•
Rating: For a few weeks, on the homepage of Debaser, a symbol celebrating Marco Travaglio and his writings appeared, that is, the facts that are reported in these writings by the journalist originally from Turin.
Some courteous readers have asked me, privately and under a plea of anonymity, to reflect on the "Travaglio method" and to conduct a review of his writings, starting with an exemplary text like "The Smell of Money" (2001), urging me to reflect on its criticisms and the correctness of its mention as a symbol for all Debaser members.
I accept these requests out of a sense of duty and love for the truth, thanking the readers for their request and the Management for the space offered to me, a living testament of the freedom and pluralism of a space like Debaser, open also to minority and moderate thought, often the object of ghettoization in the difficult period we are living through, where the "strong powers" tend to stifle any dissenting voice under the banner of dominant monolithic thought.
Some preliminary remarks about the book are necessary.
Travaglio describes, with the precision of a reporter, the alleged origins of the personal wealth of Silvio Berlusconi (at the time of the book's release, a candidate for the Presidency of the Council of Ministers), reconstructing the financial path that led to the creation of the various companies owned by the right-wing leader around the mid-70s, through a dense and complex system of holdings, often operating abroad.
However, it is not merely a description of the entrepreneurial fortunes of the Milanese businessman, far removed at the time from active politics and the liberal project that materialized in the early '90s, but rather a true investigation aimed at revealing to the general public how Silvio Berlusconi's wealth may have a doubtful, if not illegal origin, with the decisive support of hidden partners such as organized crime in southern Italy, the favor of banks linked to environments of deviant freemasonry, and more. The Smell of Money would thus be an ironic take on the Latin saying "pecunia [non] olet".
The consequences drawn by the author, and suggested to the electorate, even the moderate one, are evident: this man, says Travaglio, did not become wealthy through honest work and the sweat of his brow, but through speculation and the favor of bad company; consequently, this man is not a reliable and serious subject, unlike how he presents and is presented, lying precisely about the origins of personal success born under the shadow of dark forces; therefore, the voter should not choose Berlusconi as their representative, as he is a subject - to put it in the Economist's terms - "unfit to lead Italy", unfit to lead Italy.
I will leave aside any easy reflections regarding the moralizing and politological implications of Travaglio's analysis: I believe, in fact, that texts of this kind do not significantly shift the terms of the political issue.
It is obvious, in fact, that those who do not like the right-wing leader and the right wing itself can only echo Travaglio's observations and conclusions, strongly rejecting the idea that Silvio Berlusconi can represent all of Italy in his Governmental action. It is a "support regardless", reinforced by facts that reassure a citizen/elector's a priori position.
Similarly, it is just as obvious that those who appreciate Silvio Berlusconi or the moderate anti-communist policies continue to do so, ignoring Travaglio's findings, or countering Travaglio with the argument that similar findings could be made against the left, starting from the PCUS financing to the PCI during the Cold War, passing through the Unipol scandal, and ending, with recent news, the events of the former Bolognese Mayor Delbono. Here too, it's a "rejection regardless".
I would otherwise be opening an open door by observing that, in contemporary Italy, bringing a "moral question" against the opponent, as Travaglio does, exposes one to an accusation of Pharisaism, as it is not easy at all to point to a political side that stands out, over the other, for impeccable conduct; nor a left that has always made its moral superiority a non-coincidental strength point, only to fall into petty-bourgeois issues, lacking even the Macbethian grandeur of an Evil worthy of the name.
The point on which I would like to focus instead is precisely the sources of Travaglio's journalistic investigation, those "facts" which, from the perspective of the Piedmontese journalist's supporters, would nail Berlusconi to his responsibilities, making him "objectively" unfit to lead Italy.
Forgive me, the average user of the site, if I delve a bit into depth, using language not quite "pub-like", preferred by some even in the comments, but the relevance of the issue requires being analytical and not cursory.
The focal point of the whole discussion revolves, in my opinion, around the predominant judicial source of the facts on which Travaglio bases his reconstructions, found in judgments, ordinances, the conclusions of public prosecutors, and the like: a source which, from the author's perspective, and that of the less discerning reader, seems to be endowed with a patent of objectivity that is not its own, and which is not suitable for formulating, against the defendant or, worse still, the convicted person, any moral or political judgment.
It should be noted, in this regard, how the "procedural truth" is not equivalent to the "historical truth", nor, much less, an equivalent of the "political truth", assuming they truly exist, merely describing the proven (or probable) existence of criminal facts punished by legislation, from which no indication can be drawn about the larger life context in which the convicted person moves, be it an ordinary citizen, be it the Prime Minister.
The "procedural truth", in other words, is partial, artificial, and relative, functional to the application of a sanction and not to the reconstruction of a vital context. The difference is that between the life lived by each person, and the photograph, the latter as a graphical fixation of an infinitesimal portion of life, which, over time, fades or alters its colors, even assuming expressive imaginative meanings.
In other words: I can say, in a sentence, that Tizio has stolen 10, 100, 1000 bottles of wine, but from this fact, I certainly cannot infer that Tizio is always and invariably a thief by vocation, nor that he is a murderer, or a subject devoted to evil, nor even, that he is a "boogeyman" unfit to Govern a Country.
The judgment contained in the process, besides being the product of specific investigations, historical contingencies, probatory accidents, a certain degree of randomness, and sometimes even error, is essentially a judgment from which I cannot infer conclusions that go beyond the limits of the procedural event where it was formulated, and any related ones based on substantial relationships between the norms.
Applied to Berlusconi's facts, as described by Travaglio, the whole may perhaps be difficult to understand, but perhaps only due to the veil of antipathy that many feel toward the character, rather than the person; apply the same principle just expounded to the case of Adriano Sofri, who among the site's users certainly enjoys more goodwill, and the discourse can be understood and even accepted in all its implications and facets, even by the left-wing voter.
With this, I conclude by observing how the "method" used by Travaglio to construct his arguments is, potentially, fallacious, neglecting the essential fact, for abolitionists, that in a democratic system sovereignty belongs to the people, who designate their representatives in free elections, and not to the courts or their judgments: judgments that, to avoid misunderstandings, can be fair and correct (even in the cases of Berlusconi and Sofri), but can never be wielded as a weapon to formulate a political order judgment or an intimate, personal judgment on the individual and how he realizes himself on the country's cultural or political scene, against the political opponent.
It is not from a judgment that I can conclude with a positive or negative judgment on figures like the current Prime Minister or the former leader of Lotta Continua, having to evaluate them in light of more complex assessments, that embrace not only their lives but the broader historical framework in which their lives unfolded.
In this, I consider the "Travaglio method" somewhat questionable, or rather, a bit too simplistic, and also naive: even if the facts from which Travaglio starts were true, or verisimilar, it is in their interconnections, in their interstices, in their direct and indirect effects that the citizen and the voter's investigation and evaluation should be focused.
It is not the disappearance of facts that we should, therefore, fear; but their distorted interpretation, detached from the system in which they arise, live, transform.
Loading comments slowly
