Are
Italians truly Euro fans?
ITALY WAS AMONG THE FIRST
COUNTRIES TO JOIN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION. BUT AS
ITALIANS AND THEIR LEADERS REJOICE, DO THEY REALLY KNOW WHAT
THEY ARE IN FOR? EMINENT ANTHROPOLOGIST IDA MAGLI TAKES A
CRITICAL LOOK AT THE REALITY BEHIND THE PARTYING
by IDA MAGLI
To all appearances, recent polls confirm Italy's unquestioned support for the European Union. Does such consensus reflect the Italians' informed awareness and conviction, or passive acquiescence stemming from their lack of information? If Italians had access to information and public debate, wouldn't they find that the European "project" is highly contrary to Italy's current trend towards decentralised economic and political decision-making, as it is to their national character and civic traditions? Where, on Italian soil, can one find any information on the Maastricht Treaty? The Treaty's text is virtually unavailable to the Italian public. You can't find it where you would ordinarily expect to, in bookshops or on newspaper stands; or even--in Italian--on the Internet. One would think that such a document should be widely available; a subject for close scrutiny and comments from the media. The silence of Italian intellectuals is eloquent. Few books exist about Europe and Maastricht; and those, with rare exceptions, concentrate mainly on the currency issue.
The centralistic approach
At a moment when a globally widespread conviction holds that the market must be the focus of decision-making, that the government's role in the economy must be limited, the Maastricht Treaty appears totally obsolete. For its Soviet-style central planning is designed to regulate every nook and cranny of national life. The obsessive repetition of concepts like "harmonisation" and "coordination", and their application to all facets of living, from electrical plugs and sockets to education and research, is alien to Italian culture. It clashes with Italy's history, which is one of diversification and variety within a small territory. The Treaty's centralised approach reawakens certain dormant fears which the Northern League has made part of its platform. Who will decide the "what" and the "how" of harmonisation and coordination? The Brussels Parliament? (In the eyes of Italians, that body's present reputation for weakness represents simply a natural extension of government incompetence, tout court.)
Europe as a mighty bloc
Another notion extraneous to Italian culture, where "small" has virtually meant "beautiful", is that in order to survive economically in this era of globalisation, we need a massive European Union. Such a notion would seem in line with some members' idea of grandeur. But what about the Italians, with their long history of foreign domination, giving rise to their distrust of and inexperience with grand designs meant to dominate the world?
Maastricht's determination to build a big bloc also betrays the intention to rival the United States as a world power. Is the U.S. the enemy, then? Italians, with their easy-going spirit, should beware of the anti-Americanism pervading the Treaty, though it does fit in with a certain anti-Americanism marking the extreme left and extreme right. The interventionist approach called for in the Treaty for "bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore" implies that American culture is the threat (for what other culture could be?). The need to encourage cooperation between member states in "artistic and literary creation, including the audio-visual sector", recalls recent disputes over the need to protect the European market from U.S. film and audio-visual industries. In contrast, the Treaty becomes highly explicit in its intention to contrast the hegemony of the dollar, though it is not clear what real benefits for citizens are supposed to stem from the euro's hegemony.
Will a common currency create political union?
Was it the dollar that made the U.S. strong? Was it the yen that made Japan what it is? Or--vice versa--was it not the American and Japanese people that made their currency strong? The argument heard in Italy as regards the eurocurrency is that sacrifices must be made in order to enter the single-currency system, which is presented as an ineluctable historical event. Italians, as well as other Europeans, are made to believe that the proper management of all sectors of their economy will automatically follow as a result of the common currency. The euro is presented as the basis for economic as well as political "harmony" (to use Maastricht-speak). Nobody dares examine the complexity of the political and cultural implications of Maastricht. The health, education, defence, international relations, research and environmental components of the Treaty, and their implications regarding national decision-making, are totally ignored. But even more important, nobody in Italy dares to raise any doubts as to the underlying question: whether or not to join the Union.
But do the Italian people have any choice whether to say "yes" or "no"? In Italy, adherence to the Maastricht Treaty is considered a matter pertaining to foreign affairs. As such, according to the Constitution, it lies outside the province of the popular vote. That is why in Italy, where referendums are held quite frequently on a variety of issues, a referendum concerning the European Union has never been held. Nor will it ever be.
A Treaty with such broad implications for citizens' lives is considered, then, as pertaining to "foreign affairs"; therefore, it lies beyond the people's capability for acceptance, criticism or discussion. What could be more totalitarian?
(Translated from the Italian for Wanted in Rome, April 15, 1998; revised version.)
La diffusione di questo articolo è libera e gratuita, gentilmente citando la fonte