[ad_1]
Calogero Mannino was 52 years old and minister of the South when he entered the magical world of suspects and defendants and prisoners awaiting trial, and today he is 81 years old and is finally acquitted for the thousandth time. Twenty-nine years at the disposal or under the seizure of the judiciary are a time that would have inspired Solženitsyn a few pages on the tone of those dedicated to the sclerotic Stalinist investigations of the Gulag archipelago, but the considerations on the indignity of a self-appointed rule of law, in constant abuse of force and power, in arrogant and chaste breach of the social pact, seem to the majority a question of very lateral, not the heart of the functioning of a democracy based on the equality of citizens and their intangibility, until the contrary is proven and within a reasonable time. . They pass as a defense of the coat of arms, and this or that, this time from Mannino. And in fact, it is not so much about Mannino or just Mannino that we should talk about, but what the history of Mannino teaches about the relationship between powers and about the total intangibility of a power, the judiciary, to take possession of a man’s life for decades. Mannino today, tomorrow I, the day after tomorrow you – with a kind of silent and almost plebiscitary pass from politics, the press and citizens. A tacit approval that establishes the disinterest in our liberal democracy and therefore its bankruptcy.
I didn’t expect such a sesquipedale case to open up, as they like to say, a reflex. And I don’t expect it now, I would have expected it ten or twenty years ago, now I don’t expect it anymore. All logic, all prudence, all sensitivity has been lost, it is a foolish renunciation of law – while rights are invoked – in exchange for the ecstasy of punishment and ordeal. The perfect, tribal logic of the sacrificing and purifying victim.
Now I return to Mannino, but I think about the incredible handling of the case of the auxoricide from Brescia, acquitted not because of jealousy, as has been claimed everywhere (acquitted by jealousy is a non-existent diction in the codes), but because he is incapable of understanding and want. And acquitted does not mean patting on the back, going to kill quietly, it means forced and indeterminate hospitalization in nursing homes. As Giorgio Varano wrote here, to the murderer’s defense report, persuaded of the inability to understand and love, the prosecution asked for one of their own, and followed the same path: unable to understand and love. Despite the double scientific indication, the prosecutor still asked for life imprisonment, and the Criminal Court ruled: unable to understand and want. The collective thirst for punishment and ordeal was imposed, that is, the scandal over the murdered murderer. It was not the story of a powerful (ex) Christian Democrat, it was the dramatic story of a poor displaced person and his poor wife murdered.
Among the few comments dedicated to Mannino’s acquittal, I was struck by Attilio Bolzoni, the courageous chronicler of the Republic, of whom I still remember the vibrant article of rage and emotion in the story of Capaci’s butcher, Giovanni Falcone, wife and escort were massacred. . Yesterday argued that, when the history of the mafia is written, the judiciary can no longer be trusted. In my little corner, I had always thought about it. It would remove that “plus”, it would also remove the “mafia” and sculpt what remains in marble: when history is written, the judiciary cannot be trusted. History is written by historians. The judiciary writes the sentences. Trials are one element of the myriad on which the historian relies. The end.
In the early 1990s, the political class that the country had relied on for the scarce half-century that followed World War II – DC and center-left allies, socialists, liberals, Republicans, Social Democrats – showed their side. They had been decisive (with the communists) in the drafting of the anti-fascist and anti-totalitarian Constitution, in the Constitution they had founded the alliance with the Western democracies, they had rebuilt the country, they had made it rich and modern, but the new world after the collapse of the Soviet bloc had caught them off guard. The web was born, Schengen was born, global competition was born, and our ruling class, steadfast in the American lifeboat for half a century, could not swim in that sea. It would have been replaced by new political formations with new ideas, and instead the great investigations of 92-94 were in charge of cleaning up and establishing the historical truth: that the pentapartite was corrupt in the North and the mafia in the South. There was some truth, but it was not the historical truth. The historical truth, as I learned it, is that a cycle had ended and the ease of corruption was the symptom of the aggravation of the disease. The judges do not elaborate the historical truth, much less the powers, and for years not the sentences, but even the investigations -with their adornment of salvific rhetoric- have passed for historical truth, with the result of nullifying the merits of democracy Italian and to give us all the ridiculous alibi: after years of fat cows they reduced us to bread and not always to food because the breed had stolen our money and was entirely mafia. The lifestyle of an entire town – dedicated to absenteeism, welfare, tax evasion – declassified as a collateral effect. The collective responsibility of a people in the destinies of their country, forgotten. Quite comical.
To conclude, more in the Mannino environment, his latest acquittal refers to the role, which he did not have, in the State-Mafia negotiations. The historical truth told by almost thirty years of investigations is that Paolo Borsellino was blown up because he opposed the negotiation. A thief (Vincenzo Scarantino) was arrested, counted as a rank mafia, tortured, forced to speak, and a judgment was built on his statements, which ended with a treasure of life sentences, and later, in another sentence, the so-called ” the most colossal detour in the history of the Italian Republic “. Years later, in fact, another repentant, Gaspare Spatuzza, came out, this time spontaneous, with a linear and verifiable history, and the first trial was canceled: the released life prisoners. The theory that Borsellino had been assassinated by hostility to the negotiation weakened, and now it becomes almost inconsistent, established that Mannino did not participate in the negotiation and the negotiation hypothesis loses even more vigor.
Here, the negotiation hypothesis is labile. The hypothesis of the via D’Amelio massacre as a result of the negotiation is equally weak. So why did Borsellino die? And why did they try to explain it with a process renamed “the most colossal deviation in the history of the Italian Republic”? Who cheated and who was cheated? What role did the police play? What part of the judiciary? Who and why wanted Borsellino dead? Who covered it? Perhaps one day we will have an acceptable procedural truth. Maybe. Perhaps, in many years, we will also have a historical truth, written by a historian far from our emotional implications, and free from the threat of retaliation from a judiciary constantly abusing force and power.
[ad_2]
