Letters
Letters to the editor •
Today’s bad teachers do nothing but chase after their followers. But they are just as dangerous as those of the past
Who wrote to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
21 OCT 26
Translated by AI
To the Editor – Dear Cerasa, I found your editorial yesterday on the ‘collective sociologist’ of the ‘they’re criminals, but…’ mindset simply perfect. This collective sociologist is, of course, made up of many individual bad teachers. I’ll mention one at random. Tomaso Montanari, writing in *Il Fatto Quotidiano*, explained that true violence is not that of those who ravage a city, but something else entirely: it is the tax authorities, the electoral law, the climate, rearmament. Meloni’s hands, ‘stained with the blood of the children of Gaza’ – he added – ‘cannot be raised to call for the condemnation of anything’. These are the ravings not only of an intellectual who has lost all sense of proportion, but which now form part of the propaganda and cultural baggage of a large section of the Italian left (both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary). To paraphrase Totò, he then goes on to say that one throws oneself into the centre.
Michele Magno
Today’s bad leaders are very different from those of the past. In the past, bad leaders set objectives first and foremost. Today, bad leaders produce justifications first and foremost. In the past, they led their followers. Today, they allow themselves to be led by their followers. They are no less dangerous. They are just a little more ‘Flaianean’: serious deviations, but not serious in the traditional sense.
To the Editor – The Council of State is set to revisit the 2015–2018 payback scheme for medical devices. However, Decree-Law 95 of 2025 has changed the rules, raising new doubts as to its constitutionality. In 2024, the Constitutional Court had ruled the mechanism legitimate, partly due to its temporary and solidarity-based nature. Now, the excess sums paid may cover overspends occurring after 2018: an exceptional contribution risks becoming a permanent levy, affecting freedom of enterprise. There is also the reduction of the levy to 25 per cent, conditional upon waiving appeals: a potential infringement of the right to a defence, after the Constitutional Court had already imposed a general reduction, unrelated to litigation. Doubts remain regarding compatibility with European law, as well as the proportionality and predictability of the charges. At stake is not only how much businesses must pay, but also how long a mechanism designed as an exception might continue to weigh on the healthcare sector.
Giuseppe de Vergottini
To the Editor – On 26 May 2025, in the Senate, together with Carlo Calenda, we presented Azione’s draft bill on the democratic shield against foreign interference. On 20 October 2026, after 17 months, the bill was referred to the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Let us not dwell on the time lost: let us use what remains of this parliamentary term to defend liberal democracy. The critical infrastructure under attack is not limited to energy networks and transport: it also includes electoral processes. Why do leaders on the right, centre and left not sign a pact to defend liberal democracy, as is happening in France? The threat is real and tangible. According to the European External Action Service, in 2025, 540 incidents of foreign disinformation were analysed, involving around 10,500 channels and 43,000 pieces of content: 29 per cent were attributed to Russia and 6 per cent to China. The aim is not merely to favour a particular political party, but to sow fear and distrust in democracy. The ‘democratic shield’ safeguards the freedom to vote enshrined in Article 48 of the Constitution. It strengthens AGCOM’s monitoring role and the DIS’s intelligence function, combats disinformation campaigns fuelled by artificial intelligence and bot farms, and provides for sanctions against those who organise, finance or facilitate foreign interference in elections. We do not wish to censor anyone. We want voters to know whether there is a real person behind a message or a swarm of bots, and whether content presented as ‘informative’ is part of a coordinated campaign of disinformation, algorithm manipulation, hidden advertising and deepfakes. President Meloni has recognised the gravity of hybrid warfare, something whose existence some of her allies and opponents still deny. Now we must move from words to action. We will continue to play our part, both within and outside the institutions. This is also why, on 7 November, we will be in Bologna with Europeisti to launch a major national campaign against information pollution. Because a law against hybrid warfare alone is not enough. The first line of defence is nursery school teachers.
Marco Lombardo, senator for Azione
Well done.