President Scalfaro visits President Clinton in Washinton (April 1996)
Last week Italian President Oscar Luigi Scalfaro visited the United States Congress and President Bill Clinton in Washington. Many Italians were worried about the possible faux pas that Scalfaro might pronounce before his hosts. He had just come from a visit in Mexico, where he had proclaimed his opinion of the dangers of presidentialism and the supremacy of parliament as the voice of the populace. That he could commit such a gaffe in a presidential country like Mexico, is one thing, though, it is not exactly protocol behavior for a public figure representing one country to criticize the political system of the country that is playing host to him. Nevertheless, Mexico has had some serious problems as of late concerning its executive office. However, that he should toy with the idea that he has any lessons to give concerning the presidential office to the one country in the world that has succeeded with excellence in balancing the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial functions, would have been going slightly overboard.
The reason why this theme is so dear to Scalfaro is because it is one of the major differences in the political platforms of the two major coalitions which are contending for the elections in Italy next week. The center-right Liberty Pole would like to change the constitution and provide for a president elected directly by the people. The center-left Ulivo Pole is steadfast against it.
Scalfaro’s error is much more grave than it being out of place to criticize
the system of government of a country which is offering its hospitality.
His externalization concerning his own personal opinions regarding the
concept of “presidency” were unacceptable for three important reasons.
One, the office of the President in Italy is not a political one.
He is not elected by the people, but chosen by members of the Senate
to remain in office for a period of 7 years. By accepting such office,
the man chosen agrees to divest himself of all political bias and sentiment.
It is his duty to act as figurehead over the entire country and represent
all of its citizens regardless of their political extractions. Scalfaro’s
comments in Mexico were made with the obvious scope of communicating to
the people of Italy, that if the center-right were to win the elections,
he will do all that is in his power to obstruct the constitutional changes
they are proposing concerning the presidency. This is not an un-biased
comment, but one that lets the voters know (though no one had any doubt)
which side he is on. Again, his office requires that he take no sides.
The second cause for calling his comments inappropriate is the fact
that, although Scalfaro was not elected by the Italian populace, the Mexican
and the US presidents were elected by theirs, which means that his accusation
that parliament is more representative of the people than the presidency,
is, in their case, untrue.
Thirdly, it must be remembered that since Scalfaro came to office, the body of members of the entire political structure of Italy has changed, which poses the question of his very legitimacy. Since the advent of the Clean Hands trials, many of the men who were responsible for his appointment are no longer in office for one reason or another. Many are behind bars; others are awaiting trial. One would think that, knowing very well the moral uncertainty of the men responsible for his appointment, he would worry a bit more about the precariousness of his position and be less vocal. However, as they say, the best defense is offense. And since the Italians are accustomed to regarding their president as a father figure with almost the same infallibility as the Pope, he often gets away with it.
During the press conference with Scalfaro and Clinton, an Italian journalist
asked Scalfaro a question concerning this presidential issue and a few
embarrassing minutes of bickering back and forth followed. Clinton
could hardly contain the amused grin on his face, because he had earphones
and was witnessing a simultaneous translation of the squabble. When
the spat subsided, Clinton graciously explained to everyone present who
didn’t have the benefit of the earphones, that they had all been witness
to a little “family feud.”
Clinton’s sense of humor in dealing with this family quarrel was equal
to his sense of propriety when a journalist addressed him with a question
regarding the imminent Italian elections. When asked what would be
the attitude of the American government to an eventual victory of the center-left
(whose main component is the PDS or former Communist party), Clinton responded
that he could only say what he had said when asked the same question about
the possible victory of the Communists in Russia. He said that, regardless
of who wins, what was most important to the American government is that
the victory is a result of a free and fair democratic election. He
added that it was not the business of the United States to interfere in
the internal affairs of another country and that whoever the winner is,
they would be judged by their actions and not by their professed ideology.
In saying this, he specified: foreign policy, economy, human rights,
and personal freedom.
His words couldn’t have been more perfect or more appropriate. While expressing total neutrality, they did not indicate indifference. His comparison to the same question concerning Russia was a subtle message for those who have ears that listen. What he was saying is that the American government is well aware that the center-left’s strongest component is the party that until not very long ago proudly called itself Communist.
Although Clinton’s words were loud and clear, they have been greatly contorted by the media here, which strongly backs the center-left movement. They have managed to splash on their headlines statements like: Clinton’s reaction to a possible center-left victory: no problem, and even: Clinton backs the center-left. I’m sure if he were here to witness the distortion of his words, he would have some strong misgivings about just how democratic these elections are actually going to be.
One last word on Oscar Luigi’s democratic demagogy: After his visit to Washington, Scalfaro was scheduled to meet with the huge Italian constituency in New York City. They were eager it discuss with him their status as Italian citizens who cannot vote, since absentee voting is not permitted in Italy. Scalfaro let it be known ahead of time that he was not willing to discuss the matter during that encounter. He rightly fears that Italians abroad are unlikely to cast their vote in the direction of his preference. He appears oblivious to the fact that his obstinacy can only anger the Italian community at large making them feel like second-class citizens. What can I say? That’s democracy, Scalfaro style!
April 1996
Return to home page Return to list
Editors interested in subscribing to this syndicated column may request information by sending an e-mail to: giogia@giogia.com