"Liberals in Italy? Divided on elections, secularism, economy, and even Israel Per alcuni anni, a partire dai risultati delle elezioni del 2004 per il rinnovo del Parlamento Europeo, sono stato assiduamente in contatto con quasi tutti i gruppi e le associazioni dichiaratamente liberali esistenti in Italia, per verificare se esistessero le condizioni minime per una riunificazione, se non di tutti, di una parte significativa dei liberali su una linea politica che ora, per sbrigarmi, call "centrist." That is aimed at overcoming a political system with various tricks, techniques of electoral and institutional rules, many wanted to simplify to the extreme, resolving the dialectic between two parties only. Among the many who, without being enrolled among the laudator Mr Berlusconi, are pleased to be called liberals, for sensitivity developed through specific readings, or family traditions, or for a variety of reasons, I found - almost to the spirit of scientific research - everything and its opposite.
Concerning the electoral law, I have met people who believe the proportion is to be avoided like the plague ("cursed proportional" ha scritto qualcuno) e che non esistano alternative al sistema maggioritario, realizzato attraverso collegi uninominali ad un solo turno. A questi anglofili, il leader dei liberal-democratici britannici, Nick Clegg, recentemente ha dato un dispiacere proponendo di rimettere in discussione con apposito referendum il mantenimento della legge elettorale del Regno Unito, che i nostri pensavano perfetta.
Non mancano, sul fronte opposto, i difensori della proporzionale, che magari vorrebbero purissima, senza alcuno sbarramento, in modo che anche liste che raccolgono lo zero virgola qualcosa abbiano speranze.
Per quanto mi riguarda, so che la legge elettorale perfetta non esiste; personalmente, propendo per un sistema elettorale misto, con la parte prevalente of seats allocated in single-member constituencies, but with candidates in a previous round of compulsory primary and governed by the law, and with a proportion of seats allocated by proportional method among competing lists in districts large enough so as to safeguard pluralism in the composition of Parliament , but not guaranteed by pure majority system, because it might appear that in all the colleges will always prevail the same deployment, in many cases a narrow margin of difference.
But the confusion of tongues (and brain) can be seen with reference to any other topic. So, on one side are the proponents of unity against the threat of lay clergy, on the other there are those argue that being "secular" is not enough to characterize a policy (for example, both John Gentile, as Antonio Gramsci, positions had not confused with that of obedience to the Catholic Church, but it was still a lot of different positions and far between them). Personally, I have deep respect for religious feelings and I am convinced that the value of freedom should be appreciated (especially) in the spiritual dimension, as a process of constant refinement of individual moral conscience and to seek the truth.
To go to the "centrality" of the economy, we find people who believe that everything that is public should be rejected as a source of waste and that the destiny of every cosa vadano decise dal mercato. Si dicono liberali, ma io li definisco anarco-capitalisti. Personalmente, non li sopporto; mi attesto sulla distinzione fra liberismo economico e liberalismo filosofico-politico-giuridico, che fu teorizzata da Benedetto Croce.
Non dimentico mai che politici della Destra storica, come Minghetti e Silvio Spaventa, volevano che il sistema ferroviario nazionale fosse di proprietà e sotto l'esercizio dello Stato; per questo furono messi in minoranza nel 1876 da un'alleanza parlamentare fra Sinistra e liberisti. Così come non dimentico che un economista liberista, quale Ernesto Rossi, fu convinto fautore della nazionalizzazione dell'energia elettrica. In entrambi i casi (ferrovie ed energia elettrica), non per scelte ideological bias, but a realistic assessment of the solution in the given circumstances, it seemed better achieve the public interest.
So far I had deluded that there was any harmony of views among liberals at least limited to major foreign policy decisions. But here are belied by the facts. I discovered a group, obviously liberal, which sends a letter to the Italian foreign minister (no sense of limits) to ask him to withdraw our ambassador in Israel, followed by a vibrant protest the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza and against the Israeli government, whose hands are dripping with blood.
In this regard, I agree wholeheartedly Angelo Panebianco excellent editorial in the Corriere della Sera on June 4, 2010, titled "The fragility of Israel." The present rulers of Israel have made and continue to make serious mistakes, but the context is objectively difficult. Recently it has been made more complicated by the new positions taken by Turkey, which aims to make the Europeans pay the difficulties which have so far hindered by the entrance of that important country in the European Union. A Turkey protagonist of an aggressive foreign policy characterized the Islamic Unity can completely restore equilibrium in the game already very precarious.
I do not want to discuss what were the political orientations of individuals from various backgrounds who have sought to force the Israeli naval blockade to bring aid to the people of Gaza. From a strictly methodological, I ask: is it not true that our world would be even more violent and chaotic take root if the policy that those who do not share a political and military measures (such as the naval blockade, in this case) are entitled to disown it in the name of greater feelings of peace and humanity? It must always be very cautious before venturing into foreign policy considerations, but, thinking in the abstract, China protesters in other countries would tolerate that, in China, organized a protest in favor of Tibet? The Russia would tolerate in its territory, demonstrations for the independence of Chechnya? The violence of a state against those who express opinions always leads to rejection reactions. But we must be clear that not only the Israelis to do so. World history is full of atrocities committed by all States to pursue their goals of power. Even the "civilians" very little English have many pages in their glorious history, to the point of waging war to the Chinese because they refused to continue trading opium. To come to our Italian history, just remember the way the fascist regime normalized Cyrenaica, deporting unarmed people in concentration camps and making it literally dying of hunger and hardship. Until the hanging of Omar al-Mukhtar. The State
Israel had no peace since its inception. In May 1948 he was attacked simultaneously by the following Arab states who had not accepted the del'ONU resolution of 29 November 1947: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan (now Jordan), Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In 1967 (the Six Day War), Israel was to take the initiative in war, but after Nasser had established a ban on Israeli ships to pass through the Suez Canal. The Yom Kippur War was a treacherous attack by Egypt and Syria against Israel. She was chosen for a Jewish religious party by surprise and unprepared for the Israelis. Del'ONU The Security Council did not condemn the attack immediately, but voted for a cease-fire only sixteen days after they had started the hostilities (October 22, 1973) and, of course, gave the wrong Israelis, having suffered the enemy offensive in the first week, had regained the upper hand militarily.
The UN, as it is structured, it gives always wrong to Israel. Representing a small minority worldwide, compared to the numbers and geo-strategic importance of all the Arab and Muslim states. Even the most moderate Arabs, the chips are down, they can not do otherwise than to remain at a range of inter-Arab solidarity.
Israel could survive so far because, in the decisive moments, the U.S. has vetoed resolutions against anti-Israeli UN Security Council. Lo Stato d'Israele sembra forte contro i Palestinesi; ma, in realtà, è potenzialmente sempre più debole contro tutto il mondo arabo e islamico coalizzato. Quando gli Stati Uniti non avranno più la forza politico-militare di sostenere lo Stato d'Israele, questo sarà cancellato dalla carta geografica. Io temo questo esito e certamente non lo auspico. Mi piacerebbe che le prese di posizione pubbliche di quanti si definiscono liberali fossero qualitativamente diverse da quelle di coloro che abitualmente indossano sciarpe e mantelle con i colori palestinesi. Mi piacerebbe che un più sviluppato senso critico facesse comprendere che il male del mondo non inizia e non finisce con lo Stato d'Israele. Arrivo a sperare che Paesi realmente amici di Israele possano play a credible and specific role of mediation in order to induce the same Israeli government to make self-criticism and to follow more prudent policy of seeking peace with those who can - within the diverse Arab and Islamic world - really wants peace.
And, anyway, enough with the "liberal" generic. Go to the dogs. If I had a lesser sense of the ridiculous would propose the formation of a new political breed: the "liberal friends of the common good." Acronym ABC, why all'abbicci policy should go.
LIVIO GHERSI
