Qatar gate: where actually existing, it would be a pure and simple fact of widespread or not widespread systemic corruption, and to varying degrees, among the various liberal-democratic countries, or an anomaly of the supranational political system, or again a hypothesis of individual responsibility of certain individuals involved in the affair?

In recent days, it has been learned from the media, "an indeterminate and very large group of people" would appear to have been discovered dedicated to the "consumption" of "facts of corruption" and who allegedly operated within "European structures with or without links with the European Union”.

The circumstance, without prejudice to the need to know the outcome of the investigations by the competent Authority in progress, the only epilogue of which, evidently, will be able to shed light on the existence and effective consistency of a "phenomenon" which in very recent times seems to have occurred disturbing the serenity of the European institutions, would appear to appear in all its seriousness, especially for having emerged in one of the most complex moments, on an economic and social level, in the life of the Union.

If it were, and the conditional is extremely necessary when the terms of the reasoning can only be hypothetical and possible, of a systemic phenomenon, and if, as such, it was so deeply rooted as to have succeeded in influencing the trend of the bureaucratic and supranational party apparatus, then the danger would be that of finding oneself faced with a "skein" that is very difficult to "unravel", due to the simple and decisive circumstance that, the more widespread and radicalized that phenomenon was (and the reasoning arises only and solely in argumentative-hypothetical terms), then he would be even more inclined to operate under the radar under the appearance of an almost usual "modus-operandi" and therefore difficult to perceive in practice. Where, on the other hand, it were an anomaly of the supranational political and party system, considered in its instrumental complexity, the circumstance would be perceived by the community in terms of a profound crisis of that same party system and of the relationship of mutual trust that should permeate their action in the best common interest, with all consequences in terms of trustworthiness and credibility. When, on the other hand, we were dealing with or wishing to consider that much-talked-about phenomenon as an "individual fact", limited only to the actions of the subjects specifically involved, appearing to concern a hypothesis of "voluntary exchange" of resources, then, probably, the question , far from investing the "union" institutional Eden, would be placed in terms of an isolated and circumscribed "human error" encouraged by the institutional position once covered or currently covered by interested parties who would seem to infer little or nothing from the single reference parties and with their ideologies and/or activities. Said differently, and being clear on the point: depending on the classification that one were to decide to give to the story, the terms of the reasoning that one would be induced to conduct would change.

It would seem to be the method, in the long run, that contributes to revealing what appears to the eyes of the generality of the associates as an arcane. And the methodological complexity of the investigation, even considering everything, would seem to reside precisely in the intersection of the information acquired and to be acquired, in the careful and detailed evaluation of the sources, in the consequent formulation of reconstructive hypotheses that are as likely as possible in their cognitive consistency substantial. Still understanding, therefore, on another aspect: it would seem to appear clearly that every phenomenon, corruptive or not, can be circumscribed in detail and understood only when it emerges, for whatever reason, in all its extension. And in the context, what always makes the difference is the determinism of the different mechanisms of social control and the resources available to the judicial bodies.

In the Qatar gate hypothesis, some individuals, identified and to be identified, would seem to have wanted to question their own "reputation", i.e. a meaningful value aspect when one chooses to represent the citizens by placing their work at the service of the Institutions, at the only for the purpose of obtaining a personal advantage. Where therefore that attitude would appear to appear under the forms of political corruption, acquiring a systemic character, or almost so, due to the fact that the effective extent of the phenomenon is not yet known, then we will have to talk in terms of the "pathology" with every consequence on the level common perception.

But is it right then to doubt the validity of an institution, and the even harsh rules it sets, and what it represents, just because someone would seem to have dishonored it with their own personal actions? Is it possible to know a priori the value panorama of a subject in order to be able to consider its representative adequacy ex ante? Evidently not, without prejudice to the possible existence of precedents of a similar content useful to act as elements of "alarm". Nor can one expect to extend the responsibility of individuals to the entire party to which they belong in the absence of useful elements to allow such an extension. Criminal liability is personal and as such must be considered and pursued. All the more so when the institutional role would seem to have constituted only the occasion for action.

Essentially, it would be necessary to avoid that evil-doing, from a "private fact", as it would appear to be in the present case, could become, even only at a common perceptive level, a "structural element of the political system", since, otherwise, the leap from the physiological to the pathological aspect would be very short with all consequences in terms of social stability markedly considered in the countries of the Union characterized by greater economic difficulties.

If it is really possible to be able to explain the Qatar-Gate phenomenon only in terms of the personal motivations of the politician of the moment to let himself be attracted by easy money, this is not known, also because if the phenomenon were widespread, then, consequently, it would assume the characteristics of an implicit objectivity which would make any different investigation conducted on the level of individual wills superfluous.

When "reputation" and its safeguarding cease to constitute a disincentive to violating the most elementary rules of conduct, then all inhibitions disappear. The appeal to honesty seems to become and seems to have become a sterile "linguistic organization chart" and easily and undoubtedly becomes simple propaganda in the absence of important examples from the highest institutions. And it certainly cannot be expected that it is only the citizens who have to respect the rules of conduct imposed.

The European Union, as well as individual states, would seem to need, at this moment, to assert their sovereignty and authority if they want to continue to exist as such.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata