The View from Bologna

The unacknowledged legislators. Oriana Fallaci, Andrea Camilleri and the soft regime.

Since the death in February of poet and senator Mario Luzi, Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi* has a post to fill in the Italian Senate.

Amongst the names in the running, which is taken from Italy's cultural elite, are writers Oriana Fallaci and Andrea Camilleri. Both have had spectacular success with their books, topping the bestseller lists in Italy for months at a time.

Of the two, Camilleri is perhaps the lesser known on the international stage. The Sicilian author is best known for his much loved detective novels based around the character of Inspector Montalbano. The detective novel is taken particularly seriously in Italy, and Camilleri, partly from the example set by fellow Sicilian writer Leonardo Sciasia, writes more than the average airport-novel 'whodunnit'. His books are as much an examination of his native Sicilian culture as they are mysteries to solve.

Camilleri is no stranger to controversy either, being a staunch critic of the current government and Silvio Berlusconi's control of the Italian media. He was recently quoted as saying "in Italy there is a regime. Soft, modern and sophisticated, but a regime nonetheless. [...]There is a limit on information. Berlusconi controls the television, and is seeking to influence the media as a whole."[1] Camilleri is also proud to describe himself as a communist,and has in the past defended Soviet actions like the invasion of Hungary in 1956. His political colour, no doubt, from Berlusconi's perspective cancels any criticism.

Oriana Fallaci needs less of an introduction. Fallaci made her name with both a number of high profile interviews with figures such as Henry Kissinger, Willy Brandt, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the late Pakistani leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and with a number of novels. In the wake of September 11th she has come to prominence again, internationally, with a series of books/polemics lamenting the state of western Europe and criticising Islam. Discussion of Fallaci's work merits an entry on its own, suffice to say that her books have outraged and impressed the Italian public in seemingly equal measure.

Fallaci's incendiary and reactionary style has provoked many to suggest her work should be banned.

Taken together, these two writers pose interesting questions about freedom of speech, censorship and the diffusion of information in Italy.

Can one talk about a 'regime' (keep in mind the weight of that word in the context of Italian 20th century history) controlling information in Italy? Camilleri has criticised Berlusconi openly in the press, frequently, without restriction. He also, paradoxically publishes his books through Mondadori, part of the Berlusconi business empire.

Should there be a limit on freedom of speech? Fallaci's work offends many, and yet, to agree with censorship in extreme cases necessitates the appointment of arbiters who decide. Arbiters who would presumably be appointed by the Government. A hop, skip, and jump away from the dreaded 'regime'.

Italy may appear to be a leader in the manipulation of Government-Media relations, but, despite what the foreign media may say, Silvio Berlusconi does not control the Italian media. He controls a huge portion of it, but that's not the same thing. In Italy today there is a diverse and healthy spread of political opinion which one can find easily. The key to this is the word 'find'. Berlusconi, or any media magnate/Prime Minister, can make it difficult for a particular viewpoint to be easily diffused on prime time TV, but he can no longer effectively silence criticism.

Berlusconi's Italy shows the real nature of 21st century censorship. It is not State imposed, but rather publicly accepted. Different points of view and information are all widely available, but you have to go looking for them. If there is a 'regime', it's a perversely democratic one, created by and for the people.

* There are a number of posts in Italy's Senate that are appointed by the President, for life.
[1] "In Italia il regime c'è. Soft, moderno, sofisticato, ma c'è. [...] C'è una limitatzione nell'informazione, Berlusconi contolla la televisione, e cerca di influire su tutti i media." - Il Venerdi di Repubblica,25/03/2005

Watergate alla Carbonara - The continuing case of Alessandra Mussolini and the false signatures.

Last week Alessandra Mussolini went on hunger strike, albeit with regular sugared cappuccino breaks. This week she's relented, seeing that no ground was made in her efforts to have her party recognised for upcoming regional elections in Lazio [and Milan, where she has also had her party Alternativa Sociale banned for the collection of false signatures to support their application].

You'd be forgiven for presuming that her first meal [lasagne and salad, for the curious] would signal an end to the affair. Ah, were it only that easy.

The centre-Left and centre-Right, like tweedledum and tweedledee, have become embroiled in bitter recriminations over the Mussolini affair.

The centre-Right, particularly in the form of Alleanza Nazionale, La Mussolini's ex-party, have rubbed their hands in glee as it appears that the centre-Left were the ones who supplied il duce's grand-daughter with the false signatures [everybody still following?]. In short, under election regulations in Lazio, a quota of signatures verified by qualified persons such as elected officials is required before a party with no current representatives can present itself for election. La Mussolini's list of verified signatures, the vast majority of which have been proven to be false*,it would seem, were verified by a number of politicians from the Left. Their motive? The innocent minded see a benevolent support of participatory democracy. The world weary, of whom in the ambit of Italian politics there are justifiably more, suggest a policy of 'the enemy of my enemy'...

A fiendish plot to rob Alleanza Nazionale of some of its critical support in Lazio? Perhaps, but also tremendously stupid as it turns out, as many of the false signatures were easily spotted having birth dates such as the thirty-second of August etc. Perhaps the most feable defence, coming from the Green party who are not directly involved, was last night's suggestion that the Left wing plot theory makes no sense, as it was bungled so badly. Had they wanted to do this sort of thing, the logic goes, they would have chosen convincing signatures.

The plot thickens though with the news that Laziomatica, an IT company in the employ of the Lazio Region [currently governed by Alleanza Nazionale] hacked into the databases containing citizens details, committing a violation of Italy's stringent privacy laws. Mirko Maceri, the head of Laziomatica has taken the fall for this violation, resigning his position, but the suspicion does remain that there were political gains to be made by the Right from this illegal act.

The upshot of it all, apart from La Mussolini being respectively banned from the election and subsequently fed, is that a slagging match is going on, of little final consequence. Francesco Storace, the current governor of Lazio jeered his left wing opponent Piero Marrazzo, "Once you were anti-fascists...you're anti-fascists by day, and by night you collect signatures for them", only to get the reply "I'd be more careful about the things that happen at night in the region if I were you", referring presumably to the hacker incident[1].

While the boys jeered each other, endlessly [Massimo D'Alema, leader of Democratici di Sinistra waded in by calling the whole affair "Watergate alla Carbonara"], the Judges dramatically stepped in, and have, at the time of writing (8.06pm) ruled that Mussolini has the requisite number of 'real' signatures. This seems particularly strange, considering that virtually everyone was agreed this morning that the vast majority were false. This ruling paves the way for Mussolini to contest the elections, but hardly clears up the murky atmosphere surrounding the affair.

The Green party, who are themselves currently fighting to have some opponents ruled out, are going on hunger strike until the whole process in Lazio is cleared up. They'd better stock up on the sugared cappuccini, as it seems like it'll be a long and hungry wait...

*[according to TAR]
[1]"Laziomatica, indagato il direttore" - La Repubblica, Tues 22/03/2005

Ukraine on the Tiber. Alessandra Mussolini's hunger strike for Italian Democracy.

I've always said that bipolarism is dangerous and the absolute majority anti-democratic. We irritate them. We've created a short-circuit

The Mussolini in question, is not il Duce, but rather la nipote, or grand-daughter, Alessandra Mussolini, speaking in Rome today, where she has started a hunger-strike. The reason? Her new party has been barred from standing in the upcoming regional elections in Lazio, due to alleged irregularities in their paperwork*.

La Mussolini, swept along by democratic excitement and a dash of self-righteousness, has invoked the recent example of the Ukraine, where Viktor Yushchenko managed, through popular support, to overturn apparently vote rigged elections. The huge media circus surrounding La Mussolini's hunger strike is a far cry from millions on the street, but her protest is liable to throw the whole regional election process into chaos.

La Mussolini, or La Pasionaria as she's being dubbed with no-little amount of irony, has approached the Radical Party, for advice on this her first hunger-strike. Marco Pannella, that party's leader, is a serial hunger-striker, if that isn't a contradiction in terms. Their advice - drink a couple of cappuccini loaded with sugar!

The reaction of her erstwhile colleagues on the right says as much about them, as about the media tactics of Mussolini. Ministers Gasparri and Alemanno, both of her ex-party Alleanza Nazionale, remarked that La Mussolini on TV had appeared "nervous and overweight. So, the hunger strike could be healthy for her"[2]. Francesco Storace, also of Alleanza Nazionale, currently Governor of the Lazio region, and the man who stands to benefit the most if Mussolini's party is excluded, said "If she does the hunger strike the way that the false signatures were collected, then there's the risk that she'll put on weight"[3].

From the wings (or stage-left, to push the metaphor), one of her least likely supporters, one would think, Massimo D'Alema, leader of Democrati di Sinistra (Democrats of the left) declared "Mussolini and I don't share the same politics, but certain methods can't be used, and in a democracy you beat adversaries with votes"[3]. High minded and moral, as ever. A mere coincidence that Mussolini's party threatens the vote of his right wing opponents, not his own share of the electorate.

This Monkey is often confused and confounded by Mussolini. Proud of her fascist grandfather, and the things he stood for, and yet at the same time a staunch defender of women's rights in a Parliament where the majority of deputies are men (and men of the calibre of Silvio Berlusconi, who famously said to US businessmen that they should invest in Italy because its secretaries are beautiful).

There's a comic element to her hunger-strike. No-one believes that Mussolini will starve herself to death. She's making a point. An important one at that. That her party, small though it is, has a right to stand for election (providing that it has collected a significant number of signatures, which she claims they have).

There are plenty on the left and right, in Italy, who would like to see the disappearance of fringe parties like Mussolini's. They dilute the vote of their respective ideological bloc, lessening the chances for a united victory.

Large parties, who have the possibility of gaining an overall victory, are obsessed, understandably, with not losing votes. Positions on difficult issues are fudged and re-shaped to avoid giving offense (what choices have electorates in the UK got in relation to Iraq, for example?). To win, we are told, you have to hold the centre, and to hold the centre is to avoid proposing policies that differ from your opponents - after all, they're hoping to win the centre too. Smaller parties are guided by a different mathematical impulse, that of winning votes to enable them to have a voice and a say in decision making.

Italy, for years, had fun poked at it due to its revolving governments and short lived coalitions. We've been led to believe that to be a serious 'democracy', you have to have a majority government in power. After all, America, the self-styled 'home of democracy' doesn't have a multitude of parties, coalitions, or, crucially, diverse opinions in government.

It's a world gone mad, when you have to turn to a Mussolini to give us a lesson on how a democracy should function...

* Parties wishing to stand in the elections must submit a certain number of valid signatures to the regional authority, to support their application to stand. Many of Mussolini's Alternativa Sociale party's signatures have been declared invalid or false. The problem is that it would seem that some of the validators were card carrying members of her rivals, Alleanza Nazionale.

[1] "L'ho sempre detto che il bipolarismo è pericoloso e il maggioritario antidemocratico. Noi diamo fastidio. Abbiamo creato un cortocircuito" - La Repubblica, 15.03.2005
[2]"Ho visto in TV Alessandra un po' nervosa e appesantita [...] quindi il digiuno potrebbe essere salutare" - La Repubblica, 15.03.2005
[3] "Se fa lo sciopero della fame come si raccolgono le firme false allora rischia di ingrassare" - La Repubblica, 15.03.2005
[4]"La Mussolini non ha la mia simpatia politica ma certi metodi non si condividono e in democrazia gli avversari si battono con i voti". - La Repubblica, 15.03.2005.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Trigger Happy Allies. Giuliana Sgrena's Release.

American soldiers killed Italian secret service agent Nicola Calipari. That much is fact. While transporting released Italian hostage, Giuliana Sgrena, to the airport outside Baghdad, the car in which he was travelling came under US fire. He died from a single gunshot wound to the head.

According to American Military officials, the car was travelling at high speed and failed to stop, despite flashlight and hand signals. According to Giuliana Sgrena, and an Italian carabiniere (Army policeman) also travelling in the car, there was a strong flashlight followed immediately by gunfire (around 300 shots). Who do you believe?

Giuliana Sgrena, interviewed in today's Repubblica again questioned whether the attack had been deliberate. Her kidnappers had told her to be careful, on her release, as the Americans didn't want her to return home - "Their words that had seemed like propaganda to me, acquired a sudden hint of truth"[1].

White House spokesman Scott McClellan responded by saying,"It's absurd to make any such suggestion, that our men and women in uniform would deliberately target innocent civilians"[2]. This was echoed by Berlusconi, who, reportedly, in a telephone conversation with Government partner Umberto Bossi, said "How can one say that the Americans wanted to kill her? A bit of silence and common sense wouldn't be bad"[3].

One can say, without fear of contradiction even from the likes of McClellan or Berlusconi, that being on the receiving end of (a reported) 300 rounds of 'friendly' fire would give anyone a healthy dose of paranoia. Rather than dismissing these fears as absurd, both Berlusconi and the White House must provide an accurate and impartial investigation, which will satisfy public opinion - which in Italy is enraged.

Speculation that the 'tragic incident' could lead to a rupture in Italian military support for the occupation (sorry,let's not let polemics creep in here: more correct to say the international co-operative project for the support of Iraqi Democracy) seems to have as little basis in fact as the American version of Friday's attack.

Already we have luminaries from Forza Italia such as Sandro Biondi, informing us that "to connect today the request for the recall of our troops, as has been done by a thankfully small proportion of the left wing, to the death of our Calipari, would be conceptually incorrect, morally questionable and politically irresponsible". While Pier Ferdinando Casini, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, a post equivalent to the Ceann Comhairle in Ireland, or the Speaker in the UK's house of Commons, declared "We have to distinguish between three problems: the kidnapping of Giuliana Sgrena, the killing of Nicola Calipari, and the presence of our troops in Iraq [...]. I think it's inappropriate to superimpose a judgement on the presence of our troops in Italy on to the other two issues"[5].

The suggestion that mentioning the recall of Italian troops from Iraq at the moment would be somehow dishonourable to the memory of Nicola Calipari (as well as "conceptually incorrect", whatever that's supposed to signify), seems to hold sway. The only left wing party calling for an immediate recall of Italian troops are the Pdci (Italian Communists).

The one thing tying Biondi, Berlusconi, Casini and McClellan together is that the basis of their arguments are a) The Americans are the "good guys", and b) this incident should be looked at in isolation.

So far, the only strong evidence that the American Military in Iraq are the "good guys" comes from the simple fact that they're not the easy to recognise, throat cutting, kidnapping bad guys (the absence of inverted commas is deliberate - we know they're bad guys). To suggest that the US Military are the good guys seems hard to support in light of torture scandals, false imprisonment, repeated instances of 'friendly fire', and, most importantly of all, massive civilian casualties (16,214 minimum to date - civilians reported killed by the military intervention in Iraq). The fact that we have no reliable figures on how many people have been killed by coalition troops in Iraq is a disgrace.

We're not forgetting that the 'Iraqi Resistance' has killed numerous civilians, which is deplorable, and - at the risk of using a bushism - evil, but the Italian government and troops aren't in Iraq supporting these people. They are in Iraq supporting the operations of the US Military. A military that has to date shown callous disregard for civilians, medics, journalists, and basically anyone who isn't dressed in the US military uniform. When we're bombarded with terms like 'bringing democracy' and 'peace mission', as we are in Italy, the connection has to be made with soldiers who, for one reason or another, have shot and killed countless civilians with impunity.

To suggest that the killing of Nicola Calipari needs to be looked at in isolation is in fact political opportunism of the most deplorable kind on the part of the ruling Italian government. It suggests that what happened on Friday was an unfortunate but singular incident. It suggests that Italy does not need to examine its support for the US military in Iraq. In fact it is merely another example of military power gone haywire. Whether the troops who shot Calipari were nervous kids from middle America, scared out of their wits (as is probable), or were part of some conspiracy to prevent Sgrena's return, is largely immaterial. What they illustrate is the simple fact that to travel on the road in Iraq is suicidal (see the following article for an American journalists guide to road blocks in Iraq).

Internal politics in Italy will soon bury this story, sadly. All are united in calling for a thorough report on events from the Americans. That will be duly provided, if for nothing else to provide Bush's ally Berlusconi something to wave at the opposition. Will it provide punishable culprits? Perhaps, depending upon the political necessity. Will it provide the truth? Unlikely*. More to the point, will it create a situation where US soldiers think before firing?

* Reporters without borders on Saturday called for a UN led independent investigation. Citing problems in the conduct of the 2003 report where the US military investigated its own actions in the killing of two journalists at the Palestine Hotel, Baghdad.
Robert Ménard, the secretary general of RSF, stated:"It is clear that this enquiry cannot be conducted just by the US army which in the past, especially in the case of the Palestine Hotel shooting that killed two journalists, produced reports aimed solely at exonerating the military".

[1] - La Repubblica 7/03/2005
[2] - Fox News 7/03/2005
[3] - Premier irritato dai sospetti della Sgrena - La Repubblica 7/03/2005
[4]"Collegare oggi la richiesta del ritiro di alcuni nostri militari, come fanno alcune forze per fortune minoritarie della sinistra, alla morte del nostro Calipari, sarebbe oggi concettualmente scorretto, moralmente discutibile e politicamente irresponsabile". - Forza Italia
[5]- Interview - La Repubblica 7/03/2005

Send in the clowns

The San Remo Festival is hard to explain. To suggest that it's Italy's answer to the Eurovision Song Contest doesn't quite capture it. It is tacky, certainly, and devoid of any musical merit whatsoever, so in that much it bears a resemblance. It is, however, one of the jewels in national broadcaster RAI's calendar, bringing in over millions of viewers per night (there's five - yes five - of them!)*.

Part of its attraction undoubtedly is due to tradition. The festival, established in 1951, is now the biggest festival of its kind, and in fact was the inspiration for the Eurovision (blame where blame's due). Italians are, rightly, proud of their songwriters, and in the golden era of the festival there was sometimes a glimpse of that tradition with classics like Volare, or to give it its correct title Nel blu dipinto di blu by Domenico Modugno. These days you're more likely to get Eros Ramazzotti, or more accurately Eros Ramazzotti wannabees (Eros hasn't appeared at the show for some time, since winning it in the '80s).

As with any media spectacle of this kind, its success is partly down to controversy and column inches generated, and we at the Monkeys, like the fools that we are, have been be sucked in.

Tonight, one of the much prized international stars invited to grace the stage of the festival will be Mike Tyson. From a publicity point of view it's created the desired effect dominating the newspapers and media in general.

A number of groups have objected to his presence, arguing that it sends a poor signal in a country where domestic violence is a still a major, and often taboo, problem.

Somewhat sanctimoniously, the festival's presenter, Paolo Bonolis, informed us that when we talk about Tyson we're not talking about a monster, but a human being, who made a mistake and has served his time.

This seems, though, somewhat besides the point. By inviting him to the festival (and, no doubt, paying a substantial amount for the pleasure of his company), Bonolis and RAI are not merely accepting the pugilist's right to return into society, but are elevating him onto a stage where a potential 16 million viewers will watch him. For a man whose contribution to the world of entertainment, so far, has been professionally attacking people, one would wonder about his contribution even prior to the rape sentencing. Tyson is a troubled individual, with a troubled relationship with violence. Perhaps there's a valid argument for broadcasting an interview with him, in an effort to understand something about viciousness. A guest appearance at the most watched light entertainment festival hardly seems the time or the place.

In a flurry of nationalism, the consumer association CODACONS** has reasonably suggested that if RAI feels the need to invite controversial and violent characters to San Remo in order to boost the ratings, they should choose an Italian personality, for example Achille Lollo(Italian fugitive wanted for questioning in connection with the murders of Primavalle).

Obviously the politicians need to have their say, and for once it doesn't seem to be a right/left issue. Alessandra Mussolini is against the appearance, in keeping with her generally admirable record on women's issues (a record that never fails to confuse a liberal Monkey, given her other inherited political views). Minister for Communications, Gasparri, also on the right wing side of things, commenting on Tyson's appearance said that "San Remo is about showbusiness, and everything that's showbusiness is there", before adding that "at San Remo, there have been Nobel prize winners, fighters, singers...". It's all a bit of fluffy entertainment at the end of the day, be it Nobel prize winners or ear-eating, convicted rapist, boxers.

* Last night brought in 16 million viewers. The opening night and the closing night are usually the highlights - explaining in part why they would have audience grabbing figures like Tyson on the second night.
**Attentive readers of TVFB will recognise CODACONS as the association that requested an official investigation into the holy happenings at Civitavecchia.