound to allow a lot of illegality and injustice. People would be ruined by well-orchestrated accuses of being mafioso, or terrorist. This already happens. This is Italy. Things must be proved or must be ignored, that’s the only decent thing to ask for.

   And finally I think you are wrong to say that Prodi got support only because there was no alternative. Many voted for him with a lot of hope and sincere support. And he still gets that support no matter what the media or Grillo say. I personally have no hope nor support to give, but I have no doubt that Prodi is better than Berlusconi in that he is not a gangster and he is not illegally rich like his predecessor. In your words here I really see the result of all this demagogy running around: exaggerations so big that in the end nothing decent or alive is left (and then one is left with the question: how is it possible that this country hasn’t plunged into anarchy yet?)

   Oh, I know that there is no hope for my country: it is more than a knowledge for me, it is a condition, the condition of being italian — this funny thing bound to decay and dissolution and without a hint of good future in the zodiac. Not just a spectator of this, mind you. Part of it. It is something that must be experienced to be understood. For this culture and for these people I know there is no hope left: something else will be called “italian” tomorrow and probably nobody will even know the difference. But I know. And I certainly make no exceptions to this gloomy vision because of a demagogic comedian who seems focused on attacking what is already so weak and without respect in people’s mind– trained by ten years of Berlusconi & co. to just despise the “small theater of politics” and everything around it — so that he gets the easiest satisfaction, the easiest applaud. While the country keeps falling, steady.

10. Alex on September 21st, 2007 10:23 am

    Oh, you’ve got me thinking now - and all my old arguments, old to those who know me, that is (apoligies to long suffering other half) may end up being repeated. Sorry for being a little cryptic.

    I shall post a more detailed response to your detailed reply later on, or during the weekend.

    My mission, as I see it, is to try and convince you that just because Italy is falling does not mean that it cannot bounce back. I know that as an Italian, you have seen other Grillo’s, and that this has destroyed your faith in Italy. Luckily, not being Italian, I have not been worn down by this country, just yet. (Oh, and for other readers, I am English, not from the US, as someone insinuated in a reference to one of my posts on Grillo’s blog, so at least I am from Europe.)

    As we sometimes say, ‘where there is hope there is a way’, in Grillo, there is some hope. In Bossi, for some, there was hope, but he became sucked into the down draft and has now become ‘one of the boys’ - this could happen to Grillo. I hope not, but, as you say, ‘this is Italy’. I do not pretend to understand Italy perfectly, but I think I can see more clearly because I am not Italian. Incidentally, I am always interested to hear what non English people make of the UK, simply because they can see things that I, as someone who is used to things the way they are, cannot. It’s a very simple idea - You write something, check it again and again, and then you give it to someone else to read, and they find holes and mistakes.

    Back later,

    And don’t lose hope CB - you, for me, are one of the many reasons why Italy needs to be saved. And saved, it can be.

    A presto,

    Alex

11. Alex on September 23rd, 2007 8:41 pm

    OK… I’m on it again

    OK, back again too Sorry about the delay, but you can get carried away on these things, and I have a family.

    Now, let’s get down to business, once more:

    If Grillo was really the only who spoke openly about the problems of Italy on a blog, there you have the lack of imagination and initiative, and the gregarious attitude of the readership. If Grillo was not the only one, you certainly have lack of imagination because so many followed the same banner anyway, and so much so that in the end things got out of control and a monster was created. This is not how I imagine the freedom of speech of the internet happening. The way I see it, Grillo is not the product of a ferment, but of a lack of ferment and fantasy.

    Nope, I disagree totally, Grillo’s blog and other similar blogs are an example of true democracy. Finally, Italian people can say something an agree en masse. Before the advent of the blog, there was no way for the average Italian to make his or her voice heard. And the media here was, and is, under such tight control that you only get to see what someone wants you to see. There is much fantasy behind Grillo’s exploitation of the web. The web is not something that is under the control of some left or right leaning editor. Real freedom of expression, almost.

    For the rest, I don’t really agree with what you write… You keep saying that something new is needed, that all that there is is rotten and corrupted, and I am saying that 1) Grillo is nothing new or uncorrupted 2) trashing everything and especially the institutions of the republic will not help this country a bit 3) calling for something “new” only by pointing the finger to everything that is wrong is quite generic. It’s the sign of our times, for sure: one has only to think at a absurd concept like “war on terrorism” to see how everything that is generic rules these days.

    If I have said that all is raw and corrupted, and I think I may have said so, then this was an exaggeration. Italy still functions and there is no crisis at street level. Far from it. You are saying Grillo is nothing new or uncorrupted. And maybe you are right, but I’m not sure you can judge - you have already seen it all before, so you are naturally suspicious and Italians in general think that if someone can rip them off, they will. In my culture, we do not automatically expect to be ripped off. Oh, it does happen, but it has not happened so often as to make the populous innately suspicious.

    Regarding the institutions - as I think I have said before. Trash them and rebuild them - better and stronger than before. In the long term, this will help the country, but this is unlikely to happen.

    3) calling for something “new” only by pointing the finger to everything that is wrong is quite generic. It’s the sign of our times, for sure: one has only to think at a absurd concept like “war on terrorism” to see how everything that is generic rules these days.

    This is a very revealing statement. It goes a long way towards confirming what I have thought about Italians for a long time. That is, there is an enourmous fear of change in this country, and I believe that the politicians, for all their faults, know this. Fear of change, of something new and different, is part of the Italian psyche. I’m not sure why, but what you say is a good indication of yet another Italian who wants change, but at the same time does not want it. I think you would simply like Italy to stop falling and remain as it is. No worse, no better.

    When I said that Bossi and Grillo are alike is because ten years ago or so, before Bossi became a force in the parliament, all he kept saying was how much the parliament, parties and politicians were corrupted etc. That’s how he got so strong, because his arguments were so hypocritically appealing. Same did Berlusconi. Same did Mussolini. Same is doing Grillo.

    You said this before, and again it is suspicion and that old fear of real change. I find it amazing how Italians continually refer to Mussolini, it’s as if they know that in the right circumstances, an new Mussolini could emerge. Fear again, and I believe quite without reason. Unless you can give me some, that is.

    Since you say you liked Ciampi too, well, Ciampi cared for the institutions because he knew that they were already too weak and too easy to be destroyed, and that they had to be protected at all costs because they were the essence of the Republic and the little good left in it. And they really are: the comedians can say what they want.

    Yes, Ciampi did try to protect the constitution. He was/is a good man, a reasonable man. Agian you mention the essence of the republic and the little good left in it, but you don’t really think things can be improved, by anyone. I’m not sure you really want things to change. This is worrying.

    What happens now is that all the jackals of the Republic, who enjoy to see everything trashed and rewritten always a little worse than before, are cheering for Grillo because in the end he is helping, like a Bossi or a Berlusconi qualsiasi, to destroy the remains of legality in this country. He is doing so by spreading these synthetic and demagogic ideas that the problems in Italy are caused by corrupted politicans, wrong laws, and too many parties. Blah blah, heard a dozen times. But these, sorry, are pre-Mussolinian arguments, and incomplete where not utterly false. Corruption in Italy doesn’t begin in the parliament. It is just extended to it. And I would happily agree to include among the problems the problem of corruption in the parliament, like one of the many angles. But making of it the first if not the only problem of this country is hypocritical and will just take us to another stage of the process of changing everything in order to change nothing.

    Bossi represents a small majority, Burlusco really represents himself. Grillo does not want to liberate Padania, nor does he have a huge business interest to protect nor does Grillo have several court cases to hide from. As for corruption, yes, it is a big problem in Italy, but it is not the only problem. You cannot go on dismissing everyone and anyone who actually wants to change things for the better. One day, possibly, that person may come along and surprise you. Grillo could be that person, or rather, the movement he has started could bring in the changes that Italians want, but are so terrified of.

    When you repeat that no one even only suspected of being a mafioso should get near the parliament, you keep expressing an abstract desire that, sorry, is too easy to be applauded. The thing is: how do you make such a selection lawful? There is only one way and this is by letting the justice take its course. Otherwise, if you write down “someone who is suspected can’t… etc” you are bound to allow a lot of illegality and injustice. People would be ruined by well-orchestrated accuses of being mafioso, or terrorist. This already happens. This is Italy. Things must be proved or must be ignored, that’s the only decent thing to ask for.

    Yes, accusations can be misused and in Italy they will be. But, as I also said, if the parties require their members to declare their interests and any accusations before elections, this will mean that the voters can judge whether or not they want this person to represent them. Real investigate journalism can help, but real investigative journalism does not take place in Italy - it is stifled and journalists are killed. Not good in a so-called democracy.

    And finally I think you are wrong to say that Prodi got support only because there was no alternative. Many voted for him with a lot of hope and sincere support. And he still gets that support no matter what the media or Grillo say. I personally have no hope nor support to give, but I have no doubt that Prodi is better than Berlusconi in that he is not a gangster and he is not illegally rich like his predecessor. In your words here I really see the result of all this demagogy running around: exaggerations so big that in the end nothing decent or alive is left (and then one is left with the question: how is it possible that this country hasn’t plunged into anarchy yet?)

    Again as I said before, and I firmly believe Prodi only really has any support, because there is no alternative to him. Many people also voted for Berlusconi because they had some hope that he would do more than the Prodiesque bunch before him. Demagogy is life. Look at the TV here. I don’t think Italy will become anarchic - that would be far too big a change and Italy is far too conservative to do something so radical, with the exception of a few extremists.

    Oh, I know that there is no hope for my country: it is more than a knowledge for me, it is a condition, the condition of being italian — this funny thing bound to decay and dissolution and without a hint of good future in the zodiac. Not just a spectator of this, mind you. Part of it. It is something that must be experienced to be understood. For this culture and for these people I know there is no hope left: something else will be called “italian” tomorrow and probably nobody will even know the difference. But I know. And I certainly make no exceptions to this gloomy vision because of a demagogic comedian who seems focused on attacking what is already so weak and without respect in people’s mind– trained by ten years of Berlusconi & co. to just despise the “small theater of politics” and everything around it — so that he gets the easiest satisfaction, the easiest applaud. While the country keeps falling, steady.

    This is worrying. What I read here is that there is no hope because you don’t want there to be. Whoever comes along proposing a solution to Italy’s problems will never be good enough. And you do not believe that there is anyone left in Italy because they have all been corrupted by Berlusco. I disagree and think Grillo is an example of someone who has come along and who could do something, or at least could get the apathetic, pessimistic and fearful Italians off their butts and get them to take control of this country. I believe this because I think Italians can do this, Italians are basically good people, but what they need is a good kick up the backside. And the politicians actions have acted as a kick up the culo, and Grillo may possibly have reignited the flame, the passion, for which Italians are so famous. We shall see - and you know Italians very well, so I could well be wrong about Grillo and his movement. But, I live in hope. Without hope, there is nothing and this means in Italy’s case, the country may as well close down.

    Come on Corpodibacco, instead of denigrating Grillo, and the Italian people. Tell me how you think Italy can stop falling. In your opinion, what needs to be done? And who in this country can do this? Individuals or groups? Don’t complain. Think of solutions.

    Kind regards,

    Alex (a fan of Italy, and, most, Italians)

Leave a Reply