A lecture by someone who knows the words and thought how to use them.
regime, democracy, constitution, equality.
La Repubblica, November 25, 2008
scheme or non-regime? A comparison on this dilemma, but so crucial than the moral duty that all about, now as always, here as elsewhere, to take a position on the management policy of the country of which you are a citizen, has not even begun. The reason is probably an association of ideas. If the "system", inevitably, is that of the fascist period, then the question whether there is a regime in Italy means if there is "the" or "a" fascist, or, more generally, if there is anything that looks like in authoritarianism, arbitrariness, provincialism, demagogy, manipulation of consensus, intolerance, violence, etc.. Thus, a serious matter, indeed crucial, is drawn on the ground, which does not lend itself to analysis, demonization of political hysteria functional and confrontation.
But "regime" is a completely neutral term, which simply means a way to govern human societies. We speak of "ancien regime" of democratic and republican regimes, monarchical, parliamentary, presidential, liberal and totalitarian, among others, precisely, of Fascist regime. Without qualification, the system tells us nothing about which there is to take a position, because the essential is nell'aggettivo.
So, taking the word in its proper meaning, isolated from the reminiscences, the initial change of meaning from "a system is currently" in "the current system is something new, compared to the previous? That Italy will experience a living constitution, perhaps still in progress and the outcome is not obvious, which is designed not to be confused with that which preceded it, at least not this is doubtful. I think, and sometimes they say, both those in favor, because the contrary, that we think and say tutti, con definizioni ora passatiste ora futuriste.
Non lo si dice ufficialmente e a cifra tonda, perché il momento è, o sembra, ancora quello dell’incubazione. La covata è a mezzo. L’esito non è scritto. La Costituzione del ‘48 non è abolita e, perciò, accredita l’impressione di una certa continuità. Ma è sottoposta a erosioni e svuotamenti di cui nessuno, per ora, può conoscere l’esito. Forze potenti sono all’opera per il suo superamento, ma altre forze possono mobilitarsi per la sua difesa. La Costituzione è in bilico.
Che cosa significa "costituzione in bilico"? Innanzitutto, che non si vive in una legittimità costituzionale generally accepted, ie in a single conception of the proper constitution, but (at least) two that are confronted. Any form of political regiment is based on a basic principle, a spring ethics, ressort mentioned by Montesquieu, dealing with forms of government nell'Esprit des lois. When this principle is in harmony with the essential esprit général of a people, then we can say that the constitution is legitimate and, therefore, solid and accepted. When discordant, the Constitution is designed to collapse, to be dethroned. However, if the public mind is divided, and therefore there is no esprit général that can be said, this is the time uncertainty constitutional il momento della costituzione in bilico e della bilancia che prima o poi dovrà pendere da una parte. È il momento del conflitto latente, che non viene dichiarato perché i fautori della rottura costituzionale come quelli della continuità non si sentono abbastanza sicuri di sé e preferiscono allontanare il chiarimento. I primi aspettano il tempo più favorevole; i secondi attendono che passi sempre ancora un giorno di più, ingannando se stessi, non volendo vedere ciò che temono. Tutti attendono, ma i primi per prudenza, i secondi per ignavia.
Non voler vedere, significa scambiare per accidentali deviazioni quelli che sono segni di un mutamento di rotta; significa sbagliare, prendendo per lucciole, cioè per piccole changes that will soon be forgotten as temporary illegality, those that are lanterns and warning signs that preparations for a different review. Thus, it remains inert. The gradual build up of materials of construction of the new regime proceeds smoothly and, sooner or later will mass. Then, you can not not want to see, but it will be too late.
*
What really qualifies and distinguishes the political regimes in their deepest nature, and that marks the transition from one to another, is the attitude of equality, the political value of all people, the most important among all, however, oggi il più negletto, perfino talora deriso, a destra e a sinistra. Perché il più importante? Perché dall’uguaglianza dipendono tutti gli altri. Anzi, dipende il rovesciamento nel loro contrario. Senza uguaglianza, la libertà vale come garanzia di prepotenza dei forti, cioè come oppressione dei deboli. Senza uguaglianza, la società, dividendosi in strati, diventa gerarchia. Senza uguaglianza, i diritti cambiano natura: per coloro che stanno in alto, diventano privilegi e, per quelli che stanno in basso, concessioni o carità. Senza uguaglianza, ciò che è giustizia per i primi è ingiustizia per i secondi. Senza uguaglianza, la solidarietà si trasforma in invidia sociale. Senza uguaglianza, le istituzioni, da luoghi di protezione e integrazione, diventano strumenti di oppressione e divisione. Senza uguaglianza, il merito viene sostituito dal patronaggio; le capacità dal conformismo e dalla sottomissione; la dignità dalla prostituzione. Nell’essenziale: senza uguaglianza, la democrazia è oligarchia, un regime castale. Quando le oligarchie soppiantano la democrazia, le forme di quest’ultima (il voto, i partiti, l’informazione, la discussione, ecc.) possono anche non scomparire, ma si trasformano, anzi si rovesciano: i diritti di partecipazione politica diventano armi nelle mani di gruppi potere, per regolare conti della cui natura, da fuori, nemmeno si è consapevoli.
Questi rovesciamenti are often under the cover of words unchanged (freedom, society, rights, etc.).. Then we can see the truth of this general law: the world of politics, words are exposed to reversals of meaning depending on whether they delivered from above or from below the social ladder. This is to start with the word "political" force sopraffattrice from the standpoint of the strong, as in the binomial friend-enemy, or from the point of view of the weak, the experience of cohabitation, as suggested by the etymology of the polity. Use ambiguous, thus justifying the application to those who talk about politics: which side are you, the helpless or the powerful? The reconstruction of meaning and therefore the integrity of the political communication is possible only in the common and equality.
*
return to the initial question, whether it is in progress, or if you have already made, a change of regime, in terms of deciding equality.
In any organization of large numbers to sneaks an oligarchic power, that is the opposite of equality. In fact, most numbers are larger, this is a law "iron." And 'the discovery of a paradox or a contradiction of democracy. But it is very different if the equation is set aside, among the scrap heap of political or wishful thinking, or if it is (still) value of policy. The constitution - this constitution that takes equality as its basic principle - is poised right on this point.
We can not fail to see that the company is now divided into layers and these layers are not communicating. Lower down are all the invisible ones, without the rights that we, with our law, we define "illegal", for those who were forced to undergo all, there is no law, at the summit, the privileged, in families of blood and interest, for which, also, there is no law, but in the opposite direction, because everything is permitted and, if the law is an obstacle, you change the bend or not apply at all . In the midst of a society stratified and ossified, type Ancien Régime, where mobility is increasingly scarce and the social condition of birth determines the fate of more and more. If you accept everything, the rest is the consequence. You mean that state coercion is unevenly distributed: the greater the more you go down the social ladder, the less the higher you climb, the criminal law, in fact, is a law class and that, for the powerful, not the criminal trial longer exists in the field of social rights that the public guarantee is being progressively replaced surgery suite, where most people have, the more he can. Nor surprisingly, what the Constitution considers the first right of citizenship, work is not reduced to a commodity in the market do.
Similarly, the organization of power moves and closes the top. The party oligarchy is only a reflection of social structure. The current electoral law, which attributes it entirely to their governing bodies the choice of representatives, excluding the preferential vote, is not only a consequence. As a result, the allergy is against the constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers, and against the complexity and length of democratic process, members of parliament. Must decide, and from above the consensus, if any, will then go up from below.
It 's a result, finally, not the cause, the concentration of power not only political but also economic, financial and cultural-media. The relative independence of the three so-called social functions, for centuries considered a guarantee of balance, good governance of companies, is under threat. But the issue of incompatibility, namely the conflict of interest, such as right to left, was shelved.
The cause is always and only one: the fog, to say the least, equality and the resulting network hierarchy. Here you play the decisive game of the regime. Everything else is the result and think about getting things right, in the many injustices e nelle tante forzature istituzionali senza affrontare la causa, significa girare a vuoto, anzi farsene complici.
Nessun regime politico si riduce a un uomo solo, nemmeno i "dispotismi asiatici", dove tutto sembrava dipendere dall’arbitrio di uno solo, kahn, califfo, satrapo, sultano, o imperatore cinese. Sempre si tratta di potere organizzato in sistemi di relazioni. Alessandro Magno, il più "orientale" dei signori dell’Occidente, perse il suo impero perché (dice Plutarco), mentre trattava i Greci come un capo, cioè come fossero parenti e amici, «si comportava con i barbari come con animali o piante», cioè meri oggetti di dominio, «così riempiendo il suo regno di esìli, intended to produce wars and sedition. " It will be true that the latter kind of behavior out there, but do not see the system on which you engage and produce them is to overlook the underlying causes remain at the surface, often only to folklore.
But "regime" is a completely neutral term, which simply means a way to govern human societies. We speak of "ancien regime" of democratic and republican regimes, monarchical, parliamentary, presidential, liberal and totalitarian, among others, precisely, of Fascist regime. Without qualification, the system tells us nothing about which there is to take a position, because the essential is nell'aggettivo.
So, taking the word in its proper meaning, isolated from the reminiscences, the initial change of meaning from "a system is currently" in "the current system is something new, compared to the previous? That Italy will experience a living constitution, perhaps still in progress and the outcome is not obvious, which is designed not to be confused with that which preceded it, at least not this is doubtful. I think, and sometimes they say, both those in favor, because the contrary, that we think and say tutti, con definizioni ora passatiste ora futuriste.
Non lo si dice ufficialmente e a cifra tonda, perché il momento è, o sembra, ancora quello dell’incubazione. La covata è a mezzo. L’esito non è scritto. La Costituzione del ‘48 non è abolita e, perciò, accredita l’impressione di una certa continuità. Ma è sottoposta a erosioni e svuotamenti di cui nessuno, per ora, può conoscere l’esito. Forze potenti sono all’opera per il suo superamento, ma altre forze possono mobilitarsi per la sua difesa. La Costituzione è in bilico.
Che cosa significa "costituzione in bilico"? Innanzitutto, che non si vive in una legittimità costituzionale generally accepted, ie in a single conception of the proper constitution, but (at least) two that are confronted. Any form of political regiment is based on a basic principle, a spring ethics, ressort mentioned by Montesquieu, dealing with forms of government nell'Esprit des lois. When this principle is in harmony with the essential esprit général of a people, then we can say that the constitution is legitimate and, therefore, solid and accepted. When discordant, the Constitution is designed to collapse, to be dethroned. However, if the public mind is divided, and therefore there is no esprit général that can be said, this is the time uncertainty constitutional il momento della costituzione in bilico e della bilancia che prima o poi dovrà pendere da una parte. È il momento del conflitto latente, che non viene dichiarato perché i fautori della rottura costituzionale come quelli della continuità non si sentono abbastanza sicuri di sé e preferiscono allontanare il chiarimento. I primi aspettano il tempo più favorevole; i secondi attendono che passi sempre ancora un giorno di più, ingannando se stessi, non volendo vedere ciò che temono. Tutti attendono, ma i primi per prudenza, i secondi per ignavia.
Non voler vedere, significa scambiare per accidentali deviazioni quelli che sono segni di un mutamento di rotta; significa sbagliare, prendendo per lucciole, cioè per piccole changes that will soon be forgotten as temporary illegality, those that are lanterns and warning signs that preparations for a different review. Thus, it remains inert. The gradual build up of materials of construction of the new regime proceeds smoothly and, sooner or later will mass. Then, you can not not want to see, but it will be too late.
*
What really qualifies and distinguishes the political regimes in their deepest nature, and that marks the transition from one to another, is the attitude of equality, the political value of all people, the most important among all, however, oggi il più negletto, perfino talora deriso, a destra e a sinistra. Perché il più importante? Perché dall’uguaglianza dipendono tutti gli altri. Anzi, dipende il rovesciamento nel loro contrario. Senza uguaglianza, la libertà vale come garanzia di prepotenza dei forti, cioè come oppressione dei deboli. Senza uguaglianza, la società, dividendosi in strati, diventa gerarchia. Senza uguaglianza, i diritti cambiano natura: per coloro che stanno in alto, diventano privilegi e, per quelli che stanno in basso, concessioni o carità. Senza uguaglianza, ciò che è giustizia per i primi è ingiustizia per i secondi. Senza uguaglianza, la solidarietà si trasforma in invidia sociale. Senza uguaglianza, le istituzioni, da luoghi di protezione e integrazione, diventano strumenti di oppressione e divisione. Senza uguaglianza, il merito viene sostituito dal patronaggio; le capacità dal conformismo e dalla sottomissione; la dignità dalla prostituzione. Nell’essenziale: senza uguaglianza, la democrazia è oligarchia, un regime castale. Quando le oligarchie soppiantano la democrazia, le forme di quest’ultima (il voto, i partiti, l’informazione, la discussione, ecc.) possono anche non scomparire, ma si trasformano, anzi si rovesciano: i diritti di partecipazione politica diventano armi nelle mani di gruppi potere, per regolare conti della cui natura, da fuori, nemmeno si è consapevoli.
Questi rovesciamenti are often under the cover of words unchanged (freedom, society, rights, etc.).. Then we can see the truth of this general law: the world of politics, words are exposed to reversals of meaning depending on whether they delivered from above or from below the social ladder. This is to start with the word "political" force sopraffattrice from the standpoint of the strong, as in the binomial friend-enemy, or from the point of view of the weak, the experience of cohabitation, as suggested by the etymology of the polity. Use ambiguous, thus justifying the application to those who talk about politics: which side are you, the helpless or the powerful? The reconstruction of meaning and therefore the integrity of the political communication is possible only in the common and equality.
*
return to the initial question, whether it is in progress, or if you have already made, a change of regime, in terms of deciding equality.
In any organization of large numbers to sneaks an oligarchic power, that is the opposite of equality. In fact, most numbers are larger, this is a law "iron." And 'the discovery of a paradox or a contradiction of democracy. But it is very different if the equation is set aside, among the scrap heap of political or wishful thinking, or if it is (still) value of policy. The constitution - this constitution that takes equality as its basic principle - is poised right on this point.
We can not fail to see that the company is now divided into layers and these layers are not communicating. Lower down are all the invisible ones, without the rights that we, with our law, we define "illegal", for those who were forced to undergo all, there is no law, at the summit, the privileged, in families of blood and interest, for which, also, there is no law, but in the opposite direction, because everything is permitted and, if the law is an obstacle, you change the bend or not apply at all . In the midst of a society stratified and ossified, type Ancien Régime, where mobility is increasingly scarce and the social condition of birth determines the fate of more and more. If you accept everything, the rest is the consequence. You mean that state coercion is unevenly distributed: the greater the more you go down the social ladder, the less the higher you climb, the criminal law, in fact, is a law class and that, for the powerful, not the criminal trial longer exists in the field of social rights that the public guarantee is being progressively replaced surgery suite, where most people have, the more he can. Nor surprisingly, what the Constitution considers the first right of citizenship, work is not reduced to a commodity in the market do.
Similarly, the organization of power moves and closes the top. The party oligarchy is only a reflection of social structure. The current electoral law, which attributes it entirely to their governing bodies the choice of representatives, excluding the preferential vote, is not only a consequence. As a result, the allergy is against the constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers, and against the complexity and length of democratic process, members of parliament. Must decide, and from above the consensus, if any, will then go up from below.
It 's a result, finally, not the cause, the concentration of power not only political but also economic, financial and cultural-media. The relative independence of the three so-called social functions, for centuries considered a guarantee of balance, good governance of companies, is under threat. But the issue of incompatibility, namely the conflict of interest, such as right to left, was shelved.
The cause is always and only one: the fog, to say the least, equality and the resulting network hierarchy. Here you play the decisive game of the regime. Everything else is the result and think about getting things right, in the many injustices e nelle tante forzature istituzionali senza affrontare la causa, significa girare a vuoto, anzi farsene complici.
Nessun regime politico si riduce a un uomo solo, nemmeno i "dispotismi asiatici", dove tutto sembrava dipendere dall’arbitrio di uno solo, kahn, califfo, satrapo, sultano, o imperatore cinese. Sempre si tratta di potere organizzato in sistemi di relazioni. Alessandro Magno, il più "orientale" dei signori dell’Occidente, perse il suo impero perché (dice Plutarco), mentre trattava i Greci come un capo, cioè come fossero parenti e amici, «si comportava con i barbari come con animali o piante», cioè meri oggetti di dominio, «così riempiendo il suo regno di esìli, intended to produce wars and sedition. " It will be true that the latter kind of behavior out there, but do not see the system on which you engage and produce them is to overlook the underlying causes remain at the surface, often only to folklore.
