ANDREOTTI TAKES THE RAP
Giulio Andreotti is most unfortunate. Top
politicians are not usually prosecuted for
political villainy, except if they are defeated
in a war or an internal coup. In ongoing
democracies the @ustom is for top politicians
who are exposed as crooks to resign, and rely
on their colleagues to protect them from
prosecution.
Mr Andreotti' s case has some parallels with
that of United States vice-president Spiro
Agnew in 1973. Mr Agnew had earlier been
governor of a state, where he had made a
fortune by paying out tax money for the
building of roads which were not in fact built,
and sharing the proceeds with the contractors.
American vice-presidential candidates are
chosen by presidential candidates. Agnew
was politically unattractive, given to
pontificating about the moral degeneracy of
activities like popular music, and it is alleged
that Richard Nixon selected Agnew as
running mate for the second term for the
protection of his own position. Nixon' s
enemies knew that if he was impeached or
assassinated, he would be replaced by the
appalling Agnew.
After Agnew went, Nixon lasted less than a
year. Agnew escaped jail by plea bargaining
and turned his hobby into a lucrative
profession, pontificating about moral
degeneracy in books and lectures.
If the allegations against Andreotti are
shown to be true, he will haYe suffered the
same misfortune as Agnew, which was to be
shopped by crooked associates in custody for
other offences. By Italian law he is too old to
be sent to p@ison, so his escape from a jail
sentence for jailable offences may be another
similarity in the two cases.
The same group of members of the Christian
Democratic Party was in power in Italy for
some @lfty years, swapping jobs among
themselves whenever the government was
defeated. As one of this group Mr Andreotti
took turns at all the ministries, including seven
separate stints as prime minister. It is alleged
that they are a criminal gang and that
Andreotti has been chosen to take the rap
because, being too old to go to prison, he has
less to lose than his younger colleagues. On
the other hand, he is more credible as a Mafia
man because his political base is in Sicily and
because, like many Mafiosi, he is a keen
Catholic and attends mass every morning.
The vast majority of top politicians keep
within the law, which is not surprising. They
make the law. The classic case is that of Hitler,
authorised by parliament to make laws at will
(many of his statutes, including some barmy
racist laws, are still on the German statute
book). Naturally he took the opportunity to
le@ se hi@ own @ctivities. @o other politiciall
has so much pe@sonal power awarded by a
democratic process, but top politicians in
general make the law collectively and it would
be surprising if they made laws to which many
of them could not conform.
Keeping within the law, however, is not the
same as being harmless. Agnew fiddled a few
million dollars. Truman ordered atom bombs
to be dropped on @iroshima and Nagasaki.
Agnew broke the law. Truman kept within it.
Which did more harm?
Most of us who live in democracies believe,
by habit and precept, that democracy is the
only alternative to arbitrary dictatorship.
There are laws to which even members of the
government are subject, as is proved by the
fact that Andreotti has been arrested after
being a member of the government for fifty
years and then defeated at the polls. If we
don't like the laws we can advocate electing
an alternative government at the next election,
and if our advocacy is successful the new
government can change the laws.
We ordinary people, we are led to believe,
are too stupid and wicked to govern ourselves,
which is why we electpoliticians to govern us.
From this it would appear to follow logically
that politicians, or at least those who get into
governrnent, are such paragons of wisdom a@d
virtue that they are capable of governing not
only themselves but we ordinary people as
well. And that at election time the majority of
us wicked and stupid individuals becomes
collectively virtuous and wise enough to
choose the best politicians.
But of course nobody who thinks about it at
all thinks that politicians, or unelected rulers
such as capitalists, judges and generals, are
paragons of virtue and wisdom. The argument
advanced for democracy is not that it is perfect
but that no alternative way of organising
society would improve the lot of ordinary
people.
We do not agree. We think that a society of
ordinary people, not surrendering their power
to politicians or anyone else but co-operating
for their own benefit, would provide more
choices for ordinary people than democracy
can.
Some opponents of anarchism insist that we
have no case unless we specify in detail the
constitution of the society we advocate.
Malatesta writes of people who want to know
on what days of the week the inhabitants of
anarchy would cut their toenails. But of course
we cannot logically do this.
We can imagine anarchist societies and write
fiction about them, but we cannot tell
sovereign individuals how to conduct their
lives. Nor is it important that there are
questions we cannot answer. The only way we
can move towards an anarchist society is to
change opinions about that is possible and
desirable, and opinions will not change
quickly enough to create an anarchist society
overnight.
What we can do is make significant moves
towards an anarchist society, and enlarge
people'schoiceshere and nowbyencouraging
ordinary people to withdraw some measure of
deference and consent from politicians,
generals, capitalists and all the other bosses.
One way to do this is to disabuse people of
the superstition that successful politicians are
virtuous. We are grateful to Mr Andreotti for
his help in this endeavour.
=========================
FREEDOM
7TH OCTOBER 1995
84B, WHITECHAPEL HIGH ST.
LONDON E1
=========================