giua@ecse.rpi.edu (Alessandro Giua) (04/29/91)
Il seguente articolo e' apparso sul New York Times di domenica 26 aprile 1991 nella sezione "The World: the week in review". Lo riporto senza autorizzazione. Poiche e' molto lungo, non ho tempo di fare alcun commento. Se suscitera' interesse, spero di unirmi alla discussione. ************************************* Italy's Political Circus Maximus Is Becoming A Luxury the Nation Finds Harder to Afford by Clyde Haberman Italian politics has long meant grand theater - not as diverting perhaps as a good soccer match and more repetitive than a pornographic movie, but an eye-filling extravaganza just the same, with heroes and villains and sound and fury, all wrapped in tantalizing promises of countless sequels. Evidence is mounting, however, that Italians have grown weary of lo spettacolo. Although Italy has had a period of unparalleled prosperity, almost daily there are calls in high places for a fundamental restructuring of the political system. President Francesco Cossiga, a stern critic, sounded fresh alarms last week by declaring that "something isn't working" in public life here. This is hardly the first time that Italians have pronounced themselves fed up with their governments, which rise and then quickly fall, or with their politicians, who seem endowed with an infinite capacity for rattling on about everything under the sun except issues that matter to their constituents. But demands for institutional reform, as it is called, are now in full cry from all quarters. There is even bolder talk about what is described as the advent of a Second Italian Republic to supercede the existing one, born in 1946 amid the ashes of fascism and wartime devastation. As many influential Italians see it, public institutions that may have once worked well enough for a poor, agricultural society no longer serve a modern nation with an economy that, depending on the indicators one chooses, is No. 5 or No. 6 in the West. These people worry about Italy's ability to keep pace with Germany, France and even its close rival Britain after the European Community becomes a unified market at the end of 1992. It is because of political stagnation in Rone, they argue, that Italy has yet to deal squarely with its most deep-seated problems: enormous budget deficits, inadequate public services, persistent economic imbalances between north and south and expanding networks of organized crime all along the Italian boot. The inability to whip the budget into shape is conspicuously troublesome. The national debt just about equals the country's annual economic output, roughly $770 billion. For months, the Government has struggled vainly to work out a combination of tax increases and spending cuts worth $9 billion, intended to bring this year's deficit not down to zero, for that is impossible, but to the original target of $100 billion. Now, Moody's Investor Services warn that this political inaction might force it to lower Italy's triple-A rating, a testament of creditworthiness that has been so favorable because it covers only the relatively small Italian foreign debt of $2 billion. Of course, one could argue that Italy has always lived with deficits and overblown politicians, with phones that sputter and trains that run late. Yet it prospers. Why, some ask, worry now? Because, comes the reply, the bubble may be about to burst with Western Europe's economic integration. It is one thing, they say, for Italian industries to have thrived in Italy, where they are often protected against foreign competition by torrents of regulations and miles of burocratic red tape. It is quite another to compete on a Europe-wide basis, playing by the same rules as everyone else, when your cargo sits in a strikebound railroad yard, or when your phone line to Paris repeatedly goes dead, when your Mafia frightens off potential foreign investors or when your European partners grow tired of financing special projects for the Italian south that go nowhere. Beside, it is argued, there is a matter of national pride: a big-time economy should not be running such a large deficit. To get Italy moving on this issues, the growing band of would-be rformers wants a less frantic political system. Basically, this means a stronger chief executive and fewer pressure groups clamoring for attention than the forest of parties that now prevails. In a sense, Italy reacted to its fascist party with an excess of democracy. Its system of strictly proportional representation has produced a Parliament littered with at least 14 parties, none of them remotely capable of winning a majority on its own. That necessitates coalition governments, shaky creations that produce considerable noise but frequent political paralisis as well. Some parties, notably the Socialists, propose a forceful, popularily elected president to replace the existing figurehead chosen by Parliament. Others, including the dominant Christian Democrats, would rather thoughen the prime ministership. There are similar differences over how to weed out many of Italy's tiny, resources-sapping parties. However the details are ultimately pounded out, there is little disagreement that the nation must overcome its phobia against vigorous central leadership. And yet to dismiss existing Italian politics as a quaint joke, as many outsiders do, is to fall into a cliched trap. Yes, the government collapses on average every 11 months or so and, yes, Italy has had 50 Cabinets sit(nce World War II. No. 50 was formed this month by Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, basically by remolding No. 49, which he also led. But governments have been allowed to fall so frequently because Italians know that lo spettacolo - the spectacle or the show - is a luxury they have been able to afford. It hasn't had a devastating impact because, at root, the society and its systems have been quite stable. Many government failures have amounted to little more than Cabinet realignments. In many respects, Italy's consensus-seeking, decision-avoiding politics has been very similar to Japan's, and yet the Japanese are generally perceived as models of stability. Tha fact is that only 18 Italians have served as prime ministers since the war, including Mr. Andreotti seven times. Japan is now only on its 19th postwar premier. As for the politicians, they have proved quite adaptable in the face of powerful challenges. They have fostered prosperity, beaten back urban terrorism and dissipated a once-serious Communist challenge. Now the Italian Communists, rechristened in February as the Democratic Party of the Left, are in disarray, searching for an identity to go along with their new name. "By many of the common tests of how things are going politically, economically or otherwise, Italy seems to be doing quite well," Prof. Joseph LaPalombara of Yale University writes in his book "Democracy, Italian Style." Still, many Italians are not convinced. If Italy is doing well, they say, it is in spite of its political leadership. More of them than ever say they are angry after the latest Government collapse and regrouping because it all seemed so pointless. Nothing of consequence changed, only a few Cabinet assignments. The clearest sign of voters fatigue is the rapid and recent rise of regional parties whose unifying theme is disdain for Rome as a bloated wastrel. The most successful of these groups is the Milan-based Lombard League, which mixes tax-revolt rhetoric with raw anti-southern bigotry to create a political threat that has the estabilished parties in a sweat. If one takes the votes received last year in nationwide local elections by the Lombard Legue and its cousins in other regions, and adds to them the ballots tha were left blank or otherwise invalidated, the result is an effective protest vote of about 30 percent. "This is a strong warning bell," said Giuliano Amato, a Socialist Party tactitian. Yet few Italians expect much to happen before the next parliamentary elections, which must be held by June 1992. The unflappable Mr. Andreotti gives no sign of rushing toward change, and the country has a habit of lollygagging when things seem normal. But it also responds brilliantly to crisis, as it did last year with a last-minute flurry of construction to get ready for the World Cup soccer finals that were held in Italy. When the sense of urgency finally strikes, reform cannot be far behind.
cnrdean@booboo.berkeley.edu (05/02/91)
The article by Clyde Haberman was the first completely serious thing I've ever read about the Italian culture/government. This is a reflection on me. I don't know much about the culture of Italy, the country. (I know about Italian culture as it exists in the US.) I have some questions which might be explained by a better understanding of Italy. I hope that someone in this group can help out. It appears that there are all kinds of Italians, many almost unrelated to each other. How did this come about? Was Italy invaded so often by so many peoples that each of these groups of people made their own sub-culture? Why is Southern Italy so poor? The only time I visited Italy, my wife and I drove to Calabria (Castel Silano). I was amazed at the low standard of living, which my father told me has improved drastically over the last 50 years. It wasn't squallid, but there was no heat in the house (there was snow nearby), no telephones, few light fixtures,... My father's cousin burned a few twigs in a fireplace. I noticed very few trees, few timbers in the homes, ... It seems like there should be more trees in the mountains. Where did the castles come from? Would the churches there have a record of births, baptisms, etc.? I hope to track down my genealogy, and was thinking of trying the churches. Any other advice on genealogy? Thanks much. Sam Scalise
giacomet@haley.ecn.purdue.edu ( ) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May1.202210.21418@agate.berkeley.edu> cnrdean@booboo.berkeley.edu writes: > >The article by Clyde Haberman was the first completely serious thing >I've ever read about the Italian culture/government. This is a Well, I think they've been quite a few. Maybe you mean ... "the first completely serious thing written in English" ? >reflection on me. I don't know much about the culture of Italy, the >country. (I know about Italian culture as it exists in the US.) I have Italian sausages, you mean ? >some questions which might be explained by a better understanding of >Italy. I hope that someone in this group can help out. > >It appears that there are all kinds of Italians, many almost unrelated >to each other. How did this come about? Was Italy invaded so often by Vive la diffe'rence !! >so many peoples that each of these groups of people made their own >sub-culture? Would you mind being a little more accurate ? Since 1865, I believe there was one invasion by American troops south, and germanophone troops North. >Why is Southern Italy so poor? The only time I visited Italy, my wife >and I drove to Calabria (Castel Silano). I was amazed at the low >standard of living, which my father told me has improved drastically >over the last 50 years. It wasn't squallid, but there was no heat in >the house (there was snow nearby), no telephones, few light fixtures,... "Il faut cultiver notre jardin" disait Candide: Why American urban centers are so squallid outside the business districts ? Last time I drove south through the Ohio valley and then to N. Carolina, people looked soooo bad in their houses. Seriously, if you don't have the A/C in the house, the phone, and the VCR, you're almost "squallid" ? Get pair of binoculars and a life. I'd rather be poor in Calabria than in Detroit, NYC, or LA, even if the house is 200+ year old, and that I have to live like my great-grand father used to. >My father's cousin burned a few twigs in a fireplace. I noticed very >few trees, few timbers in the homes, ... It seems like there should be >more trees in the mountains. Here in the Mid-West, the plains used to be covered with immense forests. Bizarre, now, there ain't a single tree. Only corn and soybean. Beeerrrrk !! People have been living there for 3,000 year and more. They were highly civilised when the English were still tribals living in their caves in northern germany. D'you know ? >Where did the castles come from? Did you forget the smiley ? Maybe they are the remaining of some ancient Disney World. Who knows. Or maybe, they were built by some extra-terrestrials; or eventually, by some "international" (foreign) invader ? >Would the churches there have a record of births, baptisms, etc.? I >hope to track down my genealogy, and was thinking of trying the >churches. Any other advice on genealogy? Churches are buildings. I guess to refer to the "parrochia", the atomic administrative unit. >Thanks much. >Sam Scalise Prego. --
marchi@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu (Massimo Marchi) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May1.202210.21418@agate.berkeley.edu> cnrdean@booboo.berkeley.edu () writes: > > >The article by Clyde Haberman was the first completely serious thing >I've ever read about the Italian culture/government. This is a >reflection on me. I don't know much about the culture of Italy, the >country. (I know about Italian culture as it exists in the US.) I am very much afraid that you are mistaking: there is no Italian culture in the US. You people even forgot how to cook! Massimo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Massimo Marchi Lewis-112 marchi@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu University of California at Berkeley marchi@UCBCMSA.bitnet Berkeley, CA 94720
distef@eecg.toronto.edu (Eugenia Distefano) (05/02/91)
In article <6nygpvj@rpi.edu> giua@ecse.rpi.edu (Alessandro Giua) writes: >Il seguente articolo e' apparso sul New York Times di >domenica 26 aprile 1991 nella sezione "The World: the week in review". > >************************************* >Italy's Political Circus Maximus Is Becoming >A Luxury the Nation Finds Harder to Afford > >by Clyde Haberman > Grazie, Alessandro. Articolo interessante: tocca molte tristi verita`, ma purtroppo (almeno secondo me), nonostante i lodevoli sforzi in senso contrario, cade anche in facili semplificazioni e banali luoghi comuni. Comunque, piu` che esprimere giudizi sull'articolo in questione, mi piacerebbe dar voce qui brevemente ad alcune preoccupazioni che nutro a proposito delle cosiddette riforme istituzionali. E` piu` che ovvio che "something isn't working" e non ci voleva l'"acume" :) di Cossiga per accorgersene. Inefficienza, spreco, corruzione e immobilismo, cause di sdegno e disgusto piu` che giustificati, sono sotto l'occhio di tutti. Mi sembra pero` un affrettato, pasticcione e, almeno per alcuni, interessato non sequitur questo affermare che tutto cio` deriva dal sistema proporzionale, che si vorrebbe correggere, e da un esecutivo relativamente debole, che si vorrebbe rafforzare. Ci sono in Europa altri paesi (quelli scandinavi, l'Olanda, altri, credo) che hanno istituzioni pressoche` identiche alle nostre (sistema strettamente proporzionale, alto numero di partiti rappresentati in Parlamento, regime parlamentare piuttosto che presidenziale), ma che non hanno alcuno dei nostri succitati problemi. Evidenza piu` che bastante, secondo me, che la radice di tali problemi e` a monte e non nell'estrema democrazia del sistema. Fra l'altro, le numerose crisi di governo sono state rarissimamente (mai?) dovute ai partitini, quanto invece a meschini battibecchi fra Psi e Dc, quando non addirittura fra correnti Dc varie. L'eliminazione dei partitini comporterebbe di sicuro l'apertura di altre correnti in seno ai partiti piu` grandi e, allo stesso tempo, alienerebbe tutti quei gruppi che non si sentirebbero piu` rappresentati. Secondo lo European Journal of Political Science, parecchi studiosi di fenomeni sociali vedono, in generale (salvo poche eccezioni), una forte correlazione fra il grado di proporzionalita` del sistema e la presenza popolare alle urne. E in che cosa aiuterebbe una repubblica presidenziale? Non molto, visto che l'approvazione e la discussione delle leggi, si spera, competerebbero ancora al Parlamento (non credo proprio che i gravissimi problemi menzionati dall' articolo -il deficit, lo squilibrio nord-sud, il crimine organizzato ecc.- possano essere risolti a colpi di decreti presidenziali....); d'altro canto invece di certo aumenterebbe l'importanza dell'immagine e dell' essere telegenici a scapito ancora maggiore dei contenuti. [Perche` mi vengono in mente le vignette di Repubblica con Bettino in camicia nera, con rigorosa fascetta "me ne frego" al braccio, che parla da un balcone?:)] E comunque perfino la scelta dei vocaboli in una delle espressioni rilevanti dell'articolo > There are similar differences over how to weed out many >of Italy's tiny, resources-sapping parties. However the details are ultimately >pounded out, there is little disagreement that the nation must overcome its >phobia against vigorous central leadership. > fa rabbrividire quando richiama chiaramente alla mente quello che Pasolini chiamava il "nuovo capital-fascismo" del secondo dopoguerra. Io purtroppo non ho soluzioni da proporre ai problemi di inefficienza e immobilismo di cui sopra e pare che di questi tempi in Italia l'impegno della denuncia e dei "che fare?" non vada piu` di moda; chi fa come me e` facilissimamente tacciato di qualunquismo, come se fare qualcosa, qualunque cosa, anche qualcosa di sbagliato, sia sempre e per forza meglio di niente. Per alcuni, e` comunque sicuramente meglio del riconoscere che il problema e` a monte, che una soluzione non puo` che essere radicale e andare ad infringere sfere e interessi che invece per ora "non si toccano". -- Eugenia Distefano distef@eecg.toronto.edu
gennaro@athena.mit.edu (Rosario Gennaro) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May1.202210.21418@agate.berkeley.edu> cnrdean@booboo.berkeley.edu () writes: > >The article by Clyde Haberman was the first completely serious thing >I've ever read about the Italian culture/government. I think you should read a little bit more about Italy. Can you read Italian? Why don't you try some Italian magazine? (But not TV Sorrisi & Canzoni :) >It appears that there are all kinds of Italians, many almost unrelated >to each other. How did this come about? Was Italy invaded so often by >so many peoples that each of these groups of people made their own >sub-culture? Does it really appear in this way? It's true that there are many differences among Italians but I don't think we are "almost unrelated". Someone thinks so in Italy tough, but they are dead wrong. In any case i think that what you suggest is a possible explanations. I am from Sicily and no land has been "visited" more than mine in the centuries I dare say that this makes part of the differences between a Sicilian and so to speak :) a Lombardo. >Why is Southern Italy so poor? The only time I visited Italy, my wife >and I drove to Calabria (Castel Silano). I was amazed at the low >stan >the house (there was snow nearby), no telephones, few light fixtures,... Gee...when did you go there? p.s. BTW in my hometown I have friends with your same family name
gennaro@athena.mit.edu (Rosario Gennaro) (05/02/91)
...oops my newsreader is "crazy" in this period, it cut part of my precedent article and my signature, sorry for that ---Rosario
marchi@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu (Massimo Marchi) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.054523.19908@athena.mit.edu> gennaro@athena.mit.edu (Rosario Gennaro) writes: >In article <1991May1.202210.21418@agate.berkeley.edu> cnrdean@booboo.berkeley.edu () writes: >>Why is Southern Italy so poor? The only time I visited Italy, my wife >>and I drove to Calabria (Castel Silano). I was amazed at the low >>standard of living. > >>the house (there was snow nearby), no telephones, few light fixtures,... > >Gee...when did you go there? > I don't think this is really the point. I don't know if today's Southern Italy is as poor as Samuel describes. It is definetely a poor region of our country. What is rather startling to me is that that surprised him so much. How far has he travelled the world? Has he ever been to the Appalachian mountains? Does he think that there the standard of living is higher than in Calabria? Too far away he says? It does not take travelling many miles in this country to find abject poverty and squallor. Has he ever driven to West or South Oakland (I gather he lives nearby)? Poverty is a reality in all societies. You can find it in any other European country as well(*). I would say that Samuel is either extremely naive or is trying to get a nasty reaction. Massimo (*) In France for instance it is well known that the poorest and most squallid part of the country is the Marseille area. In fact people there immigrate to inhospitable places such as the American Midwest, Indiana in particular, to escape poverty, degradation and tasteless food. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Massimo Marchi Lewis-112 marchi@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu University of California at Berkeley marchi@UCBCMSA.bitnet Berkeley, CA 94720
marco@ghost.unimi.it (Marco Negri) (05/03/91)
distef@eecg.toronto.edu (Eugenia Distefano) writes: >In article <6nygpvj@rpi.edu> giua@ecse.rpi.edu (Alessandro Giua) writes: >>Il seguente articolo e' apparso sul New York Times di >>domenica 26 aprile 1991 nella sezione "The World: the week in review". >> >>************************************* >>Italy's Political Circus Maximus Is Becoming >>A Luxury the Nation Finds Harder to Afford >> >>by Clyde Haberman >> > ... Comunque, piu` che >esprimere giudizi sull'articolo in questione, mi piacerebbe dar voce qui >brevemente ad alcune preoccupazioni che nutro a proposito delle cosiddette >riforme istituzionali. >E` piu` che ovvio che "something isn't working" e non ci voleva l'"acume" :) >di Cossiga per accorgersene. Inefficienza, spreco, corruzione e immobilismo, >cause di sdegno e disgusto piu` che giustificati, sono sotto l'occhio di tutti. >Mi sembra pero` un affrettato, pasticcione e, almeno per alcuni, interessato >non sequitur questo affermare che tutto cio` deriva dal sistema proporzionale, >che si vorrebbe correggere, e da un esecutivo relativamente debole, che si >vorrebbe rafforzare. >Ci sono in Europa altri paesi (quelli scandinavi, l'Olanda, altri, credo) che >hanno istituzioni pressoche` identiche alle nostre (sistema strettamente >proporzionale, alto numero di partiti rappresentati in Parlamento, regime >parlamentare piuttosto che presidenziale), ma che non hanno alcuno dei nostri >succitati problemi. Evidenza piu` che bastante, secondo me, che la radice di >tali problemi e` a monte e non nell'estrema democrazia del sistema. >E in che cosa aiuterebbe una repubblica presidenziale? Non molto, visto che >l'approvazione e la discussione delle leggi, si spera, competerebbero ancora >al Parlamento (non credo proprio che i gravissimi problemi menzionati dall' >articolo -il deficit, lo squilibrio nord-sud, il crimine organizzato ecc.- >possano essere risolti a colpi di decreti presidenziali....); ..... >Io purtroppo non ho soluzioni da proporre ai problemi di inefficienza e >immobilismo di cui sopra e pare che di questi tempi in Italia l'impegno della >denuncia e dei "che fare?" non vada piu` di moda; chi fa come me e` >facilissimamente tacciato di qualunquismo, come se fare qualcosa, qualunque >cosa, anche qualcosa di sbagliato, sia sempre e per forza meglio di niente. >-- > Eugenia Distefano > distef@eecg.toronto.edu Condivido, almeno nelle linee generali, l'intervento di Eugenia. Vorrei pero` sottolineare che, in Italia, esistono due problemi peculiari che, a mio modesto parere, sono non la causa ma la "condizio sine qua non" di una buona parte dei nostri problemi. In primo luogo, giusto per dare un'idea della gravita` della situazione Italiana, vorrei ricordare due cifre riportate la settimana scorsa dalla Banca d'Italia e dai Ministeri competenti. Lo stato ha un introito fiscale pari al 54% del Prodotto lordo interno nonostante che ben il 23% delle PIL sfugga ad ogni tassazione (Evasione Fiscale) : in due parole ogni italiano (onesto) ha, nello stato italiano, un socio di maggioranza non producente. Detto questo i due problemi a cui accennavo prima sono lo stato di diritto e` l'intoccabilita delle cariche pubblico/amministrative. Lo stato di diritto, grande e geniale invenzione, ha ormai piu` di 2000 anni e, a mio modesto parere, e` assolutamente superato. Non si puo` pensare di prevedere *tutto* per legge. In Italia si dice : "fatta la legge fatto l'inganno". Esistono centinaia di aree di deregulation per mancanza di leggi cosi come esistono centiaia di aree ove solo specialisti in quel settore legale sono in grado di muoversi. Sarebbe ora che le leggi (il parlamento) si occupassero, come nei paesi anglosassoni, di dare direttive generali e si smettesse di legiferare per tutto. Vi faccio un solo esempio : un mio collega e` in attesa di assunzione da parte dell'universita` dopo quasi 10 anni di precariato e, ora, stanno approvando una legge appositamente per risolvere il suo caso. Se questa non e` fantascienza .... Il secondo problema e` che qualunque incarico, anche dirigenziale, nell'apparato pubblico e` a vita, indipendentemente dalla qualita`, ed onesta`, del lavoro prodotto. Quindi, anche se gli italiani potessero` scegliere il governo (presidenziale o parlamentare poco importa) nulla cambierebbe in tutto l'apparato burocratico/amministrativo/produttivo dello stato. Ricordatevi che gli impiegati statali inglesi, quando scrivono ad un cittadino si firmano : "Il vostro umile Servitore". Ciao. Marco -- Marco Negri Phone : +39-2-7575242 Computer Science Dep. Milan University Fax : +39-2-76110556 Via Moretto da Brescia, 9 Telex : 335199 - MIDSII I-20133 Milano - Italy - `92 Europe E-Mail : marco@ghost.unimi.it
gennaro@athena.mit.edu (Rosario Gennaro) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May03.114806.28356@ghost.unimi.it> marco@ghost.unimi.it (Marco Negri) writes: >Condivido, almeno nelle linee generali, l'intervento di Eugenia. Anche io penso che Eugenia abbia ragione, il problema non e' esclusivamente nelle riforme istituzionali. >Vorrei pero` sottolineare che, in Italia, esistono due problemi peculiari >Lo stato di diritto, grande e geniale invenzione, ha ormai piu` di 2000 anni >e, a mio modesto parere, e` assolutamente superato. Non si puo` pensare >di prevedere *tutto* per legge. In Italia si dice : "fatta la legge fatto >l'inganno". Esistono centinaia di aree di deregulation per mancanza di leggi >cosi come esistono centiaia di aree ove solo specialisti in quel settore >legale sono in grado di muoversi. >Sarebbe ora che le leggi (il parlamento) si occupassero, come nei paesi >anglosassoni, di dare direttive generali e si smettesse di legiferare per tutto. >Vi faccio un solo esempio : un mio collega e` in attesa di assunzione da >parte dell'universita` dopo quasi 10 anni di precariato e, ora, stanno >approvando una legge appositamente per risolvere il suo caso. >Se questa non e` fantascienza .... > >Il secondo problema e` che qualunque incarico, anche dirigenziale, nell'apparato >pubblico e` a vita, indipendentemente dalla qualita`, ed onesta`, del >lavoro prodotto. Quindi, anche se gli italiani potessero` scegliere il governo >(presidenziale o parlamentare poco importa) nulla cambierebbe in tutto >l'apparato burocratico/amministrativo/produttivo dello stato. >Ricordatevi che gli impiegati statali inglesi, quando scrivono ad un cittadino >si firmano : "Il vostro umile Servitore". > >Ciao. Marco Anche su questo hai perfettamente ragione. Secondo me un modo per risolvere questi problemi potrebbe essere una massiccia dose di privatizzazione dello Stato. Un piccolo esempio: da quando gli espressi sono recapitati dai privati sono piu' veloci e meno costosi, ti pare niente? Ma si puo' abdare oltre: chi di noi non eliminerebbe l'INPS che fa acqua da tutte le parti e la sostituirebbe con un serio piano di assicurazioni sulla vita gestito da compagnie private? oppure perche' non cercare di imitare il modello universitario americano soprattutto per quanto riguarda la autonomia dei singoli atenei? (Qui per essere assunti basta avere un Ph.D. e andare a fare un colloquio, se sei bravo ti prendono se no ciao, in fondo rischiano in prima persona assumendoti) E si potrebbe continuare con ospedali, scuole etc etc. Pero' se si comincia a fare un discorso del genere in Italia subito le forze di sinistra parlano di "smantellamento dello stato sociale" e altre cose del genere. Senza arrivare agli eccessi americani dove se sei povero non vai a scuola o non ti puoi curare penso che sarebbe bello un sistema molto meno assistenziale del nostro dove lo Stato non gestisce la cosa pubblica direttamente, ma si limita ad un ruolo di supervisor. Purtroppo questo non piace a sinistra per motivi di principio e non piace alla gente al governo perche' toglierebbe loro una grande fetta di potere clientelare (abolire le USL e sotituirle con compagnie private!!!!) Quando ci hanno provato con l"universita' proponendo non la privatizzazione ma solo l'autonomia si sono sollevati i ruggiti della pantera! Tra parentesi il movimento nacque a Palermo in un giusto moto di perplessit per la sopravvivenza delle Universita' meridionali che si trovano in un contesto industriale meno avanzato. Dopo i comunisti (non ancora democratici della sinistra) fecero scempio del movimento portandolo al declino... Tra l'altro quella fu la prima crisi politica e di identita' del nuovo partito di Occhetto, infatti l'allora ministro ombra alla Ricerca Scientifica(E. Vesentini ex direttore della Normale) si dimise in segno di protesta per la posizione del suo partito contro una legge aspettata da anni nelle Universita' Le istituzioni in un contesto del genere andrebbero riformate comunque, ma giusto per adattarle al nuovo scenario. Il probelma fondamentale e' togliere potere ai partiti e questo si puo' fare solamente riducendo le competenze dello Stato, ma come vogliamo che i partiti si autoriducano i poteri? Ecco perche' io sarei favorevole a una rifondazione della Repubblica che pero' non tocchi solo le istituzioni politiche, ma anche e soprattutto quelle sociali. A presto Rosario