ROME LETTER:Italy's most prominent intellectual sees a major threat to press freedom in new legislation from Berlusconi's government, writes PADDY AGNEW
“I MEAN to say when someone has to step forward in defence of press freedom, that means that the society in question and with it much of the media in that society is already in a bad way. In those democracies that we like to call ‘robust’, there’s no need to defend press freedom because no one would be thinking of trying to curb it . . .
“The Italian problem is not Silvio Berlusconi. History is full of enterprising figures who had a very low sense of the state but a very high sense of their own interests, who wanted to instigate a personal power, bypassing parliament, the judiciary and the constitution, distributing favours to their courtiers and courtesans . . . When a society allows such people [to conquer power], why blame such figures rather than the society itself which allowed them do what they wanted?”
The writer is Umberto Eco, academic, philosopher and novelist, best known to the world at large for his bestseller, The Name of the Rose. In a piece in this week's Italian news weekly, L'Espresso, he sounds a strident alarm about what he perceives as the threat posed to media freedom in Italy by proposed new legislation from the Berlusconi government.
Eco even goes so far as to draw a comparison between the Mussolini regime and Berlusconi. He tells a revealing little story about his own mother who as a young woman worked for a Liberal deputy in the Italian parliament. On the day after Il duceMussolini had taken power, his mother's employer had commented, in a mixture of resignation and approval, that "perhaps this man will find the way to put things in order in Italy".
Eco goes on to conclude that fascism installed itself in Italy thanks “not to Mussolini’s energy but rather to the indulgence and laid-back attitude of that Liberal deputy”.
In that context, argues Eco, even if it now seems like a lost cause, people must say no to the proposed legislation.
And what does that legislation propose? Essentially, the new law would greatly limit the use of phone-taps in judicial investigations. Not only would investigating magistrates be much restricted in the use of the phone-tap but also media outlets and reporters face both prison sentences and heavy fines (up to €500,000) if they publish such intercettazionibefore the allowed date (in practice, years after the inquiry in question).
The point about this proposed legislation is that, in Italy, the phone-tap has been fundamental to a whole range of high-profile investigations over recent years: the inquiry into the 2003 “forced rendition” of Imam Abu Omar in Milan; the investigation into police brutality at the Genoa
2001 G8; the Bank of Italy takeover scandal of 2005; and even the much-publicised Calciopolimatch-fixing scandal of 2006.
Furthermore, the phone-tap is absolutely vital in investigations into organised crime. (To be fair, the government insists that the new legislation will in no way impact negatively on Mafia or terrorism investigations. However, that remains to be seen since much of the most important phone-tap evidence seems to occur almost accidentally and above all because there was provision for sustained and systematic surveillance.)
Ironically, of course, the most recent scandal to rock Berlusconi, namely his alleged involvement in a call girl/prostitute inquiry in Bari, was initiated thanks to remarks overheard on judicial phone-taps. In the run-up to last week’s G8 summit, the prime minister was annoyed by what he perceived as a systematic foreign media campaign focused on the Bari investigation and intended to damage his government, himself and Italy.
Yet, this is precisely the sort of story on which any self-respecting news outlet will focus. Not only is it a “sexy” story (in this case literally) but it also asks serious questions about the contradiction between those values (God and family) proclaimed in public by Berlusconi and his private behaviour. Furthermore, as has been repeatedly pointed out, there could be a serious security question, given that all sorts of (possibly unsuitable) people are alleged to have had easy access to the prime minister’s private residences for the purposes of attending “parties”.
So is Umberto Eco overstating the case or is there a serious threat to press freedom in Italy? After all, this is a question which has been asked before about Berlusconi, given that, one way or another, directly or indirectly, he controls 80-90 per cent of free-to-air television in Italy. (He personally owns the three main commercial channels and, as prime minister, he obviously exercises a serious influence on the state broadcaster RAI).
Stefano Rodottà, a leftist politician and a former head of the “privacy” authority, shares Eco’s sense of concern, saying: “This Bill is emblematic of a governing power which refuses to be contained and which rather tries to curtail every other power that be, formal or informal – in other words, it wants to wipe out parliament, limit the autonomy of the judiciary and curb press freedom, that way all sorts of uncomfortable news will simply never get through to public opinion.”