Elections day

Let's go to vote in a large number and let's try to throw this idiot down from the throne.

Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Hussein Obama

I wanted not to blog about the election of the president of the United States, but... i am not exempt from the enthusiasm that is overwhelming everybody.
My American friends for sure would be surprised noticing how much interest we have, on this side of the ocean, about the election of the American Presitent.
I believe that the citizens of the United States are more involved by a possible change about the big subjects of the internal politics, education, health care, public safety, on which i don't dwell upon, admitting my ignorance about them.

For us, instead, these elections deal about the role of the United States as the dominators of the world.

Nevertheless i believe that the President of the United Stats is not the one that really has the power. World economy is an interest much bigger than American democracy, and it's exactly this interest that determines the world order.
This raises to me doubts about Obama, as a possible renewer of the world politics. If there will eventually be a significant social change worldwide, it will be due by the achievement of an interest of the big multinational companies. And about this i fear that the will of the President doesn't have a big influence.
Even less the one of the electors.

Anyway, i like Obama. More than McCain. Infinitely more than Bush. I like Obama because he's black, and i hope that this feature of his will give a shake to all the consciousness of the world, especially over here in Italy, agains any type of racism. I like Obama because he has the image of a pacifit and environmentalist, although i believe that about these themes the image doesn't match with the real programs. I like Obama because of his human face, that doesn't work to hide his tears behind a plastic smile. In conclusion, i like Obama not because for a trust in a real change, but because he reflects a hope in a change that comes from the deep of the consciousness of the common man. A change towards a more imparcial, more peaceful, more environmentalist, more human society.

A change, in a society like ours, can happen only if it comes from the "high" of who handles the levers of the world capitalism. But a line on the sand that shows the direction of a change towards a more moral world order could be drawn only by the consciousness of the common man. And the image of Obama is a reflection of it.

Today i love the American People for having the courage to choose for that change.

The government of majority

Wikipedia, in the Italian version, at the entry "partito politico" defines: "Un partito politico è un'associazione tra persone accomunate da una medesima finalità politica ovvero da una comune visione su questioni fondamentali dello gestione dello Stato e della società o anche solo su temi specifici e particolari" ("A political party is an association among people joined by an identical political aim, or even by a common vision on fundamental questions on the State and society managing or even only on definite and particular themes").
It is odd to notice that the English version, at the entry "political party" says something completely different: "A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns".

Italian constitution

Both of the two versions look enough correct to me, even if they start from two different points of view. The Italian version shows the need of citizens to participate to the government, through the vote. The English version is instead focused on the problem of control of power.

From Wikipedia definitions one could deduce that the task of a political party is to defend the interests of who votes for it.
It shouldn't work like that: a party's task, in my opinion, is to govern the Country.
And to govern, in a democracy (as the etymology of the word itself suggests: government of the people - the whole people, and not only the majority) means to work for everybody's interests, also of who didn't vote for it.

What's the need to vote for one party instead of another, if any winner would anyway do everybody's interest, then?
The answer is that it's not so obvious to decide which are the actions to do on a legislative/executive level to reach that goal. For example one typical interest of all the citizens is to increase the wealth of the State (and so, atleast on average, the wealth of the citizens). This is the goal of both Capitalism and Communism philosophies, but they want to obtain it in completely different ways.
The need to vote is to decide which way that goal should be obtained. Who votes shouldn't do it to promote its own interests, potentially opposite to other people's interests, but to contribute to the achivement of the whole community interests.

Then, there is the problem to define on one side the set of people that have the right of vote, and on another side the set of who is subject of the decisions of who wins the elections. Surprisingly the two sets are not the same.
For example it is obvious that underage people are subject to the laws although they don't have the right of vote. There's also an open discussion in Italy about the right of vote for the non-citizen immigrants, but it is unquestionable that the laws dictate also their rights/duties.
The distinction of the two sets is dangerous, because it shows that there is a set of people that decide how another set of people must behave, while those last people don't have any possibility to give their political point of view. In my examples it is not a problem for underage people because they are the children of who has the right of vote. But in the case of non-EU immigrants for example the thing is different. If the voters vote for their own interests and not for the common one, the immigrants are discriminated. Moreover there is the problem of the looser minorities. Since the majoritiy is the one who governs, in a democracy a vote aimed at the realization of the personal interests of the voters could discriminate not only the non-voters, but also the minoritarian groups of voters. Nazism warried to obtain the interests of who voted for it, also if this included also the extermination of the Jews.
Actually this cannot happen if there is a Constitution that prevent it, but this works only if also political power is submitted to Constitution. If instead the winner political party can change the Constitution, there is an obvious contraddiction.

The sense of this post is that, even if this looks to me obvious and necessary for a real Democracy, it seems that nor the elected people of the majority in Italian Parliament, nor their electors notice that those rules are not respected. And, by the way, not even in the minority.

And to pay the fee is the interest of the Country.

Fascists

This man

Giuseppe Ciarrapico

is a fascist.
In a Republic like ours, that reject Fascism so that there are explicit laws which forbid in a firm and drastic way the re-formation of a Fascist Party, this statement could sound as an insult. And, in fact, it would sound like that to me if i didn't know that this man did declare himself to be a Fascist. An insult is an insult only if one does say it in order to offend, so, strictly speaking, mine is not an insult, because this man would not offend for sure.
In short, this man not only is, but he also is proud to be a Fascist.
De gustibus non disputandum. Everybody has the right to define him/herself as the hell he wants, and so this man has the right to define himself a Fascist.

But, as i was saying, Italian Republic forbid the re-formation of the Fascist Party, and this principle, in my opinion, has a meaning if it is applied to the values of Fascism, and not simply to its name.
In other words, i think that the meaning of this law is to prevent the election to a political office of who identifies him/herself in the values of Fascism. That is, i deduce, this man, self-defining Fascist, should waive the right to candidate to an electoral roll. If it happened, a Fascist could eventually be elected, which would make the meaning of that law fruitless, even if this would not be exactly even to the re-formation of the Fascist Party.

This other man

Silvio Berlusconi

founder and leader of a party competing in the next elections, inserted in the electoral rolls of that party that man up there, so that it could be elected by the electors that vote for its symbol.
Being that one presumes that the electors that vote for a party implicitly agree with its values, one should deduce that the reason that man up there is candidated by this man in the electoral rolls of that party is the assonance of the values of that man with the values of that party.
That means that the values of Fascism are some ways represented by the Partito delle Libertà party.
In few words, the formation of PdL looks closely like the re-formation of Fascist Party.
Which is forbidden by law.

Anyway i believe that this crime is not liable of persecution because it is difficult to interpret what the hell it does mean a law that forbid the re-formation of Fascist Party. What is a Fascist Party? A party that is named "Fascist"? If it is so, then this crime has not been committed. A party that model its programs with the principles of Fascism? Well, it's not clear what also this means. It is obvious that the reason of that law is to avoid the risk to go back to a regime similar to the one of the Ventennio. And it is also clear that if somebody that declare himself Fascist is elected, this risk would be real. But it is also obvious that nobody that can be elected would admit (even if it was true) he/she want to restore the Racial Laws, to exterminate Jews, homosexuals, communists and nigros, to make an alliance with the Emperor of Japan and the Nazist Germany against the Capitalist West and the Communist East.

Anyway, surprisingly, Ciarrapico is, since some days, in the electoral rolls of Berlusconi's Partito delle Libertà.
This following is Berlusconi's declaration about it:
"Noi dobbiamo vincere. Noi dobbiamo fare una campagna elettorale e si deve vincere. L'editore Ciarrapico ha giornali importanti a noi non ostili ed è assolutamente importante che questi giornali continuino ad esserlo, visto che tutti i grandi giornali stanno dall'altra parte".
"We must win. We must do an electoral campaign and we must win. The publisher Ciarrapico has important newspapers not hostile to us and it is absolutely important that these newspapers continue to be like that, being that all the big newspapers are in favor to the other side" [translation of mine].

Apart from the fact that hearing Berlusconi himself, owner of a half of the national TV networks and a good number of newspaper and weekly magazines (thing anyway well tolerated by the previous governments whichever side), complaining because "the other side" has the monopoly of media is absolutely ridicolous, this declaration is really a masterpiece of idiocy.

Resuming Berlusconi's words, since PdL must win and the way to win is to conquire the favor of somebody like Ciarrapico, owner of other part of publishing, because it would help electoral propaganda, we can close a bit our noses and we candidate him to the electoral rolls.

Which, in my opinion, means these things:

1. The reason to candidate Ciarrapico is not, as the electors would expect, the one to have a person considered valid to vote, but to provide an exchange of favors: i put you in the roll, you publicize me on your papers.
2. One thinks that putting Ciarrapico in the rolls, he would make a campaign in favor of PdL, while if he was not in the rolls, he would make a campaign against. And so one could consider implicit that an article on a Ciarrapico's newspaper would not be targeted to the search of the truth, which, atleast formally, should be the task of the Press, but to the return of the favor: I support you because you give me that seat.
3. Being previous point so obvioius, one can deduce that the readers of Ciarrapico's newspaper are not interested to the truth, but to Ciarrapico's opinion, or, even worse, to what Ciarrapico wants others believe it is his opinion, which is the unconditioned elougy of Berlusconi, whichever he is up to.
4. So, Ciarrapico's newspapers journaists are not free to write their own opinion, or atleast simply the truth, but they have to reflect Ciarrapico's dictat, unconditionally favoring Berlusconi.
5. Berlusconi's statement, that sound like "We don't like Ciarrapico, but he's useful for us" means, implicitly, I put him in the electoral rolls, but let's hope he'll not be actually elected. Which makes me think that either Ciarrapico is a stupid, and he accepts the candidature even if he won't be elected, or Berlusconi is a stupid, which let such a statement not in favor of Ciarrapico fall of his big mouth, or the electorate of PdL is so smart to understand that Berlusconi statement is artificially mendacious, that is that Berlusconi says he doesn't like Ciarrapico, but he means exactly the opposite. Which means that also Berlusconi is a Fascist, and he tells it between the lines because he cannot say it loud.