How will we get out of the pandemic? Waiting for money from the EU, antiparliamentary drift and politicized judiciary: an explosive mix

There is a lot of talk about how the country will emerge from the pandemic, avoiding it so that there won't be a recovery in the autumn season. Have we changed for the better, as many goodists say , or will we go back to being the first ones, always poised between good and evil? History, which has known great tragedies, teaches us that after the te deum and the thanksgiving processions for the end of the plagues, complete with beaten breasts and good intentions, the intentions and behaviors have returned to being the same. , given, then, that in the continuous passage of generations, the lessons passed fade slowly but surely. Which, to tell the truth, does not hurt, because taking all the past with you, making it a fault of it, is too heavy an effort to avoid having the temptation to get rid of it. In short, a healthy forgetfulness is the condition before an active survival.

What has been baptized as the right to be forgotten applies to the individual, but also to an entire community, because otherwise they would have been condemned to always walk with their eyes turned to the back, running the risk of slipping into the first hole open in front. This is very little understood by those who persist in believing that it is sufficient to obsessively insist on scenarios, even monstrous, of the past to keep them vivid well beyond the lives of the survivors. It is a world that has accelerated so much that two successive generations have nothing in common: fathers and children no longer know each other, do not cultivate the same interests, do not speak the same languages, even if the post-epidemic crisis will force them to stay together, as separated in the home, although no longer for prevention of the virus, but for lack of work and income.

If people change, it will only be because of the economic and social crisis, incubated by the epidemic, making it no more altruistic or solidarist than they might say, but more closed in defense, willing to dispute any public providence in its favor, with the fear of arrive last, when the enormous availability of resources, given in safe arrival from Europe, will be available. The wait is great, fueled daily by our Prime Minister, who was wrongly made fun of for baptizing States consultations, because it is true that Louis XVI lost his mind, but the final bang of the revolution was the rise to Napoleon's empire. If the expectation is great, the disappointment could be great, with the explosion of a social anger, which being the result of many unsatisfied particularities, would become difficult to manage in the absence of a common project, already in the concrete realization phase.

It is not that there is not a whole flourishing of programs, which accumulate and overlap, having in common the diagnosis of the chronic evils of our country, which in the ear of a person of age sounds as obvious as cloying, but not therapy ; but even where this is common, there is no recipe for cure. The executive detail is what betrays a project, whether a bridge or an intervention, public or private, is at stake; but it is precisely the detail that is difficult to develop, because it affects the living flesh of the opposing interests, so that the technician's task ends and the politician's begins here.

There may be some surprises that – in the absence of a clear and participatory vision if not through a scenography that, given the choice of location , seems a little operetta – the narrative voice of the Prime Minister promises a rosy ten-year future, despite having political consultations, however, are upon us: if the mountains of the European Community reach 2021 advanced, in 2023 there will still be elections, however long you want to pull them. But this highlights a clear deficiency in taking back the institutional problem, starting with the reduction in the number of parliamentarians, certainly fired from the next constitutional referendum; as well as the drafting of the electoral law, which, depending on the contingent convenience, oscillates between a proportional and a majority proposal.

The reduction in the number of parliamentarians, according to the inspiration cultivated by the 5 Stars, who landed in the government with all their original Protestant burden, fully enrolled in an anti-parliamentarism that has become the characteristic sign of the second Conte Ministry, with the unexpected help of the Covid-19 . You do not need to do anything more than a brief list: the use bylaws converted with confidence, use galore of the Council Ministerial Decrees, avoid a review of Parliament and the President of the Republic, the conversion of communications to the Chambers in simple information, to prevent any vote, which, with regard to the Mes, would have put the majority at serious risk. The consequent void, as happens in every antiparliamentary drift – with the consequent marginalization of the opposition, here moreover prevented by the epidemic from resorting to public demonstrations – has been filled by an artificially charismatic figure, to whom the absolute ability to move the decisions on multiple committees, of which only the faithful executor would have been, to end implicitly to gain the merit, through an obsessive media presence, worthy of a bon ton autocrat. The seal on this antiparliamentarianism that, bon gré mal gré , found a tolerant protector in the President of the Republic – who, lastly, gave the impression of blessing the States themselves, urging the government to concreteness, just on the eve of their inauguration – could be given by the election of his successor by this Parliament, because this would mean mortgaging the future alternative majority that eventually came out of the ballot box in 2023.

This is not only the legacy left by the legislature in itinere , because it often happens that a majority uses a technique to marginalize the opposition, which will then be used by the latter, once it has become a majority, with the possibility of be strong on previous practice. There is more, which has already begun to work against those who had advocated it, that is, the reduction of the political act, which cannot be negotiated by the criminal magistrate, to a decree-law or a resolution of the Council of Ministers, downgrading everything the rest in an administrative act, with respect to which the competent Chamber could certainly not deny the authorization, in the name of the golden rule, for which "we do not defend ourselves from trials, but in trials".

Only now it is Conte who has to answer for a negligible omission of criminal relevance, that of not having proceeded with the establishment of a red zone in two municipalities in the Bergamasco. Of course, progressive information, recognizing an evident resemblance to the kidnappings attributed to Salvini, guilty of having done everything alone, began to blame the Lombardy Region, which would not have proceeded on its own initiative, like other regions, as if a red zone could be managed without the blessing of the government, the only one to have the public force necessary to guard its access. Once Conte, as an expert lawyer – realizing that he could not deny the evidence of an army mobilization brought back only at the last minute – took full responsibility, the progressive information army began to beat on the emergency situation, on the discretion of the decision, on the absence of demonstrable epidemiological effects and so on.

The golden rule of defending oneself in the trials has not found past luck, also because the supposed uncontaminated purity of the criminal judiciary is now blatantly denied by the copious interceptions of the boss of the prosecutor's boss, Palamara, who not only let himself run away from having to honor the trust of his association, waging war on Berlusconi; but, in a crack of repressed sincerity, he went so far as to declare that Salvini was right, but still had to be stopped. Here is the double legacy, a marginalization of Parliament and an exposure of the ruling class to the incursion of a politicized judiciary. Well, as long as this majority lasts in the saddle, in the name of the famous verses of Lorenzo the Magnificent, "who wants to be happy, be it, of the tomorrow there is no certainty" .

The post How will we get out of the pandemic? Waiting for money from the EU, anti-parliamentary drift and politicized judiciary: an explosive mix appeared first on the Daily Atlantic .

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL on Fri, 19 Jun 2020 04:08:00 +0000.