Letters
letters to the editor •
The Young Democrats’ little problem with freedom. Long live hypocrisy, always!
Who wrote to the editor, Claudio Cerasa
21 AUG 26
Translated by AI
Photo: Ansa
To the Editor – It has come to my attention that the Young Democrats of Rome have published a post commemorating Fidel Castro. I am not at all surprised that within the youth organisation where I first became active, a sort of regression is taking place – a return to a failed past that seemed to have been left behind thanks to a series of historic turning points, from the Bolognina onwards. It would appear, however, that we are witnessing this strange resurgence of a watered-down and pathetic form of neo-communism. It seems they are turning a blind eye to the fact that in Cuba there is a military regime that has been starving the population for years, that jails opponents and, at times, even politicians on the basis of mere suspicion alone; let us recall, in this regard, Huber Matos and Arnaldo Ochoa. Is this supposed to be the youth representation of the ‘campo largo’? As far as I’m concerned, I prefer instead to remember the Cuban poet and socialist dissident Pedro Luis Boitel, who died of starvation and torture in the dreadful Castro-run prisons of the Castillo del Príncipe in Havana. Together with the Young Socialists, I shall continue to shout at the top of my voice: ‘Patria y vida!’
Gabriele Zammillo
To understand what it means to champion freedoms, the Young Democrats would do well to read a few pages of María Corina Machado’s writings, take to the streets in support of the rights of women and oppressed homosexuals in Iran, and organise some sort of flotilla against the rearmament of Hamas. I fear, however, that celebrating Fidel Castro is simpler and less taxing. Long live hypocrisy, always.
To the Editor – I read with interest Professor Anna Maria Lorusso’s article in Il Foglio, “It is illogical to criticise Il fascismo eterno because it deals solely with fascism”. I find one point in her argument convincing: it would indeed be illogical to criticise Umberto Eco for having written an essay on fascism without devoting similar attention to communism. Every author legitimately chooses and defines the scope of their analysis. But precisely for this reason, I would like to put a different question to the professor, via Il Foglio. Eco identifies a series of characteristics in Ur-Fascism – the cult of tradition, fear of difference, social frustration, obsession with conspiracy, delegitimisation of dissent, populism, and the impoverishment of language – whilst acknowledging that some of these may also be found in other forms of despotism or fanaticism. What, then, is the criterion that allows these characteristics to be applied to fascism whilst preventing them from being applied, by the same logic, to other ideologies, movements or political cultures? The issue, in my view, does not concern what Eco ought to have written but did not. Rather, it concerns what happened after Eco. For if those characteristics are not exclusive to fascism, and if the category becomes sufficiently elastic to encompass political phenomena that are very different from one another, there is a risk of transforming an interpretative tool into a label. And a label, when applied predominantly to one’s adversary, gradually ceases to explain and simply begins to categorise. This is why I wonder whether, thirty years on from that famous essay, the problem is no longer Umberto Eco’s “Il fascismo eterno”, but rather the political use we have made of the adjective ‘fascist’ over the last thirty years. I would be very interested to hear Professor Lorusso’s thoughts on this. Yours sincerely,
Dario Nicosia
To the Editor – The usual elegance of Salvatore Merlo’s writing risks obscuring at least a couple of serious inaccuracies contained in his “Ventaglio” column yesterday. The first concerns the alleged irremovability of senior RAI journalists. The agreement between the company and Usigrai (I mention this as I was a trade unionist at the time) was not intended to increase the number of top-level roles, but rather to address the excessive number of ‘generals’ and ‘colonels’. The agreement transformed their positions from ‘qualifications’ – which, as such, were untouchable under Article 2103 of the Civil Code – into revocable ‘appointments’: in this way, we significantly reduced the number of legal cases that Rai had previously been losing. The second clarification concerns me directly, because “Rai for Sustainability” is not an additional department, nor was it “invented” for me. It is the name adopted by the pre-existing Rai for Social Affairs department when Giovanni Parapini stepped down from the post and the then Rai leadership – led by Fuortes and President Soldi – sought to redefine its remit in line with the themes of the 2030 Agenda, subsequently selecting me (who had already been back at Rai for four years) from among various candidates, both journalists and non-journalists. This department is by no means ‘made up’, given that the Service Contract identifies sustainability as one of our key commitments, including the development of a plan which the public service has duly adopted. I would like to take this opportunity to add two figures that may be of interest, at a time when curiosity – sometimes of a rather mischievous nature – regarding Rai’s remuneration has been reignited. As a director, at the peak of my career, I earned 148,000 euros gross: a long way – and I believe I was not alone amongst the directors – from the 240,000-euro cap. When I joined the Board of Directors, whilst still an employee, Rai rightly chose to reduce my remuneration by an amount equal to the 66,000 euros gross per annum payable to board members. Just to make it clear that the current portrayal of Rai as a lavish feast at the taxpayer’s expense is almost never justified.
Roberto Natale, Member of the Rai Board of Directors
Salvatore Merlo replies: I would like to thank Roberto Natale, who corrects me politely and, I believe unwittingly, proves my point. Rai per la Sostenibilità was not created for him – that is quite true. It was created in 2020 for Giovanni Parapini, under the name Rai per il Sociale, and in turn stemmed from the Social Affairs Working Group established a few months earlier, again for Parapini, who at that time reported directly to the chief executive. From the working group to the management team, from one management team to the next. At Rai, things proceed by budding, like coral. I’m happy to believe him about the 1996 agreement; the intention was excellent. It’s just that since then, the departments have never stopped multiplying, to the point where one has even been created with the task of coordinating the others.