Eluana Englaro and the Light of Truth

However one chooses to believe, it is a tragedy.
17 years ago, a 21 year old girl suffered a bad accident. Then she went into a coma for 17 years, till few days ago.
And then she passed away.
It is sad.
The kind of sadness that should be suffered in the intimate silence of our consciences.
And here i will stop talking about it, in order to suffer this sadness in the intimate silence of my conscience.

But there is another point of view in this case.

Democracy is based on the non-absoluteness of the Truth. Or, atleast, on the unknowability of the absolute Truth.

Silvio Berlusconi

In fact it is evident that if it existed a known absolute truth, also the moral would be absolute. And so, given the absurdity of any immoral position, any politic decision would be already fixed. There wouldn't be the need of any choice. Least of all a popular one.
If every citizen admitted the existence of the absolute truth and recognized at least one physical person as the holder of the knowledge of that truth, the problem of governing a people would be easily solved giving absolute powers to that person. So, we would have a government that not only acts well for the needs of the people, but it would also do that in the morally best way.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) absolute truth doesn't exist, or, if it exists, we cannot know it. Not even the most integralist catholics would really agree to acknowledge somebody the super-human ability to know it.
And so we have to settle for Democracy.

Our Constitution establishes the foundation of our democracy on a sharp division of the three powers: Judical, Legislative and Executive. Magistracy holds the Judical one, the Parliament the Legislative and the Council of Ministers the Executive one. And the President of the Republic has the task to keep the three powers separate, avoiding that the actions of who holds one of the three interfere with the other two.

Now, i personally don' t like very much that one of the three branches of the state (the Magistracy), that in some way represents the society of the Italian citizens, is called to decide in a case like Eluana's, that instead should be limited to the reserve of conscience privacy and that, i think it cannot be generalized. The issue, anyway, concerns a philosophical and moral field, so it's not absolute. It's difficult to believe that it can have an exhaustive political solution.
In other words, i don't like that the Society decides on a subject that is, and should stay, individual. But that's how it is. Magistracy had been called to decide about the request of Eluana's father to be allowed to pull the plug. And it expressed in a complete, sharp and undoubtful way.

One can agree or not, but it must be adimitted that there is a sentence, and it had been obtained in a correct way. Now, a normal citizen can also rebel, accepting to suffer the consequences of that rebellion.
Also Berlucsoni, as a normal citizen, should have the possibility, and also the moral duty to uphold his disagreement, if he believes the sentence ethically wrong. And, in my opinion, if he really believe it right, also to try to illegally obstruct it.

But it happens that Berlusconi is not a normal citizen. Incidentally he is the President of the Council of Ministers, and he who holds the Executive power should never interfere with the Judical one, unless questioning the foundations of Democracy themselves. In fact, the President of the Republic Napolitano demonstrated this authority so that it didn't happen (refusing to submit the decree-with-the-force-of-law). In the same way also the President of the Chamber of Deputies Fini (Legislative power), well made reaffirming his authority in the Parliament.

Clearly Berlusconi believes himself a kind of moral guide. And he believes that what he considers just is absolutely just. And so he believes that it is licit to impose it. And so, who refuses to accept this moral infallibility of his, must be driven by Evil.
Berlusconi shows this disbelieving look towards who dares to question the certainity that he is right. Be damned all those assassins, communist, coglioni opponents that dare not to accept the semi-divine nature of Berlusconi.

Anyway i don't think that Berlusconi is so stupidly fanatic he really believes to be enlightened of God.
On the opposite, i believe he is really smart. His goal is not to achieve his moral good.
I think that he doesn't even consider the problem that he limits himself to do his own dirty interest. And that he tries to find the way to have carte blanche to do it with no obstacles. No matter what, he smashes the epilogue of the last breath, already seventeen years long, of a dying girl. Or on the reserve of her parents. No matter if to do it he must wipe his dirty ass with the social pact, the foundations of the Constitution, the Democracy itself.

Berlusconi is a wannabe dictator. The only thing, to him, is to find a safe and easy way to obtain the absolute power that a real dictator must have.
It looks we are really close to it, already.