Mattarella whips Vannacci without mentioning him
What the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, said and what he hinted at at the Rimini Meeting on General Roberto Vannacci and beyond. Damato's Scratches
Although ignored on the front pages by Fatto Quotidiano and del Foglio , which however internally attributed him the merit of having "pulled the ears of the government" and published the speech in its entirety, thus recognizing its importance, the intervention of the President of the Republic at the traditional CL meeting in Rimini obtained a sort of media ovation, like the standing ovation reserved for him by the participants in the meeting. Which "ends with a flourish", headlined Matteo Renzi on his Reformist , always boasting of having practically sent Mattarella to the Quirinale in 2015, even at the cost of breaking as Prime Minister with Silvio Berlusconi on the constitutional reform then rejected by the referendum which was supposed to be confirmatory .
The only thing Renzi contested even publicly to the head of state, despite being so strongly desired by him, was in his time the rejection of the early elections asked of him precisely after losing that referendum, believing he could still invest electorally as secretary of the Democratic Party the relevant 40 percent of the votes collected with the reform. Mattarella instead preferred to save the legislature with Paolo Gentiloni at Palazzo Chigi and Renzi also lost part of the Democratic Party along the way and finally the 2018 elections.
Obvious in the part on the migrants to welcome, knowing Mattarella's position on this certainly not new problem, the reference, albeit not direct, not explicit, by the head of state to the story of General Roberto Vannacci and his book on the " World on the contrary”, despite having been the head of state called into question by some newspapers in support or as a suggestion of the removal of the author from the command of the Military Geographical Institute of Florence ordered by the Minister of Defense Guido Crosetto.
Unlike Lucetta Scaraffia, who today in La Stampa defined Vannacci's book as neither homophobic nor racist, in any case "better" than his interviews, including perhaps the one just granted in all fields to Maurizio Belpietro on the Truth , Mattarella demanded respect for the " diversity” consubstantial with the rejection of hatred.
For this implicit – I repeat – but clearly perceptible criticism of Vannacci, the President of the Republic, after all the head of the Armed Forces by constitutional provision, controversially procured from the newspaper the qualification of "general", let's say four-star, entitled to one to the brigade newspaper – like Vannacci – two to the division general and three to the army corps general. And the reactions of the interested party, that is, of the author of the book that contributed so much to making the political summer red-hot, to the point of making Fabrizio Cicchitto imagine on Doubt who knows what links with Putin's anti-anti-Atlantic interests and his war to Ukraine? Repubblica , I don't know whether rightly or wrongly, attributed this comment by Vannacci to the words of the head of state: "He says the obvious".
+++
THE FULL TEXT OF MATTARELLA'S SPEECH AT THE RIMINI MEETING:
I addressed a very cordial greeting to all those present and I thank President Scholz for his considerations and for the kind words he had.
Allow me to pick up the threads of a discussion started with your community seven years ago, in 2016, here in Rimini.
Meanwhile, many of those young people have moved on to adulthood; many are on the way; while new generations appear in the continuity of a hope, of a commitment.
It was then, as President Scholz recalled, the seventieth anniversary of the Republic; and it seems significant to me that this new direct dialogue takes place on the occasion of the seventy-five years of our Constitution.
The – courageous – title of that Meeting stated: “you are good for me”; underlining the value of the meeting.
Without it being planned, in the year of Covid – it was 2021 – I was able to address the audience of participants, remotely, when the theme was "the courage to say it myself".
It seems to me, almost, a completion of reflection to make some considerations, here, this year, on friendship, the character of human existence.
I thank the organizers of the Meeting for this opportunity; and I address a warm greeting and best wishes to the young people who animated this week's meetings; and who will return from Rimini with more knowledge and more motivation; to the volunteers who, with their service and passion, have made possible such a rich program of events; challenging contribution to contemporary thought.
I would like us to question ourselves.
What is human society based on; the reality in which each of us is inserted; the reality that has organized itself, over the centuries, into a political society, giving rise to the rules – and institutions – that characterize the experience of our day?
Is it, perhaps, the character of the clash? Is it only pursuing one's access to essential and consumable goods? Is it hostility towards one's neighbor or one's distance? Is it the contrast between different? Or is coexistence between people even based on the feeling of hatred?
If we had answered yes, even just one of these questions, in all likelihood, the fate of humanity would have condemned itself; and for a long time.
Instead, the growth of friendship between people is what has characterized the progress of humanity.
Friendship, as an incompressible vocation of man.
There is one circumstance, which calls attention. Every time humanity has found itself facing the abyss – it happened with the two wars, world and twentieth century – it has found, within itself, the resources, the moral ones, to start afresh, to build a different world, in which the conflict leave room for the meeting. To imagine and plan the future together.
And if this perspective foundered in the decade, which began almost in the mid-1920s, precisely due to a lack of feelings of solidarity and mutual understanding and availability among peoples, it was successful, in the 1940s and 1950s, for the international community, with the creation of the United Nations and with the start of the integration of Europe.
An analogous spirit inspired our Constituent Assembly in which different opinions met in a spirit of collaboration, to share and affirm the values of dignity and equality of people; of peace; of freedom.
This is how our Constitution was born: with friendship as a resource to draw on to overcome – together – barriers and obstacles; to express our own humanity.
To overcome, to expel hatred, as a measure of human relationships. That hatred that human civilization asks us to defeat in relationships between people; severely sanctioning their behavior, thus creating the basis of the rules of our coexistence.
Plautus' “Homo homini lupus” and Thomas Hobbes' alleged “state of nature” have always represented obstacles to the solution of humanity's problems.
The aspiration cannot be to imagine that friendship unites only those who recognize themselves as similar.
In reverse. If this were the case, we would be on the road of pushing towards homologation, towards flattening.
The opposite of respect for diversity; specificities specific to each person.
Not surprisingly, the claim of standardization is what characterized ideologies and cultures of the twentieth century that led to the oppression of man by man.
The plural identities of our communities are the fruit of the convergence of the identities of each of those who inhabit them, renew them, enliven them. In the succession of generations and turning points in history.
It is the sum of the many "you", united with each "I", questioned by the value of fraternity, or, at least, of respect and mutual consideration.
It is the value of our homeland, of our extraordinary people – so much appreciated and loved in the world – fruit, in the succession of history, of the meeting of different ethnic groups, customs, experiences, religions; contribution of different idioms to our splendid language; and in the direction of the common good.
Friendship, by definition, is opposed to violence. It starts from knowledge and dialogue. In this too, friendship assumes the value of a political indication.
There is never a lack of pretexts to fuel conflicts.
May they be the invocation of ideological oppositions; the invocation of ethnic characters; of deceptive, class struggles; or the claim to resurrect anachronistic nationalisms.
What happens on the borders of our Europe, after the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, bears dramatic witness to this.
We live in a time of profound, very rapid, even tumultuous changes in some fields. So much so as not to allow, often, to make use of a long look that helps us to understand, in depth, what the direction of our life is; immersed in the frantic consumption of an eternal present; forgetful of the day before and indifferent to the day after.
The transformations affect social models, production and work, but also mental habits, culture itself, the expectations of women and men.
Many describe ours as the time of the individual. The individual who feels they have opportunity and breath, never achieved before.
It is right to grasp, in this process, the positive sign in terms of understanding one's role, one's responsibility, one's rights. But it is also necessary to know how to read the risks of critical aspects, of distortions.
The self-affirmation of the ego, in its most absolute centrality in reality in its full solitude, appears devoid of any sense.
The concept of the individual would risk separating from that of the person.
Self-affirmation – one of the driving forces of community life – is valid, in reality, if it is inserted in the community in which one was born, or in which one has chosen to live; and whether it contributes to its growth.
Now I would like to draw your attention to a theme full of suggestions and evocative; which fits, in my opinion, in the line of reflection on the relationship between friendship and institutions.
In the public debate, the "right to happiness" is often mentioned, listed – as to be pursued – together with those to life and freedom, in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, of the United States.
It is already interesting to note the influence of the thought of exponents of our country's culture on that text. In the confrontation between Beniamino Franklin and the Neapolitan philosopher Gaetano Filangieri it was, in fact, the latter's teaching that suggested replacing the expression "right to property" with that relating to happiness.
There is no equivalent definition in our Constitutional Charter; yet, there is little doubt about the fact that the articles of the Constitution outline a series of rights, and ask the Republic for a series of positive actions to achieve conditions that make existence gratifying; albeit without the claim that happiness is a permanent condition; almost as if life, with its vicissitudes, does not introduce moments of a different sign.
It is sufficient to refer to the art. 2 of the Charter which states that the Republic must recognize and guarantee the inviolable rights of man, both as an individual and in the social formations in which his personality takes place; and must require the fulfillment of the mandatory duties of solidarity. And, in art. 3, which asks the Republic to remove the obstacles which prevent the full development of the human person; after establishing that all citizens have equal social dignity, and are equal before the law.
In other words, it is the community dimension; it is social relations that determine the concreteness of the exercise of rights.
Here then: our institutions are based on social harmony, on the pursuit – through cohesion, therefore solidarity – of feelings of respect and collaboration: friendship fills these relationships, making them a condition for happiness.
It is human feelings and behaviors that enhance the life of the community.
The well-being permitted by peace – which Europe was able to enjoy until yesterday – is the result of this vision. It is discord that puts him at risk.
It's a universal theme.
Ten years ago, the UN defined March 20 as the International Day of Happiness, calling on all Member States, organizations of the United Nations system, other international and regional bodies, as well as civil society, including non-governmental organizations, and individuals, to celebrate this anniversary in an appropriate manner, also through educational activities, for the growth of public awareness (…).
On the occasion, the Secretary General of the time Ban Ki-moon reiterated: “Happiness is helping others. When, with our actions, we contribute to the common good, we enrich ourselves. It is solidarity – he said – that promotes happiness”.
Friendship, as is evident, is not an intimist matter. It arises, above all, from recognizing the other – in his diversity – as equal to ourselves.
Here, once again, because the feeling of friendship surpasses the quality – which is often attributed to it – of mere therapy against loneliness, of sweetening of existence, and reconfirms its value as a social and political choice on which to found society , on which to base the relationship with other peoples in the dimension of common belonging to the one human family – mentioned here a few days ago by Cardinal Zuppi – and in the dimension of encounter.
Eighty years have passed since the conference in Camaldoli, in July 1943, in which a nucleus of Catholic intellectuals tried to outline the characteristics and principles of a new democratic order.
The fascist dictatorship was wearing out; but still it would have caused – to Italy and to Europe – mourning, devastation, cruelty, suffering.
In Camaldoli they tried – in the most dramatic climate – to design a democracy, a pluralist system; founded on the inviolable primacy of the person and on the pre-existence of communities with respect to the State.
Because the common good is everyone's responsibility.
As I mentioned earlier, in Italy we have the good fortune of a Constitution oriented towards respect for the dignity of every person; his possibilities for personal fulfilment; and, therefore, to the pursuit of everyone's happiness, with respect for the common good.
We find awareness of this in the first words of the Code of Camaldoli, what was later called the Code of Camaldoli: "Man is, by his nature, a sociable being: that is, there exists between men a natural solidarity, brotherhood and complementarity, for which the needs of individuals, personalities can only be fully satisfied in society".
It is the binomial person-community that supports an order that must not be intrusive, but aimed at enhancing plurality and freedom.
Pope Francis, in the encyclical "Fratelli tutti", spoke of "social friendship" as the horizon of a new, more intense dialogue between generations; between popular and academic culture; between art, technology, economy.
A renewed humanism in the age of innovation, in which neurosciences, robotics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, the frontiers of medicine, digital technologies are advancing.
Social friendship is a dimension that binds the community, in facing the challenges of history.
Fostering the social dimension of friendship is a commitment to which all public institutions are called; but, with them, also the social, economic forces, civil energies.
Now, we are faced with another great and serious evidence that involves responsibility.
The environment that we have cracked and depleted,
The appeals of the UN through the alarmed words of its Secretary General cannot be ignored.
Right here, in Romagna, we have experienced its drama, underlining. The flood has left deep wounds.
The citizens of Romagna – and their mayors – should not be left alone. The restart of the communities and, with them, of all their activities, is a priority, not only for those who live here, but for the whole of Italy.
Friendship is a source of hope.
Hope comes from a common feeling.
From a support offered.
From coherent testimony.
From a future imagined together.
“Hope is the breath of human life” wrote Jurgen Moltmann. And it is also – I would like to add – of the life of every community.
We do not want to give up the hope of peace in Europe today.
The Europe we know was born from a mutual commitment to peace that peoples and states exchanged after the abyss of the Second World War.
Our systems of freedom, democracy and equal law were built on that peace.
The civilization of Europeans grew up on that peace.
We will not tire of working to stop the war.
It is against the instrument of war that we are committed to preventing a drift of aggression from the strongest against the weakest.
To build a just peace.
A just peace cannot forget the tragedy of the refugees.
The migratory phenomena must be faced for what they are: global movements, which are not canceled by walls or barriers.
In the studio of the apartment where I live at the Quirinale, I have placed a drawing that depicts a fourteen-year-old boy who drowned, with hundreds of other people, in the Mediterranean. Once his body was recovered, it was seen that, in the lining of his jacket, he had sewn his report card: as if it were his passport, the demonstration that he wanted to come to Europe to study.
This drawing reminds me that, behind the numbers and percentages of migrations, which we often list, there are countless, single, people, with each one's story, their projects, their dreams, their future.
Their future: many times cancelled.
Of course, we need a commitment, finally concrete and constant, and proper to the European Union. We need support for the countries of origin of migratory flows.
It is necessary to realize that only regular, sustainable entries, but in an adequately large number, are the means to stop the cruel trafficking of human beings: the prospect and the hope of coming, without inhuman costs and suffering, would lead us to wait rounds of legal authorization .
Furthermore, orderly job placement would be ensured; removing the uncontrollable presence of those who wander homeless, jobless and hopeless; or of those who live crammed into collection centres, often poorly tolerated by local communities.
Different paths have to be taken.
If you don't feel the sense of human fraternity, for better security.
Also as an investment, even of friendship, on the future of relations with the peoples of origin, who will – soon – be increasingly protagonists on the international scene.
Friendship. It starts with us. From our way of being. From our desire to give more humanity to the world around us.
Hope is in you young people.
Take what's yours. Including responsibilities and duties.
You genuinely feel all these problems.
You have the sensitivity to feel fully European. More than adults.
You have adequate knowledge to fearlessly face the digital and technological transformations that are already underway.
You are aware that the environment is part of our social life. That there will be no social justice without environmental justice; and viceversa.
Don't close yourselves, don't let yourself be closed in so many separate worlds. Use social networks, always with intelligence; prevent them from capturing you, producing a sum of loneliness, as my Bishop used to say many years ago.
Never give up on personal relationships; to the personal meeting; to the friend's affection; to love; to the free commitment.
The world is better if we look at it with the right eyes.
Our Constitution still helps us in this case.
In a speech held at the University of Parma in 1995, Giuseppe Dossetti – who had been a participant and protagonist of the Constituent Assembly – addressed an appeal to young people: “do not be prejudiced against the 1948 Constitution, only because it is the work of a generation now gone – he said -. The American Constitution has been in force for two hundred years and, in these two centuries, not a single generation has rejected it, or proposed to rewrite it in its entirety; it only made individual punctual amendments with respect to the original text of the Philadelphia Fathers; despite the fact that, in the meantime, American society has passed from a State of pioneers to a State, today, leader of the world… It is precisely, in moments of confusion, or of indistinct transition, that the Constitutions fulfill the, most true, their function: that is, that of being, for everyone, a point of reference and clarification. So try to get to know her; to understand, in depth, its founding principles; and, therefore, to make her a friend and companion on the road… she will be a sure defense, in your future, against every deception and against every enslavement; for whatever path you want to proceed, and for whatever goal you set yourselves”.
We make these words our own.
This year, the Meeting reaffirms its founding reason: "Meeting for friendship among peoples", as its full name sounds.
There is a need.
Let hope and friendship also run on your legs.
And spread through your rumors.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/mattarella-sferza-vannacci-senza-citarlo/ on Sat, 26 Aug 2023 06:32:23 +0000.