BREXIT: here is “How” English People have saved all European Peoples from an Europe that was becoming a “new” Ancien Regime!

The 23 June 2016 is an historic date!

It is the date on which, some European citizens have said NO to an European Union that had moved away from being a “State of Law” based on the Rule of Law (and/or the Supremacy of Law above the Power) to be a “new form” of Ancien Regime. Exempli gratia, you can read: Epis Luca, The Meaning of Rule of Law (chapter: Rule of Law; paragraph: Rule of Law like Universal Principle of any Legal System).

An Ancien Regime that is ruled (no longer by a greedy land aristocracy) but by a greedier economic-financial and banking oligarchy that, like its predecessors, is used to act above: the Rule of Law; the ethical and legal values; and the People.

The ethical and legal principles were “transmuted” into empty and void “advertising slogans”, that are used for marketing and/or attracting “customers”, but never met.

Principles, in fact, were always subordinate to: economic profit; banking system; and the interests of business!

The People returned to being simply “the one” who has to be “squeezed” through taxes!!

Beyond the “new forms” and “appearances”, the citizens of European Union (and certainly the Italian people) have found themselves in the position of “those ancient English people” who were thieved by the Sheriff of Nottingham. Exempli gratia, you can read: Epis Luca, Alcune criticità inerenti l’azione di rettifica (D.P.R. n. 131 del 26/4/1986, artt. 51 e 52) ed il “valore venale” del bene.

The Rule of Law fell under the financial and economic needs!!

An example of this is given by Greece.

It is interesting to see how, in front of’ the “arrogance” of this “new” Sheriff of Nottingham, the first people, how had the force to “rebel” itself, was the British one!! History repeated!!

We can say that, with the referendum, the England of the Magna Charta won above the England that decided to support an European Union that is able to impose its Union only with: the “threat of the economic consequences” (!!); fear (!!); etc … .

But, for the People, getting out from this European Union does not mean to lose “everything”, as People has already lost “everything” being inside this Union.

On the contrary for the peoples, it is a way to get back their own money and their own Freedom. Only the Sheriffs of Nottingham have something to lose.

That the current European establishment is “anti-democratic” was made “clear” several times. Lastly, right in these days Post Brexit!!

Several supporters of this kind of European Union (and I stress: THIS KIND OF EUROPEAN UNION) did a “television marathons” arguing: the irresponsibility of Cameron for having given to the English people the right to decide their own Fate!!!!!!!!!!! Exempli gratia, this happened on the Italian media.

The Peoples, for these kind of establishment, should NOT have the right to decide and/or to choose for themselves!! The Peoples must be “reduced” to be silent “flocks of sheep”. Obedient “flocks” who have only to pay taxes to maintain the economic and financial oligarchy and its “servants”!!

Well, the English people said NO to this kind of System.

The English people wanted to regain possession of: their own sovereignty; and, their own right to decide for themselves.

In doing so, the British people did not destroy the possibility that, in the future, a better European Union may be created. On the contrary, they have put the bases for creating a transparent, democratic, European Union (governed by the principium of Supremacy of Law above the Power) in which all Peoples will be equal. An Europe that we do NOT have so long so far.

No changes could be possible, unless someone makes the “first step” and say clear NO.

So, British people told the first concrete NO to the current oligarchic, anti-democratic, tyrannical European Union (based on the principium of economic-financial supremacy).

A THANK YOU to the English people who had the courage to say NO.

A THANK YOU to all those citizens who voted: NO.

As Bernard Shaw said: “I envy you the power to say no” (The Doctor’s Dilemma).

Now, the Italian people should follow the example of the English people.

The Italians must choose with a referendum:
whether to save their own Italy, an Italy for which Great Men died (remember the Italian Wars of Independence);
or “to betray” the ideals and sacrifice of all those Italian Heroes for same miserable banknotes, which are just waste paper, given by the economical-financial oligarchy.

Italian people have to choose if they want to be Free or they want to be under a new form of “foreign occupation”!

For those who want to read the works mentioned above in the Post, here there are the links:

Epis L., The Meaning of Rule of Law. Link: The Meaning of Rule of Law – Book

Epis L., Alcune criticità inerenti l’azione di rettifica (D.P.R. n. 131 del 26/4/1986, artt. 51 e 52) ed il “valore venale” del bene. Link: http://www.lukae.it/?p=142

For getting a brief résumé of the content of the book: The meanig of Rule of Law that is relevant to this Post, you can see: Rule of Law, Ancien Regime & European Uninion. Link: http://www.lukae.it/?p=1136

BREXIT: ecco come gli Inglesi hanno salvato tutti i Popoli Europei da un’Europa che stava diventando un “nuovo” Ancien Regime!

Il 23 Giugno 2016 è una data storica!

E’ la data in cui, alcuni cittadini europei hanno detto NO ad un Europa che si era allontanata dall’essere uno Stato di Diritto fondato sul Rule of Law (ovvero sulla Supremacy of Law above the Power), cadendo nell’essere una nuova forma d’Ancien Regime (exempli gratia, Epis Luca, The Meaning of Rule of Law, chapter: Rule of Law, paragraph: Rule of Law like Universal Principle of any Legal System).

Un Ancien Regime non più governato da un’avida aristocrazia terriera ma da un ancor più avida oligarchia economico-finanziaria e bancaria che, come i suoi predecessori, agisce incurante verso: lo Stato di Diritto; i valori etico-giuridici; ed il Popolo.

I principii etico-giuridici furono “trasmutati” in vuoti “slogan commerciali”, detti ed affermati per “attirare clientela”, ma mai rispettati.

Principii, di fatto, sempre subordinati al profitto economico, ai bilanci, al sistema bancario, ed agli interessi delle grandi gruppi economici!

Il Popolo ritornò ad essere semplicemente “colui” da “spremere” con le tasse!!

Al di là delle “nuove forme” ed “apparenze”, i cittadini europei (e di sicuro quelli Italiani) si sono ritrovati nella condizione del “popolo depredato” da un “nuovo” Scheriffo di Nottingham (exempli gratia, Epis Luca, Alcune criticità inerenti l’azione di rettifica (D.P.R. n. 131 del 26/4/1986, artt. 51 e 52) ed il “valore venale” del bene).

Lo Stato di Diritto cadde sotto l’esigenza finaziaria!!

Un esempio di tutto ciò, è dato dalla Grecia.

E’ interessante vedere come di fronte all'”arroganza” di questo “nuovo” Scheriffo di Nottingham, i primi ad essersi “ribellati” siano stati proprio gli Inglesi!!

Possiamo dire che, col referendum ha vinto l’Inghilterra della Magna Charta ed ha perso quell’Inghileterra sostenitrice d’un Europa che “impone” l’Unione solo con: la “minaccia delle ripercussioni economiche” (!!); la paura (!!); etc … .

Uscire da quest’Europa non significa per il Popolo perdere “tutto”. Il Popolo ha già perso “tutto” standoVi dentro.

Al contrario, uscire da questa Unione significa per il Popolo riapropriarsi del proprio denaro e della propria Libertà. Chi ci perde, di contro, è lo Sheriffo di Nottingham che ha spadroneggiato fin d’ora.

Che l’attuale Establisment europeo abbia idee “anti-democratiche” è stato reso palese più volte. Da ultimo, proprio in questi giorni Post Brexit!!

I sostenitori di questa Europa (e sottolineo: DI QUESTA EUROPA) hanno fatto “maratone televisive” sostenendo: l’irresponsabilità di Cameron per aver concesso al Popolo Inglese il diritto di decidere la propria Sorte!!!!!!!!!!!!

Il Popolo, per queste persone, NON deve avere il diritto di decidere e/o di scegliere!! Il Popolo deve “essere ridotto” ad un “gregge” silente. Un “gregge obbediente” che paga le tasse per mantenere l’oligarchia economico-finanziaria ed i suoi “servitori”!!

Ebbene, il Popolo Inglese ha detto NO proprio a tutto ciò. Il Popolo Inglese ha voluto riappropriarsi della propria sovranità e del diritto di poter decidere per se stesso.

Facendo ciò, gli Inglesi non hanno distrutto la possibilità che in futuro ci possa essere una “nuova” Europa. Anzi, gli Inglesi hanno messo proprio le basi per creare un Europa alternativa a questa. Un Europa realmente Democratica e fondata sul Rule of Law.

Facendo ciò, gli Inglesi hanno compiuto il “primo passo” per creare la “furura Europa”. Quell’Europa trasparente, democratica, governata dal principium della Supremacy of Law above the Power, nella quale tutti i Popoli saranno uguali. Un Europa nella quale non ci saranno più Nazioni di serie A, Nazioni di serie B e Nazioni di serie C.

Insomma, un Europa che oggigiorno NON esiste.

Ciò che hanno fatto gli Inglesi è stato il primo atto concreto per dire NO all’attuale Europa oligarchica, anti-democratica, tirannica, fondata sulla supremazia economico-finaziaria.

Un NO che ha salvato tutti gli Europei da questo Mostrum, non solo il Popolo Inglese.

Un GRAZIE al Popolo Inglese che ha avuto il coraggio di dire: NO.

Un GRAZIE a tutti quei cittadini che hanno votato: NO.

Come disse Bernard Show: “I envy you the power to say no” (The doctor’s Dilemma).

Adesso anche gli Italiani dovrebbero seguire l’esempio Inglese.

Anche ai Cittadini Italiani (gli unici titolari della sovranità di questa Nazione, articolo 1 della Costituzione) deve essere dato il “diritto” di scelta con un referendum.

Gli Italiani devono scelgliere:

  • se salvare quell’Italia per la quale sono morti Grandi Uomini (vi ricordo le Guerre d’Indipendenza) ed onorare il loro Sacrificio;
  • oppure  “calpestare” gli ideali di quegli Eroi.

Ma, optando per la seconda ipotesi, gli Italiani tradirebbero e svenderebbero la Loro Eredità per un MISERO E SCHIFOSO PUGNO DI CARTA STRACCIA offerto dall’oligarchia finanziaria.

Farlo sarebbe abbandonare l’Italia ad una “nuova forma” d'”occupazione straniera” dalla quale, … Noi …, volemmo essere Liberi!

Uscire da quest’Europa, NON esclude che (in futuro, se esisteranno le condizioni) si possa aderire ad una “nuova” Europa completamente diversa come detto supra.

Ma per poter creare quell’Europa Migliore, Noi tutti dovremmo fare “scelte forti e decise” e saper dire CHIARI NO.

Bisogna saper dire NO, anche se il “gregge” Vi criticherà e/o Vi odierà … per non aver “belato” all’unisono.

Infatti, con i “ni” e con i “so” non si va da nessuna parte, come la Storia ha dimostrato.

Non permettete ai “corsi e ricorsi storici” di Vico di riportare in Italia nuove forme di “occupazione straniera”!

Per chi vuole leggere i lavori citati supra nel Post, qui infra riporto i links:

Epis L., The Meaning of Rule of Law. Link:The Meaning of Rule of Law – Book

Epis L. Alcune criticità inerenti l’azione di rettifica (D.P.R. n. 131 del 26/4/1986, artt. 51 e 52) ed il “valore venale” del bene. Link: http://www.lukae.it/?p=142

Per un resumè dei contentenuti scritti in The Meanig of Rule of Law rilvanti per questo Post potete vedere il Post: Rule of Law, Ancien Regime & European Uninion. It is a presentation of Epis’ work about: The Meaning of Rule of Law. Link: http://www.lukae.it/?p=1136

Rule of Law, Ancien Regime & European Union

This Post is a brief presentation of Epis’ book:The Meaning of Rule of Law.

This book reports studies that the writer did at the University of Cambridge in 2005/2006.

Nevertheless, this Post is useful for an understanting of: “what” the Principium of Rule of Law is; and “why” I affirmed that the European Union acted sometimes in violation of the principium of Rule of Law, looking a “new form” of Ancien Regime.

Even though the writer believes that:
1) a corpus of legal values should be written inside each Constitution;
2) and Judges, Lawyers and People, have the duty to defend those values against the tendency of the Power to go beyond them; …
… the study affirms that:
1) on one hand, the principium of Rule of Law (and/or Supremacy of Law) does not include a corpus of legal principles (and/or values) inside itself, as somebody affirmed;
2) on the other hand, the principium of Supremacy of Law means a more important legal value: the SUPREMACY of LAW ABOVE the POWER.

It was a Revolution, when Power believed to be above the Law.

It happened, exempli gratia, in France during the Ancien Regime.

Sovereigns, Nobles and whoever had some kind of Power, believed to be above the Law. They were used to act above Law.

Viola P. (1994) gave an example of this. He reported an anecdote happened between the Duke of Orleans and the King of France. When the Duke of Orleans said to the King: “Majesty, but it is illegal!”, the king answered: “No, It is legal because I will”.

The principium of Supremacy of the Law had the aim to end these kinds of Legal Systems. It states that everyone is under the Law.

Sovereigns, Nobles, Bureaucrats, Banks and Financial Powers, are all under the Law.

In other words, they have to comply with the Law. If they do not, they are an Arbitrary Power.

The latter is a Power that: either, it is not given by a Law; or, it is used without following the right procedures, which bind the exercise of that power.

As Power tends to go beyond its limitations, there is Arbitrary Power also inside our modern Legal Systems.

The principium of Supremacy of Law, hence, is still frequently violated. It is proved by some recent events happened inside the European Union and Institutions.

For example, when the President of Euro-group decided to exclude Greece, Varoufakis told him to be illegal (as the Duke of Orleans told to the King of France during the Ancien Regime). So, Varoufakis asked for a legal advice.

The lawyers and bureaucrats of the European Union answered him that the President of Euro-group could act as he/she wants! This is as the Euro-group does not exist for the Law!!

Hence, they argued: the Euro-group is above the Law!!!!!

In other words, the European Union answered like the King of France during the Ancien Regime.

But, if the Euro-group does not exist, the Euro-group is not above the Law.

Actually, all the Powers, Decisions and Acts, of the Euro-group are illegal, unlawful, illegitimate. This is told by the principium of Supremacy of Law.

On the contrary, the European Union is a New Ancien Regime. Nothing more! Nothing less!

So, how is it possible that the principium of Supremacy of Law is still violated, nowadays?

This is as the principium of Supremacy of Law was reduced by Power to be a simulacre a là Bauderillard (1981).

Power makes people forget its true meaning. It was done with a very easy game. A new set of meanings were put inside Supremacy of Law. All of them were pleasant, agreeable and fashionable, principles. But, they were also void principles as much as they were pleasant. At the end, people have forgotten the real meaning of Supremacy of Law.

Power started again to act above the Law a là Ancien Regime!!

Epis L., The Meaning of Rule of Law. Link to the e-book: The Meaning of Rule of Law – Book

NIETZSCHE ON RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY – PART III (Democracy)

NIETZSCHE AND DEMOCRACY

Epistemology and Morality versus Politics: from the creation of the Superman to the realization of Utopia   

I agree with Thomas Mann (1948). Nietzsche is “remote from politics”[1].

Nevertheless, the demand to investigate the “political philosophy” of Nietzsche springs out from the different attempts (which have been done from time to time) to use his “innocently spiritual” Thought (Thomas Mann, 1948) to support anti-democratic Regime.

Although Schutte (1984) and Detwiler (1990) argue that the Nietzsche’s Thought can justify “highly authoritarian systems of government”, Nietzsche is against any anti-democratic Regime. This is clear, as I wrote supra (above). Nietzsche defends and supports the Individual Freedom. His philosophy is ontological incompatible with any totalitarian Regime. Individual Freedom and authoritarian Regimes cannot co-exist together.

Indeed, according to Montinari (1975): “all’interno di una … democrazia … non puo’ mancare una “dimensione Nietzsche”, la dimensione … della liberta’ di spirito che nasce dalla carica critica, razionale e liberatrice del suo pensiero e che non si stanca mai di rimettere tutto in questione[2].

Nietzsche’s Thought was corrupted by Elisabeth Nietzsche Foster (his sister). She made Nietzsche’s Thought be compatible with the German political ideology of Nazism (Montinari, 1975; Wicks, 2004)[3].

But, Nietzsche’s Philosophy was clearly anti-Nazism.

The anti-Nazism of Nietzsche is self-evident from:

  1. his anti-racism;
  2. his idea that “the concept of “pure blood” is the opposite of a harmless concept”;
  3. his anti-anti-Semitism (Duffy M. F. and Mittelman W., 1988);
  4. the idea of man like a free thinker;
  5. his ideas about idols;
  6. etc… .

On the contrary, Hunt (1991) argues that the Nietzsche’s Thought can be interpreted in any possible way, due its ambiguity. So, Nietzsche can appear: anarchist; totalitarian; liberal; etc…; … as Nietzsche expressed himself like a Sphinx (Blondel, 1991).  But, Nietzsche does “not hold any of the standard political ideologies” (Hunt, 1991). So, it is meaningless an account such as that one of Ansell-Pearson (1994). The latter attempted: before, proving that “Nietzsche is liberal individualist”; then, explaining “on which he departs from liberalism”!!

This sketch indicates how much Nietzsche’s work was strongly misunderstood.

Paradoxically, Nietzsche predicted this outcome.

“But it would be a complete contradiction of myself if expected ears and hands for my truth already today: that I am not heard today, that no one today knows how to take from me, is not only comprehensible; it even seems to be right” (Ecce Homo, Why I write good book, I).

For these reasons, I agree with Warren (1985) when he says: “… that the Nietzsche’ s thought has entered the cannon of political philosophy in an unsatisfactory manner, and that the relation of Nietzsche and political philosophy needs to be reconceived”. Nevertheless, I do not agree with Warren (1985) on the “strategy for doing” this re-evaluation. Instead of starting from the centrality of the philosophy of power and human agency, I suggest to follow the exegetic criteria, which Nietzsche gave us in Ecce Homo: “Listen to me! For I am thus and thus. For not, above all, confound me with what I am not!!” (Ecce Homo, Prologue).

The mistake to use the concept of Will to Power comes from a “literal application” of this expression without understanding what it means.

Will to Power does not refer to individuals. It refers to the World itself.

As individuals are parts of the World, they participate to Will to Power.

This world is the will to power — and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides! (Nietzsche, Will to Power, 1067).

Will to power is the Dynamical Force that makes World / Existence be.  It looks like the concept of Spirit that is used inside the Hermeneutic Philosophy (Gadamer, Heidegger, Betti, etc…). Indeed, according to Davey (1991): “… there is a substantial hermeneutic foundation to his thinking which has, astoundingly, been neglected”.

The present writer affirms that the political thought of Nietzsche should be extracted by his moral and epistemological philosophy. The political philosophy of Nietzsche is an indirect consequence of his moral and epistemological ideas.

The difficulty to understand Nietzsche comes from the ambiguity of his discourse. His aphorisms look like Buddhist Zen Koans. Nietzsche used ambiguity as, at the end, “no one can extract from things, books included, more than he already knows. What one has no access to through experience one has no ear for” (Ecce Homo, Why I write good book, I). So, long explanations are useless!!

“Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. The latter perhaps wounds his vanity; but the former wounds his heart, his sympathy, which always says: “Ah, why would you also have as hard a time of it as I have?”” (Beyond the Good and Evil, 290).

The political idea of Nietzsche is to create a Utopian Society that is composed by free Individuals. As Individuals must be the opposite of lemmings, the Utopian Society has to be the opposite of a flock of sheep.

Nietzsche expressed his anti-authoritarian view, exempli gratia, in On the New Idol (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, I). The State is described to be an Idol that imposes its Moral Ideal a là Simmonds onto its servants. So, between the Power of the State (Leviathan) and the Simmonds’ Moral Ideal (the Cultural Paradigm that is imposed by the State) there is a strong bond. This is clear from the Nietzsche’s works, even if his Cultural Aspects and Implications have usually been underestimated (Blondel, 1991).

Although some authors have attempted to restrict the interpretation of On the New Idol to some particular types of forms of Government (Sokel, 1983; Strong, 1976), these interpretations “have nothing to do with the text of On a New Idol” (Hunt, 1991)[4].

On the New Idol refers to every State that has not transmuted itself from the flock of Sheep to the Utopian Society.  Indeed, sheep/lemmings have always homologated themselves to something that was given to them. On the contrary, a group of free individuals is made by free spirits. This is clear from the literature that has influenced Nietzsche’s work. Exempli gratia, Holderlin (1822; 1994) was one of his preferred writers (Blondel, 1991)[5].

Nietzsche does not want a society of imitators (lemmings).

Imitators. – A: “What? You want no imitators?” B: “I do not want people to imitate me; I want everyone to set his own example, which is what I do”. A: “Thus –?” (Gay Science, 255)

Nietzsche does not want believers. Believers are servants of idols.

All the conflicts and wickedest things have been the consequence of believers’ determinations. They want to impose their own Moral Ideal (a là Simmonds) onto any other one. The Christian Church gave an example of this with its Holy Inquisition. To save the soul of people from the fire of the Inferno and Satan, Inquisitors created the Hell on the Earth.  Like real devils, they enjoyed: to torture and to burn people; to commit any atrocity. They were servants of Satan; they were not ministers of God at all. They betrayed God. They killed Him and His Teaching!!

Nowadays, this is done with the New Profane Inquisition. Psychopathology is used and misused to reload the Hell on the Earth (Epis L., 2011/2015). Its constructs, standard deviations and demand of Homologation, are the new Idols “… in the name of …” new and old forms of abuse, torture and violence, can be done.

The only way to exist from this foolishness is to create Utopia.

The only way to create Utopia is to transmute the Human Being from man to superman.

This is possible only proceeding with the three passages described by Nietzsche: Camel; Lion; Child. Nietzsche’s philosophy has several Alchemical Elements. Indeed, these three passages are a new metaphor for the three Alchemical Stages: Nigredo (the Black Stage Alchemicae Operae); Albedo (the White Stage Alchemicae Operae); Rubedo (the Red Stage Alchemicae Operae). But, I do not know about These Enigmatic Things! So, I cannot tell you about Them. Yet, you may read other writers such as: Zosimus Alchemista (Zosimos of  Pannopolis); Maria Prophetissima (Mary the Prophetess; Mary the Jewess); Stephanus Alexandrinus (Stephanos of Alexandria; Stephen of Alexandria); Pseudo-Democritus; Gabir Ibn Hayyan; Senior Zadith; Paolo di Taranto; Basilius Valentinus (Johann Tholde); …; Julius Evola (1931); … and/or someone else, who knows about Them.

The superman is what I descried in the first chapter. So, I will not long more on this topic. Yet, I want to tell something about the view of Thiele.

I disagree with the “heroic individualism” presented by Thiele (1990).

“The Hero has the fate of Tantalus, whose reach is insufficient and whose efforts unending. For the fruit of his struggle is unattainable: he is a mortal who seeks immortality, a man who desires to be a god. But as he reaches for what he cannot grasp, he also grows in power, and therefore welcomes the temptation to overstep his limits. Unaware or contemptuous of the boundaries of human life, the hero is forever in state of transgression. He is hubristic, and he both suffers and glories in his struggles to be more than he is fated to be”.

Thiele (1990) has completely misinterpreted the concept of hero of Nietzsche. On the contrary, Thiele (1990) described the ideal of the romantic hero, exempli gratia, that one, which was used by Byron (1841) in his Childe Harold’s pilgrimage.

The superman is a different kind of hero.

He:

  1. overcomes his old nature of follower;
  2. transcends duality and the antinomy between egoistic and un-egoistic[6], reaching the Unity[7];
  3. goes “beyond the Good and Evil” to obtain the condition describe by Alexander Pope in An Essay an Man: “Self-love and Social are the same”.

Nietzsche does not desire to be god. Nietzsche does not want to create a new idol. He wants to be a Child[8] (Thus Spake Zarathustra, I, I) as I explained supra (above).

“…“Dead are all the gods: now do we desire the Superman to live” – let this be our final will at the great noontide!” (Thus Spake Zarathustra, XX, III).

The Child is a creator of his own values. The Child has awareness. The Child reaches the Unity that has been described by Alexander Pope with his masterpiece: An Essay on Man.

“Nothing is foreign: Parts relate to whole:

One all-extending all-preserving Soul;

Connects each being, greatest with the least;

Made Beasts in aid of Man, and Man of Beast;

All serv’d, all serving! Nothing stands alone;

The chain holds on, and where it ends, unknown”.

Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man.

Nietzsche expressed this interdipende (exempli gratia) with these words: “Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shiniest!” (Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue).

The aim of superman is: to find himself … “…find yourself…” (Thus Spake Zarathustra); to be free from any others … “… become what you are” (Thus Spake Zarathustra). It is not to dominate the other persons, but to allow them to be also free.

The aim of superman is to be genuine: “Are you genuine? Or just a play-actor? A representative? Or the actual thing represented? – Ultimately you are even just an imitation play-actor …” (Twilight of the Idols, Maxims and Barbs, XXXVIII).

The aim of superman is to go beyond the duality good and evil: “Good and evil are the prejudice of God” (Gay Science, 259).

For all these reasons, I disagree with Thiele (1990).

“To say it again, little of “ill will” can be shown in my life; neither would I be able to speak of barely a single case of “literally ill will”. On the other hand all too much of pure folly!” (Ecce Homo, Why I write good books, I).

This pure folly is: the pure folly of creating a better human being; the pure folly to create a Utopian Society.

A Society where the Human Being has transmuted: “All … passions in … virtues, and all … devils (in) angels” (Thus Spake Zarathustra, I, V). A Society where “the noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not – scarcely – out of pity, but rather than from an impulse generated by superabundance of power” (Beyond Good and Evil, 260).

A New Hope: from a flock of sheep to a “group” of Free Individuals

The individuals, who are able to pass through the three stages (Camel; Lion; Child), arrive to transmute themselves from men to super-men.

This means two things. On one hand, they transmute themselves. On the other hand, they transmute the Society whose they are members. As they are not any more lemmings, Society is not any more a flock of sheep.Society transmutes itself from a flock of sheep to a group of free Individuals, who are able to co-exist and to collaborate in their own (very strong) differences. So, a true Democracy will begin.

As I wrote supra (above), no democracy (at all) can exist among flocks of sheep. Since they are enslaved by homologation, only Tyranny exists.

It does not matter the form and/or the name that has been given to this tyranny. It does not matter the reason “… in the name of …” Homologation is demanded.

Flocks of sheep are always dominated by a Totalitarian Regime. They ask for homologation. They ask for idols. They are not able to live in a different way.

On the contrary, Utopia is made by Free Individuals.

So, you have to choose: do you want to be a lemming/sheep or a Free Individual?

Do you want to stay in a flock of sheep or to create Utopia?

Only you, by yourself, can decide. Only you, by yourself, can free yourself. No God, No Bodhisattwa, No other one else, can help you in this.

It is Time for a New Hope. It is Time for a New Era / Epoch.

It is Time for who is ready.

[1] Thomas Mann (1947), Nietzsche’s Philosophy in the Light of Contemporary Events, Washington: Library of Congress

[2] “ Inside a Democracy … a “Nietzsche’s dimension” cannot miss. It is the dimension of the “freedom of Spirit” that comes from the critical, rational and liberating, power of his thought, which re-put everything under re-examination without getting tired”.

[3] Elisabeth Nietzsche Foster and her husband Bernhard Foster were both Nazis. They lived in Paraguay. When, they came in Germany to take care Friedrich Nietzsche, Elisabeth used the philosophy of her brother to elevate her position in the Nazis Society. In Paraguay, Elisabeth and her husband worked actively “to establish an Arian, anti-Semitic German Colony called” Nueva Germania (Wicks R. 2004). This is how the Nietzsche’s Thought was made compatible with the nationalism of Hitler and Mussolini (Wicks R. 2004).

[4] Sokel (1983) restricts the application of on the New Idol only to “ossified bureaucratised State”; whereas Strong (1976), only to “nationalistic States”.

[5] Holderlin (1822; 1994) in the Hyperion wrote: “… The person who wants the State to be a school for morality has no idea how much he is sinning. None the less, wanting the State to be his heaven, man has created a hell. The State is a rough walnut shell covering life, nothing more. It is the wall of the garden in which men grow flowers and fruits. But what use is the garden wall if the soil is dry?”.

These ideas are present in the On the New Idol of Nietzsche.

[6] “The propositions over which everybody is in fundamental agreement – not to speak of everybody’s philosophers, the moralists and other hollow-heads and cabbage-heads – appear with me as naïve blunders: for example that belief that “un-egoistic” and “egoistic” are antithesis, while the ego itself is merely a “higher swindle”, an “ideal”. There are neither egoistic nor un-egoistic actions: both concepts are psychologically nonsense!” (Ecce Homo, Why I write good books, V).

“What makes one heroic? – To approach at the same time one’s highest suffering and one’s highest hope” (The Gay Science, 268).

[7] The concept of unity is so clear, so evident, obvious, in his writing: “An “idea” – the antithesis Dionysian and Apollonian – translated into metaphysic; history itself as the evolution of this “idea”; in tragedy this antithesis elevate to unity; from this perspective things which had never before caught sight of one another suddenly confronted with one another, illuminated by one another and comprehended…” (Ecce Homo, The birth of Tragedy, I).

[8] “Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit become a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion a child”

“But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?

Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.

Aye, for the game of creating, my brethen, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world winneth the world’ outcast” …

Rule of Law and English Legal System (PART I: Abstract; Introduction; Rule of Law like Universal Principle)

Blogger’s Communication:

Rule of Law and English Legal System has been published like book in PDF with Index, Bibliography, etc … . I strongly recommend reading it: both, in PDF; and, in its whole unity. You will be able to find it in the Blog’s Page: Law & Criminology (Diritto & Criminologia).

ABSTRACT

Although few changes and additions have been done, this writing reports studies made in 2005/2006.

Even though the writer believes that:

1)       a corpus of legal values should be written inside each Constitution;

2)       and Judges, Lawyers and People, have the duty to defend those values against the tendency of Power to go beyond them; …

… the study affirms that the principium of Rule of Law (and/or Supremacy of Law) does not include a corpus of legal principles (and/or values) inside itself, as somebody affirmed.

The principium of Supremacy of Law means “only”: the SUPREMACY of LAW ABOVE the POWER.

It was a Revolution, when Power believed to be above the Law. It happened, exempli gratia, in France during the Ancient Regime. Sovereigns, Nobles and whoever had some kind of Power, believed to be above the Law. They were used to act above Law. Viola P. (1994) gave an example of this. He reported an anecdote happened between the Duke of Orleans and the King of France. When the Duke of Orleans said to the King: “Majesty, but it is illegal!”, the king answered: “No, It is legal because I will”.

The principium of Supremacy of the Law had the aim to end these kinds of Legal Systems. It states that everyone is under the Law. Sovereigns, Nobles, Bureaucrats, Banks and Financial Powers, are all under the Law. In other words, they have to comply with the Law. If they do not, they are an Arbitrary Power. The latter is a Power that: either, it is not given by a Law; or, it is used without following the right procedures, which bind the exercise of that power. As Power tends to go beyond its limitations, there is Arbitrary Power also inside our modern Legal Systems. The principium of Supremacy of Law, hence, is still frequently violated. It is proved by some recent events happened inside the European Union and Institutions. For example, when the President of Euro-group decided to exclude Greece, Varoufakis told him to be illegal (as the Duke of Orleans told to the King of France during the Ancient Regime). So, Varoufakis asked for a legal advice. The lawyers and bureaucrats of the European Union answered him that the President of Euro-group could act as he/she wants. This is as the Euro-group does not exist for the Law!! Hence, they argued: the Euro-group is above the Law!!!!! In other words, the European Union answered like the King of France during the Ancient Regime. But, if the Euro-group does not exist, the Euro-group is not above the Law. Actually, all the Powers, Decisions and Acts, of the Euro-group are illegal, unlawful, illegitimate. This is told by the principium of Supremacy of Law. On the contrary, the European Union is a New Ancient Regime. Nothing more! Nothing less!

So, how is it possible that the principium of Supremacy of Law is still violated, nowadays?

This is as the principium of Supremacy of Law was reduced by Power to be a simulacre a là Bauderillard (1981).  Power makes people forget its true meaning. It was done with a very easy game. A new set of meanings were put inside Supremacy of Law. All of them were pleasant, agreeable and fashionable, principles. But, they were also void principles as much as they were pleasant. At the end, people have forgotten the real meaning of Supremacy of Law. Power started again to act above the Law a là Ancient Regime!!

Warning: the style is sometimes ironical, satirical, metaphorical. Nevertheless, contents and facts are real, rigorous, scientific and academic.

INTRODUCTION

Rule of Law’s True Meaning

The principle of Rule of Law is also called Supremacy of the Law. Rule of Law is a principle of Formal Validity. It states that Law is above the Power. In other words, it is the basic principle of any modern Legal System, after the French Ancient Regime!

The Supremacy of Law affirms that Kings (Presidents; Governments; Constitutional Bodies; Judges; Courts; Authorities; Committees; Groups; Bureaucrats; Financial Powers; Banks; etc…) are under the Law. Their actions and decisions are legitimate only, and only if: both, the Law gives them that kind of power; and, they use that power following the right procedures.

Otherwise, Power is unlawful, illicit and illegitimate.

Their commands should not be in force.

In this latter case, people are NOT bind by Power’s decisions. People have the RIGHT to resist and to fight against those illegalities, illegitimacies and unlawfulness. 

Unfortunately, Power does NOT like to be bound. As a result, the principium of Supremacy of Law was reduced to be a simulacre a là Bauderillard (1981).

First of all, Supremacy of Law was called with a “less evocative” name: Rule of Law.

Then, Rule of Law was defined with new pleasant and agreeable principles. At the question: “what is the Rule of Law?”, lawyers started to give any possible answer. So, the clear, basic and simple, principium of Supremacy of Law became a void and nebulous concept.

At the end, People and lawyers started to forget its real meaning.

Meanwhile, Power started again to act above the Law.

For instance, the writer will give some examples that happened at the University of Cambridge. They are very useful to understand what it is happening nowadays. What people learn in the Universities, people do in the World!! Although the writer decided to speak about it with a satirical and ironical style, the facts are true.

Rule of Law like Simulacre

As we told supra[1], the principle of Rule of Law is the principium of Supremacy of Law above the Power. This is its very Nature. This is its DEEP REALITY.

However, images, in the flow of the time, tend to lose their meanings. Step by step, they become void concepts that: either, mask their deep realities; or, lose any relation with them.

According to Bauderillard J. (1981), they become Simulacres. Once they are Simulacres, they are void concepts that can be filled with any arbitrary meaning, which Power[2] wants. In this way, Justice is reduced to be nothing more than “the interest of the most Powerful onea là Trasimacus.

They are a “mobile army of metaphors” ready to prostituting itself to any pro tempore Power. As History and Social Sciences teach, the Winners and the Establishment (Lyotard, 1983) decide what it is true and false. This is as Power and Knowledge are the “two faces of the same coin” (Foucault). Changes into Power’s relations become changes into Paradigm’s beliefs. Changes into Paradigm’s beliefs become changes into Power’s relations.

Thus, we should keep in mind this basic truth, when we study any Social Sciences’ constructs. Actually, it does not matter if they are about: Law; Psychology; Economy; Finance; etc… .

Law and Sensemaking

As the principium of Supremacy of Law was reduced to be a simulacre, Power can use it like a Horse of Troy to put in and put out from the Legal System whatever it wants.

This makes Law be applied in a very discriminative way. Law will have different meanings for different people.  For the majority of people, Law will be an instrument of “slavery” in Power’s hands. For a small elitist group, Law will be always a Declaration of Rights in defense of their own liberties and interests.

English Legal History, behind what propaganda says, it is not an exception. Whereas at Bentham’s time, the common law was used to defend the privilege of aristocracy above common people; nowadays, Law is used to defends the interests of financial powers above Peoples and Nations.

Thus, the writings of Bentham should be still considered a current issue.

According to the Bentham, English tradition is committed to “save the appearance” with a lot of rites and false beliefs. Lawyers’ writings, instead of reviling those trickeries, mask them[3].

Whereas English Lawyers / Judges claim to apply simply “neutral” Law (Universal Principles; Acts of the Parliament; etc…), they make always arbitrary (discretional and political) choices. They use their power to defend the privilege of the Establishment against common people.

The American Realism clarified that Judges do NOT apply neutrally the Law. Judges create and change the Law in each case. They do (always) political choices. Also Perelman demonstrated this. He gave some good historical examples of how, the same Law got very different interpretations and applications. The latters followed the pro tempore political ideas. This is possible for different reasons. But, an army of Troy’s Horses makes it far much easier.

The allegories of the Classical Literature are still very useful for understanding the present time. A Horse of Troy does not need to be necessary physical!! It could be everything, even a theoretical concept.

Thanks to them, the Establishment can use Law (as well as: Psychology; Economics; etc…) to lead people: both, to do; and, to believe; … what they want. Weick’s studies about sensemaking and enactment are very useful for understanding these dynamics. They should not be limited for approaching the working contexts inside the Companies.

All in all

There are two wrong views. The first one, nothing can be known (Post-modernism). The second one, everything is true. Both of them reduce Truth and Justice to be whatever Power wants. They allow Power to control people with sensemaking. But, sensemaking has nothing to do with Truth and/or Justice. Sensemaking is just Power’s manifestation.

This is what it is happening inside the Social Sciences (Legal System; Psychological constructs; Finance; etc…).

As Nietzsche wrote: “This world is the will to power — and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides!” (Nietzsche, Will to Power).

RULE OF LAW

Rule of Law “is an ambiguous expression” that can have different meanings for different writers (Hood Phillips O. and Jackson P., 1987).

Hence, a clarification of the concept (advised by analytical jurisprudence and philosophy) is indispensable, at the present tense.

In absence, we could just enhance entropy. Everyone will speak about different things, using same words.

At the present time, there is no agreement among lawyers about the nature of Rule of Law. Lawyers, Judges and Academics, defined Rule of Law differently. Moreover, Rule of Law presents different conceptualizations: both, among the legal Traditions and Systems; and, inside the each legal Tradition and System (such as: English Common Law; Canadian Legal System[4]; etc…).

For instance, according to American constitutionalism: “the rule of law promises predictability in social life by placing constitutional limits on the kinds of power that governments may legitimately exercise, as well as on the extent of those governmental powers” (Shapiro I., 1994). Otherwise, this cannot be true for Countries such as: Australia. Australian Constitution simply regulates the exercise of the sovereignty. It does not state any legal principle and/or value able to lead and to bind the Power. Hence, Rule of Law is a mere principle of formal validity (like Hart’s rules of recognition) for those Nations with an “amoral constitution”. Everything is valid, if the Power acted under the Law.

American conceptualization of Rule of Law has its foundation in a written constitution. This is ontologically constituted by two corpora (parts). The first corpus gathers the regulations about the exercise of sovereignty (exempli gratia, the relation among the Constitutional Bodies). The second corpus gathers a set of political and legal principles that bind the actions of Sovereignty. This latter was the hard core of the Social Contract. So, if the Sovereignty acts against those values, each Judge can refuse to apply those Acts and/or commands.

Law rules Nations only, and only if, each person (it does not matter his/her social strata) can “win” the Sovereignty each time the Sovereignty acts above the Law. But, this must happen in a substantial way. It is not enough that it exists only theoretically speaking.

Rule of Law has also another aim: to prevent any kind of despotism, also that one of the pro tempore Majority above the Minorities. But, this could happen only, and only if, Nations are ruled by constitutional principles (Schwartz B. 1955).

Allan (1993) considered this point inside English Discourse. He recognized that “… the problem lies (in) the difficulty of articulating a coherent doctrine which resists a purely formal conception of legality – according to which even brutal decrees of a dictator, if formally “valid”, meet the requirements of the rule of law – without instead propounding a complete political and social philosophy”. Allan (1993) confirmed that Rule of Law, inside English constitutionalism, looked like a secondary rule of Hart, as: “rule of law is able to distinguish between commands of a legitimate government from those of anyone else”.

Allan (1993) stated that it is “very doubtful whether it is possible to formulate a theory of rule of law of universal validity”.

On the contrary, the present writer affirms that it is possible. It is enough to exit from the Babel Tower. It is enough to go back to the original and real meaning of Rule of Law: Supremacy of Law above the Power.

Nevertheless, Allan (1993) affirmed that Rule of Law is a living part of the English Constitution. It is able: both, to bear some legal moral values and principles; and, to bind the sovereignty of the parliament. But, Allan is hugely wrong. According to English Constitutionalism, Westminster Parliament has no limit (Barendt,1998). In other words, “there is no legal limit to what the “Queen – in – Parliament” can enact in a statute” (Wilson, 1979).

This is historically well proved.

Rule of Law like Universal Principle of any Legal System

The present writer disagrees with Allan. He believes that it is possible to formulate a theory of Rule of Law of Universal Validity. It is enough to remember its original and deep meaning. Rule of Law is the principium of Supremacy of Law. This principium states the SUPREMACY of LAW ABOVE the POWER.

It was a Revolution when Power believed to be above Law. It happened, exempli gratia, in France during the Ancient Regime. Sovereigns, Nobles and whoever had some kind of Power, believed to be above Law. They were used to act above Law. Viola P. (1994) gave an example of this. He reported an anecdote happened between the Duke of Orleans and the King of France. When the Duke of Orleans said to the King: “Majesty, but it is illegal!”, the king answered: “No, It is legal because I will”.

The principium of Supremacy of the Law had the aim to end these kinds of Legal Systems. It states that everyone is under the Law. Sovereigns, Nobles, Judges, Courts, Bureaucrats, Officers, Banks and Financial Powers, are all under the Law. In other word, they have to comply with the Law. If they do not, they are an Arbitrary Power. The latter is a Power that: either, it is not given by a Law; or, it is used without following the right procedures, which bind the exercise of that power. As Power tends to go beyond its limitations, there is Arbitrary Power also inside our modern Legal Systems. The principium of Supremacy of Law, hence, is still frequently violated. It is proved by some recent events happened inside the European Union and Institutions. For example, when the President of Euro-group decided to exclude Greece, Varoufakis told him to be illegal (as the Duke of Orleans told to the King of France during the Ancient Regime). So, Varoufakis asked for a legal advice. The lawyers and bureaucrats of the European Union answered him that the President of Euro-group could act as he/she wants. This is as the Euro-group does not exist for the Law!! Hence, they argued the Euro-group is above the Law!!!!! In other words, the European Union answered like the King of France during the Ancient Regime. But, if the Euro-group does not exist, it does not mean that it is above the Law!! Actually, it means that all the Powers, Decisions and Acts, of the Euro-group are illegal, unlawful, illegitimate. This is told by the principium of Supremacy of Law. On the contrary, the European Union is a New Ancient Regime. Nothing more! Nothing less!

So, how is it possible that the principium of Supremacy of Law is still violated, nowadays?

This is as the principium of Supremacy of Law was reduced by Power to be a simulacre a là Bauderillard (1981).  Power makes people forget its true meaning. It was done with a very easy game. A new set of meanings were put inside Supremacy of Law. All of them were pleasant, agreeable and fashionable, principles. But, they were also void principles as much as they were pleasant. At the end, we have arrived to the present time. Lawyers are lost inside nebulous concepts. Power has started again to act a là Ancient Regime.

English constitutionalism is used like example for understanding how it has happened.

[1] Supra means above in Latin.

[2] Power is used a là Foucault.

[3] Exempli gratia, Bentham wrote this about Blackstone’s books (one of his “masters”).

[4] Exempli gratia, Rule of Law has received three different approaches in Canadian Constitutionalism: rule of law like impartial administration of rule; rule of law like procedural fairness; rule of law like substantive justice (Conklin W. E. 1989).

Rule of Law and English Legal System (PART II: Dicey; Adler)

RULE OF LAW AND ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM

According to: Dicey (1902); Heuston (1964); the Report of the Committee on Ministers’ Powers (1932); … the Principium of the Supremacy of Law born in the Middle Ages. Then, it was challenged and questioned only during the Stuart time. Some evidences, which are usually used, are:

  1. according to M. Allen et al. (1994), the Bracton principle: “quod Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et Lege” quoted by the King in the Prohibitions del Roy (1607);
  2. the Petition of Right (1628);
  3. the abolition of the: Court of the Star Chamber; and Privy Council’s jurisdiction in England (1641);
  4. the Glorious Revolution (1688);
  5. the Dicey’s Doctrine on Rule of Law (1885);
  6. and, the Report of the Committee on Ministers’ Powers (1932).

The work of Dicey has strongly been influential. Indeed, Dicey represents the final highest peak of the conceptualization of Rule of Law.

On the contrary, the Report of the Committee on Ministers’ Powers (1932) is an “Official Recognition”. The Report states: “The supremacy or rule of law of the Land is a recognised principle of the English Constitution”. According to the Report, it has always been a living part of English Law since the Middle Age.

Although Rule of Law have been recognized a characteristic of English Politics and Legal System since the Norman Conquest (Dicey, 1902)[1], Role of Law has always been a nebulous concept, at the end.

On one hand, everybody agrees that Rule of Law has been a fundamental principle of English Legal System. On the other hand, nobody knows what Rule of Law means!! Actually, it should be a very useful principle!!

Hence, our first Quest is to answer at the question: “What does Rule of Law mean?”

For answering at the question, the Dicey’s work should be examined.

DICEY  

Dicey (1902) affirmed Role of Law to include three different principia:

  1. The Absolute Supremacy of the Regular Law as opposed to Arbitrary Power;
  2. The Equality of every man in front of the Law. This principle includes two aspects: a) everyone has to obey to the Law; b) everyone is subordinated at ordinary tribunals’ jurisdiction;
  3. The belief that: “the law of the constitution … are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals, as defined and enforced by courts”.

Whereas these three principia seem “reasonable” at a first consideration, they hide plenty of trickeries and practical problems. The latters make them be: void concepts. At the end, they drop to be political slogan, propaganda and marketing! Nothing more! Nothing less! Indeed, they have been used in very different manners as History proved.

First Principle

According to Dicey, the first principle affirms: “… no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of land. In this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint”.

This principle seems to be affirmed by Courts in different times. For instance, in Black – Clawson LTD v. Papierwerke waldhof aschaffenburg AC (1975), Diplock stated: “The acceptance of rule of law as a constitutional principle requires that a citizen, before committing himself to any course of action, should be able to know in advance what are the legal consequences that will flow from it”[2].

Although this principle appears to be plain in the English constitutionalism, it is not as plain as it can appear. Indeed, it is not possible to define clear boundaries between an arbitrary use of power and “what” it is not!

Although Dicey (1902) stated this principle to be able to limit the arbitrary power, Heuston (1964) gave contrary evidences. Heuston (1964) wrote that it is “difficult to distinguish between regular law and arbitrary power”. For instance, Law can give arbitrary power to someone. In this case, the two dimensions overlap!! Heuston (1964) presented two historical leading cases. The first one happened in 1627. The Court of King’s Bench, in Darnel’s Case, granted the King of a common law legal power to imprison anyone on suspicion without cause shown!! The second one happened in 1941. The House of Lords, in Liversidge v. Anderson, recognized the legitimacy of statutory legal power (similar to the previous) granted by the Parliament to the Home Secretary!!

As a result, Heuston (1964) affirmed that the supremacy of law simply requires that everyone (in any position) “must be prepared to justify his acts by reference to some statutory or common law power which authorises him to act precisely in the way in which he claims he can act”. Therefore, Rule of Law does NOT limit any arbitrary power[3].  It means only that power should be given by Law. Nevertheless, even this is not so plain[4]!! As I told supra (above), a nebulous concept allows to be applied in very different manners from case to case. At the end, a “different” Legal System exists for everyone! But, this is nothing, really nothing, if You compare: Law; with Psychology. Whereas the former is still bound by facts, the latter is just pure fantasy of the Psychologists!! Nowadays, the huge abuses are done, indeed, with Psychology.

On the contrary, Dicey affirmed that supremacy of law “excludes the existence even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government”. But, English Legal History proved this to be untrue!!

According to Jennings (1943), Dicey’s ideas derived from the doctrine of laissez – faire. In other words, Dicey described his political choices rather than empirical facts about English Constitution. Jennings (1943) observed that Dicey neglected completely: both, the existing wide Discretional Powers of the Public Authorities and Government; and, the Unlimited Power of the Parliament.

“Parliament … can pass what legislation it pleases. It is not limited by any written constitution. Its powers are not only wide, but unlimited.” (Jennings I., 1943).

 Sovereignty of the Parliament Versus Rule of Law

The principium of Sovereignty of the Parliament prevails onto Rule of Law as there are not any substantial principles and/or values able to limit the former. All the attempts, which were made[5], failed.

According to Heuston (1964), the principium of Sovereignty of the Parliament was developed “almost entirely by the work of Oxford men” such as: Hobbes; Blackstone; Dicey. This principium states that: “what the parliament doth, no power on earth can undo” (Dicey, 1902).

Although Wilson (1979) recognized that Rule of Law does not limit the Sovereignty of the Parliament, he attempted to justify some limitations to Executive’s powers. But, Wilson (1979) failed in his attempt. Exempli gratia, the arguments are; contradictory; nebulous; rhetorical games. For instance, Wilson (1979) argued that the “arbitrary power … (of) the Executive is in the hands of the Parliament … If it clearly grants the Executive wide arbitrary power then the Executive has wide arbitrary power. … the principle of rule of law …justifies the principles developed by the courts that powers should only be used for the purpose for which they have been granted”[6].

What does all this mean?

It means simply: Executive should comply with the principle of formal validity; and, Courts can verify if it happened. Nothing more! Nothing less!

This is as English Law lacks a corpus of legal values and moral principles able to bind the arbitrary use of Power.

English Legal System, indeed, is quite different from Italian Legal System. In the latter, the Parliament and the Government have not arbitrary Powers. Their Powers are limited by a corpus of moral values written in the Constitution. The Constitutional Court can annul, invalidate and cancel, all those legal norms that do not comply with those constitutional principles.

In U.S.A., on the contrary, each Judge can deny application to norms (Acts and Statutes) that are in contrast with Constitution[7].

Only in these latters Nations, Rule of Law can limit the arbitrary use of Power. Indeed, Power cannot go beyond some moral limitations written in the constitution. This is as: first, Rule of Law affirms the Supremacy of Law above the Power; second, a constitutional corpus of legal values and principles binds Power.

This is not possible inside English Legal System. Although Role of Law affirms the Supremacy of Law above Power, at the end, there is not any constitutional corpus of legal values and principles able to limit Power!!

Power can be limited only, and only if:

  1. a corpus of moral values is written inside the Constitution (in other words, in the Social Contract);
  2. Courts and Jurists (lawyers) are brave and able enough to defend those values against Power’s tendency to go beyond them;
  3. There is a real division of Powers. Powers should be able to balance and limit each other.

English Legal System lacks all of them, as it is shown infra (below).

Second Principle

According to Dicey (1902), Rule of Law affirms the equality of every man in front of the Law. “Every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals”. In other words, Dicey affirmed: a) the existence of identical rules for everyone; b) the absence of special privileges. Actually, this principle is quite controversial. Alder (1989) affirmed to be a “ridiculous proposition” as Dicey’s statement has always been untrue in every time. The existence of different conditions and special privileges among people has always been part of the Very Nature of Every Government.

Moreover, if we consider the difference between formal equality and substantial equality, Dicey’s idea will be far … far …far more untrue.  The formal equality is a pleasant and agreeable declaration. But, it is void and useless as much as it is agreeable!  The substantial equality is just a Utopia. It has never ever existed in the World[8]. Exempli gratia, the article 3 of Italian Constitution affirms the formal and substantial equality among Italian Citizens. The Republic had the duty to remove any obstacle to this. Well, it is clearly evident that substantial equality does NOT exist even in Italy. So … … .

Nonetheless, Alder (1989) believes even the formal equality difficult to be realized at full circle.

Third Principle

According to Dicey (1902), the third principle is the absence of general principles. It means “… the constitution is pervaded by the rule of law on the ground that the general principles of the constitution (as for example the right to personal liberty, or the right of public meeting) are with us the result of judicial decisions determinating the rights of private persons in particular cases brought before the Courts; whereas under many foreign constitutions the security (such as it is) given to the rights of individuals results, or appears to result, from the general principles of constitution”.

According to Dicey (1902), a corpus of fundamental moral principles does not exist inside English Legal System. They are only “the consequence of the rights of individuals, as defined and enforced by the courts”.

In other words: on one side, he created a vicious circle; on the other side, he did not say anything of useful.

On one hand, indeed, everything is enforced by the Courts is Law. As a result, Courts have to enforce those individual rights defined and enforced by them(selves)!!!! (Vicious circle).

On the other hand, Courts have to enforce any act of the Parliament. In this latter case, the rights of individuals are only “what” the pro tempore Majority of the Parliament chooses they are!! Indeed, “no Parliament can bind its successors or be bound by its predecessors” (A. Beale, 1994).

The Westminster Parliament has no limit (Barendt,1998). “There is no legal limit to what the “Queen – in – Parliament” can enact in a statute” (Wilson, 1979).

All in all

Behind Dicey’s pleasant words, Rule of Law is nothing more than a principle of Formal Validity. English Legal History is clear. Dicey has attempted simply to use Rule of Law like a Horse of Troy to put inside the Legal System his political ideas.

The reason could be noble, but he chose the wrong way.  He made Rule of Law: a nebulous concept; a set of pleasant words that mask the reality. In this way, Role of Law started to be applied in different manners. It makes the Legal System to be applied differently from person to person!!

 

ALDER

John Alder (1989) criticized the Dicey’s doctrine of the Rule of Law. He wrote: “His rule of law could not therefore be regarded as a statement about what British law is necessary like. It could be either a political statement as to what the law should be like, or a statement about what the law happened to be like at the time”.

According to Adler (1989), Rule of Law is a political idea. “The majority of modern lawyers would regard the rule of law as essentially a political or moral idea, although none the less important for that, since it affects the way the law is developed and applied”.

So…, we should give a look at the political ideas of two influential English lawyers: Raz and Allan!

[1] The other English Legal System’s characteristic was: the principle of Supremacy of the “Central Government”.

Until the Glorious Revolution, the Central Government was represented by the Crown.

From the Glorious Revolution to now, the Central Government was represented the Parliament (Loveland I., 1996). This latter is composed by three organs: the Crown; the House of Lords; the House of Commons.

[2] Exempli gratia, you may see Black – Clawson LTD v. Papierwerke waldhof aschaffenburg AC (1975) in: Keir D. L. and Lawson F. H. (1979), Cases in Constitutional Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[3] Exempli gratia, Entick versus Carrington (1765).

Entick sued two king’s messengers (armed with warrant of the Secretary of State for arresting him) for: having trespassed into his house and goods; and, illegitimacy of the warrant. The Secretary of the State was not able to justify the warrant’s legitimacy within any specific law. He argued that those warrants had always been issued and none complained for them!!!!!

Camden C. J. declared: “This power, so claimed by the Secretary of the State, is not supported by one single citation from any law book extant… If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law” (Entick versus Carrington, 1765).

The act of the Secretary of State was “unlawful” as: it did not comply with the principle of Formal Validity.

[4] Exempli gratia, in Malone versus Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1979), Robert Megarry V-C states: “… England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what it is expressly forbidden”. In this case, the tapping of telephone was lawful as “simply … there is nothing to make it unlawful”. In other words, the discretion of power was affirmed above Role of Law. This happened as: no corpora of moral values exist inside English Constitution. Thus, an arbitrary use of Power is not prevented.

The decision was appealed to the European Court of Human Right. The Court affirmed that: UK violated the article 8 of the ECHR (Malone versus United Kingdom, 1984).

[5] Exempli gratia: Dicey (1902); Raz (1977); Allan (1993).

[6] Some of these principles quoted by Wilson (1979) are: “The power should be used for the purpose for which they were given”; “The power should be exercised by the person or body by whom they were intended to be exercised”; “The authority must be free to make a genuine exercise of any discretion which has been given to it”; “The authority in exercising its power should observe any procedures which have been expressly laid down in the statute or which the courts will imply into it”.

[7] The difference is: Italian Constitutional Court eliminates the unconstitutional norm from the Legal System; American Judges (USA) can ONLY deny application to norms (Acts and Statutes) that are unconstitutional for a singular case. But, they continue to exist inside the Legal System.

[8] Nietzsche copes with the difference between substantial and formal equality (Epis L., 2015, Nietzsche on Rule of Law and Democracy).

3 Giugno 2015. L’Università di Genova testimonia la sua Grandezza. Il Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione accoglie la PETIZIONE presentata dagli Studenti!

In risposta alla PETIZIONE, i Presidenti dei Corsi di Laurea hanno preso, prontamente, “in pugno” la situazione.

La Prof.ssa Zanobini, Presidente del Corso di Laurea in Scienze e Tecniche Psicologiche, nominata Presidente della Commissione di Laurea del 3 Giugno, ha subito chiarito d’agire come Garante: del rispetto dei Regolamenti; e della Naturale successione delle fasi dell’esaminazione finale. D’altronde, non poteva essere diversamente. La grande sensibilità posseduta dalla Prof.ssa Zanobini per i diritti e le esigenze degli Studenti era (già) proverbiale. Non a caso, Ella è tra le Docenti più amate (seguite e stimate) del Dipartimento. I suoi corsi sono sempre stati tra i più affollati, grazie: alla sua eccezionale chiarezza espositiva; alla sua travolgente abilità nel coinvolgere i partecipanti. Non solo, leggendaria è anche la sua Umanità. Un’Umanità che (da tempo) l’ha resa uno dei Baluardi posti a difesa dei Diritti dei più Deboli nel Nostro Ateneo. Insomma, una docente che ci rende tutti orgogliosi d’essere sui Discenti.

Grazie, Prof.ssa Zanobini.

Un grazie va anche agli altri Presidenti dei Corsi di Laurea che, in concerto colla Collega, hanno subito mostrato la capacità d’intervenire celermente, e “ferrea intenzione”, nell’impedire il ripetersi di tali phenomena. Phenomena ritenuti essere eventi accidentali, non voluti, accaduti a loro completa insaputa. Un’accidentalità dimostrata dalla pronta risposta.

Un particolare Riconoscimento va al Direttore del Dipartimento (Prof. Amoretti) che, … stupito del fortuito “sbandamento” nel quale “scivolarono” alcuni …, ha deciso d’ergersi a Vigile Presidio. Un’azione di cui, … Noi tutti eravamo certi. Egli è tra gli Accademici maggiormente impegnati nel rendere l’Università di Genova un Centro d’Eccellenza Mondiale. Un Accademico che, come assunto l’incarico di Direttore, ha fatto tutto per incrementare il prestigio del Dipartimento. Un Professore che tutti Noi vorremmo assumere a Modello.

Grazie, Direttore.

Per finire, si ringraziano i Rappresentati degli Studenti che hanno mostrato grande capacità nel portare avanti le istanze dei loro rappresentati.

Un particolare GRAZIE va dato al Sen. Simone Frega, membro del Senato Accademico, che da autentico Giurista ha subito compreso, più d’ogni altro, l’importanza del caso. Le sue competenze, il suo interessamento, l’appoggio “politico” dato, sono stati fondamentali alla difesa dei diritti degli studenti!

Un grazie anche ai Rappresentati degli Studenti del Dipartimento. A quest’ultimi, da “fratello maggiore”, dico: “ragazzi! FateVi sentire più spesso! Parlate a Voce Alta! Dovete sapere che, a causa dell’“inquinamento acustico”, se parlate “troppo a bassa voce” alcuni dei Seniors potrebbero non sentirVi. RicordateVi che: i Diritti sono Diritti. Essi vanno difesi. Non sono mica concessioni da elemosinare come mendicanti!”. In ogni caso… bravi ragazzi! Quando NON Vi “fate di Psicanalisi”, “qualcosa” concludete!

Un’esortazione condivisa anche dai Presidenti e dal Direttore pieni di soddisfazione nel vedere che in Dipartimento (… contrariamente a quanto sostenuto da alcuni giornali …) gli studenti sono “vivi”, capaci di mostrare grande partecipazione e pieni di fermento politicoIn essi era visibile: la commozione di chi, anni addietro, “combatté” con eguale entusiasmo “lotte” simili; ed un “caldo invito” a partecipare più spesso.

Finisco sottolineando come “questa vicenda” non evidenzi “l’errore” ma, di contro, la GRANDEZZA e la SUPERIORITA’ dell’Università di Genova, rendendoci ORGOGLIOSI di farne parte.

Essa testimonia la Grandezza e la Superiorità degli Italiani nel saper correggere prontamente i propri errori accidentali.  D’altronde l’ITALIA è sempre stata: il Paese della Cultura; la Culla della Civiltà e del Diritto; la Madre dell’Università. Finiamola: d’auto-parlaci male; di commiserarci; d’elogiare popoli di “barbari costumi” (imitandoli). Noi siamo meglio. Noi siamo “il Meglio”. Exempli gratia, all’Università di Cambridge (arrivata al 1° posto nel rank mondiale) per nascondere un’irregolarità (non di rado accade che) se ne facciano altre dieci peggiori (!) e così via crescendo (!!). L’obiettivo, infatti, non è quello di rimediare all’errore. L’obiettivo è solo quello di nascondere, impedire che dell’errore si sappia! Questo poiché ivi, tutto dipende dalla Vuota Apparenza. Una Fama, in buona parte, dovuta alla, e basata sulla, costruzione mediatica. Il frutto d’un’accurata campagna propagandistica!

A NOI Italiani, di contro, NON c’importa NULLA della Vuota Apparenza. NOI siamo un “Popolo di Sostanza e di Contenuto”. I “comparativi” non esistono per Noi; Nostro è solo il “superlativo”.

NON temiamo le “critiche”, poiché NON abbiamo bisogno: d’auto-elogiarci continuamente; d’auto-incensarci ripetutamente; di salvare le apparenze; di controllare giornalmente il rank per (s)venderCi sul Mercato!

In NOI abbonda, per Natura, la Grandezza, la Genialità, la Creatività, l’Umanità, la Virtù … in così tanta sovrabbondanza che: le diamo per scontate, arrivando (per abitudine) a non vederLe neppure. SottovalutandoCi, omettiamo di farCi alcuna pubblicità. D’altronde, cosa serve la réclame a chi come NOI non è merce che si svende al Mercato!

Ecco cosa Vi dico. E’ giunta l’ora di finirla di: farci “colonizzare” da “barbare culture”; abbindolare dalle loro campagne pubblicitarie patinate; reprime, rinnegare, abiurare le Nostre Nobili Origini, la Nostra Gloriosa Civiltà e Tradizione!

Ecco cosa afferma, … ecco cosa emana, … ecco cosa testimonia, … ogni Nostro Agire al Mondo Intero: “Mundi, Nos Optimi”. E quando qualcuno Vi chiederà chi siete, rispondetegli con ORGOGLIO: “Superbi ATENEI GENUENSIS, liberi”.

Che cosa?! Qualcuno si chiede che ruolo abbia avuto Io in tutto ciò?

Assolutamente nessuno. Timido ed Imbranato come sono! Timorato di Dio e dell’Uomo! Che cosa avrei potuto fare?!

Semplicemente: vidi cose accadere da se; ammirai Gesta d’Uomini Gloriosi mentre (spontaneamente) stavano forgiando la Storia; … e all’epullion volli dare parola degna!

Alla prossima!

Qualcosa sulla Riforma Universitaria del 3+2

Uno dei motivi che ha fatto abbandonare all’Italia il Vecchio Ordinamento per passare al nuovo 3 + 2 è stato quello di voler “uniformare” il Sistema Italiano a quello Europeo. Nel far questo, gli Italiani ne sono usciti fortemente svantaggiati rispetto ai loro colleghi europei che, studiando di meno, hanno (di contro) un più celere accesso alle professioni!

Vi porto come esempio il Sistema Inglese.
In Inghilterra la Laurea Triennale è chiamata Bachelor. Questo, in base alle materie studiate, può essere: in Arts; in Sciences; in Social Sciences; in Engineering; etc… . Di solito, il numero di materie e di ore di lezione è minore rispetto a quanto fatto nelle corrispettive Lauree Triennali Italiane. Nonostante ciò, conseguito un Bachelor, lo studente può accedere alla libera professione (e.g.: avvocato; psicologo; etc…) senza necessità di fare: alcun Master (annuale e/o biennale); alcuna Scuola di Specializzazione dopo il conseguimento di Masters Biennali. In altre parole, una persona, con una loro Laurea Triennale (Bachelor), può fare quello che in Italia può fare SOLO dopo aver conseguito una Laurea Specialistica.

Ricordo come la Nostra Laurea Specialistica corrisponde ad un loro Master Biennale. Non solo, quest’ultima è un Graduate Course molto più impegnativo di molti corrispettivi Inglesi. Infatti, la Nostra Laurea Specialistica prevede due anni di: coursework; research. A Genova oltre alla Tesi alcuni Corsi di Laurea richiedono anche una Tesina. Di conto, in UK, i Master si suddividono tra quelli che richiedono solo coursework (M.A.; M.Sc.); e quelli che prevedono solo research. I primi sono annuali. I secondi possono essere: annuali (M.Phill); o biennali (M.Litt.). I primi prevedono una tesi di 30.000/40.000 parole; i secondi una tesi di 60.000/80.000 parole. E’ da precisare, però, come il Sistema Inglese non sia omogeneo. Il nome dei Masters,  ed il numero delle parole richiesto per la tesi, può variare da Università ad Università. Alcuni Master sono Ibridi prevedendo sia Coursework sia Research. Questi, contrariamente alla Laurea Specialistica, sono di durata annuale. Non solo, la dissertazione in questi casi è ridotta a ciò che in Italia è chiamata Tesina: uno elaborato di 10.000/18.000 parole. Il Ph.D (o D.Phill ad Oxford) corrisponde al Dottorato in Ricerca. Esso prevede una tesi di 80.000/100.000 parole.

Qualora si voglia conseguire una “seconda laurea”, in UK, si può semplicemente seguire un diploma di conversione di durata annuale.

In altre parole, un soggetto può accedere alla libera professione in tempi assai ridotti rispetto a quanto avviene in Italia. Una volta ottenuto l’accesso alla professione, può esercitare in qualsiasi Stato dell’Unione Europea (inclusa l’Italia). In tale Mercato, gli Italiani ne escano svantaggiati. I Governi, attuando politiche “auto-lesioniste”, hanno attribuito ben poco valore alle Nostre Lauree Triennali. Inoltre, hanno portato le Nostre Lauree Specialistiche (biennali) ad essere considerate dal Mercato meno d’un Master annuale conseguito in U.K.!! Per finire, hanno ridotto i posti per i Dottorati in Ricerca ad un numero così esiguo che l’accedervi è come vincere alla lotteria! Questo obbliga i migliori studenti (… soprattutto chi ha la possibilità economica…) ad andare all’estero.

Di certo, le diverse riforme fatte sul 3+2 non hanno portato alcun miglioramento.

Università di Genova. Ecco come gli Esperti della Formazione valutano gli studenti!

Qualcosa d’anomalo accade al Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione dell’Università di Genova durante gli esami finali delle Lauree Triennali. Nonostante la Commissione di Laurea debba (… in base ai Regolamenti …) valutare due elementi: una prova scritta, costituita dalla tesi; ed un viva voce, costituito dalla discussione orale; … per assegnare i punti a sua disposizione, risulta accadere tutt’altro. Gli Esperti Educatori hanno ribaltato l’Ordine Naturale, Ontologico e Giuridico, dell’esaminazione procedendo: prima, a deliberare i punti da assegnare ai candidati; e solo poi, fargli recitare la discussione orale per salvar le apparenze!

Per Antica Tradizione, norma giuridica e la stessa Natura delle Cose, … l’esame finale d’una Laurea può essere suddiviso in almeno quattro fasi, per necessità, cronologicamente conseguenti l’una all’altra.
La PRIMA fase è costituita dal lavoro di ricerca e di redazione della tesi sotto la supervisione d’un Relatore.
La SECONDA fase è realizzata colla discussione orale della tesi d’innanzi a una Commissione d’Esperti. Una fase centrale (e soprattutto necessaria) per valutare la capacità del Candidato: a difendere ed ad argomentare le proprie affermazioni; ed illustrare alla Commissione il lavoro fatto.
La TERZA fase è costituita dalla riunione in Camera di Consiglio della Commissione per assegnare al Candidato i voti a sua disposizione. Fase che necessariamente deve conseguire alla discussione orale.
La QUARTA fase è costituita dalla lettura pubblica della delibera con la quale si conferisce il titolo di Dottore.

Ora accade che al Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione sia stata “lanciata” una nuova moda! Gli Esperti Educatori, per dare una sferzata di modernità al Sistema e “rompere” col Passato, hanno preferito anteporre la TERZA fase alla SECONDA. In altre parole, prima valutano il candidato assegnandogli i punti a loro disposizione, poi gli fanno “recitare” la discussione orale. Terminata la discissione, procedono direttamente alla lettura del verbale precedentemente deliberato.
Ora mi chiedo: che cosa valutano gli Eccellenti Membri della Commissione quando deliberano prima della discussione orale? Possiedono loro facoltà medianiche (di cui non siamo a conoscenza) tali da poter leggere nel Futuro?
Sebbene a queste domande Io NON sappia dare risposta, una cosa so per certo. Se l’esame è sia scritto che orale … è evidente che almeno una delle due componenti non è stata considerata e valutata!
Questa è una lesione dei diritti degli studenti. Ricordo come un voto di laurea non sia indifferente ad un altro. La differenza d’un punto può, exempli gratia, causare l’impossibilità di poter partecipare ai concorsi pubblici. Non solo, nei corsi di Laurea a numero chiuso può: precludere l’accesso alla Laurea Specialistica; oppure condizionarlo ad un esame d’ammissione. Ancora, può precludere: all’accesso ad alcune Università piuttosto che altre; e/o all’ottenimento di borse di studio. Questo è ancora più grave quando la Commissione, molto arbitrariamente, arriva ad assegnare ai Candidati “zero” punti tra quelli a sua disposizione, senza nemmeno ascoltare la discussione orale ed acquisire conoscenza del lavoro!
L’esame di Laurea è un momento importante per gli studenti. Essi, dopo aver approfondito per mesi (… se non talvolta per anni …) un argomento di loro interesse, hanno tutto il diritto d’essere ascoltati da una Commissione attenta ed interessata. Non certo da una Commissione che, avendo già deliberato, assiste annoiata allo spettacolo, ricordando allo studente che la “recita” non deve superare i cinque minuti! Chi sceglie d’insegnare in Università dovrebbe essere appassionato ad: ascoltare le idee degli studenti; incentivare lo spirito critico-riflessivo; animare le discussioni. Queste caratteristiche dovrebbe essere parte della sua missione e vocazione. Di contro, avrebbe potuto scegliere un’altra professione (dove le discussioni siano assenti). Per esempio, la carriera militare. Di certo, lì non sarebbe stato infastidito da tali “incomodi”.
Ricordo come la discussione orale sia la fase centrale e fondamentale dell’esame finale. Solo qui: da una parte, il candidato può dimostrare la sua capacità a saper difendere le tesi sostenute; dall’altra parte, i membri della Commissione possono acquisire conoscenza del lavoro fatto dal candidato. Infatti, non è un segreto che molti commissari (e.g. per assenza di tempo) non hanno la minima idea del lavoro fatto dai candidati. Ben pochi leggono le tesi di cui non sono relatori. Quindi, che cosa valutano gli Illustri Membri della Commissione quando deliberano prima della discussione orale? Decidono su “voci di corridoio”? Su “rumori” diffusi da “borbottii”? Oppure sulla simpatia e/o antipatia che hanno per un Candidato piuttosto che per un altro?

Ridurre l’esame orale ad una “buffonata” da recitare a “cose fatte” è sintomatico del degrado sociale che sta accadendo oggigiorno. Sempre più spesso le decisioni sono prese per convenienza e/o per interesse. Esse sono antecedenti agli stessi processi decisori (e.g.: processo giuridico; procedimento amministrativo; valutazione psicologica; etc…) attraverso i quali dovrebbero (di contro) essere assunti, in contradittorio delle parti interessate, gli elementi valutativi su cui basare la decisione. D’altronde, se la decisione è presa per convenienza e/o interesse che bisogno c’è d’aspettare d’assumere elementi oggettivi all’interno d’un contradittorio delle parti! Ciò diventa un inutile “incomodo”! Una terribile “seccatura”! Un qualcosa da ridicolizzare; ridurre a farsa; … farlo, … se proprio tocca …, solo per salvare l’apparenza.
Per tali motivi, molte persone ormai assuefatte a tali pratiche esclamano semplicemente: che problema c’è?!
Il problema c’è, eccome! Essendo sintomatico proprio del degrado sociale.

Cosa diversa è chiederci: cosa può fare uno studente quando cade vittima di queste pratiche illecite e vuole, … mosso dal suo Ingenuo Entusiasmo …, combattere un Sistema Corrotto e Marcescente?
Qualora uno studente non sia contento di ciò, e/o abbia ritenuto lesi i suoi diritti, può impugnare la delibera della Commissione di Laurea proponendo: un Ricorso al Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (entro 60 giorni); e/o un Ricorso Straordinario al Capo dello Stato (entro 180 giorni). La delibera, infatti, è un atto amministrativo che per vizio di legittimità (nel caso: violazione di legge) diventa annullabile su richiesta dell’interessato. Una volta annullata, lo studente ha diritto d’essere ri-esaminato conformemente alle regole.
Questa è la teoria. Il diritto di carta che mai diventerà un diritto reale. Infatti, una procedura legale richiede ingenti esborsi di denaro. Cosa che in se e per se la preclude a priori agli studenti. Non solo, bisogna trovare poi un avvocato che sia: capace a sostenere il caso; ed interessato a presentarlo con entusiasmo. Entrambe cose che richiedono tanta, e ribadisco tanta, FORTUNA!! In seguito, presentato il ricorso, si devono aspettare anni (se non decenni, qualora si necessiti di passare per più gradi di giudizio) prima d’una sua definizione. Alla fine, vinto il ricorso, lo Studente deve essere ri-esaminato. Purtroppo per lui, a questo punto, per aver osato esercitare un suo diritto sarà considerato un “Rompi Scatole” di “Prima Classe”. Cosa che non gli agevolerà di sicuro: “la vita” in generale; ed una “ri-esaminazione imparziale”. Gli accademici, infatti, almeno per disincentivare altre forme di protesta da parte degli studenti (preferendo avere a che fare con greggi di “zombi silenti” piuttosto che di “rompi scatole” pronti i rilevare ogni loro mancanza) lo metteranno metaforicamente “ai ceppi” in modo tale da render chiaro a tutti i restanti che: “tacere e subire” conviene piuttosto che “parlare e protestare”. D’altronde la Gerarchia Sociale si basa su questo!
Se poi lo studente si trova in corsi dove ci sono degli Psicologi, può star certo che questi, una volta “pescati” oggettivamente con le “mani in pasta”, per sviare l’attenzione dai fatti oggettivi si metteranno ad accusarlo d’ogni “disturbo mentale” possibile. Essi applicheranno una versione moderna dell’antico stratagemma d’attacco ad personam (collaudato sin dai tempi di Freud) attraverso il quale, diffamando il soggetto si cerca di sviare l’attenzione dai fatti oggettivi verso fantasie create da questi ad hoc. Non solo, grazie ad esso, ottengono un altro effetto: quello d’isolare socialmente il soggetto. Chi si metterebbe ad appoggiare uno “ribelle” definito per di più da un “esperto psicologo” come “mentalmente disturbato”?
Così alla fine, non potendo negare e/o controbattere i fatti oggettivi, questi inducono lo studente (che osò sfidare la Corruzione e l’Illegalità del Sistema) ad abbandonare il ricorso proposto. Abbandonato il Ricorso, per magia, i fatti oggettivi sono fatti svanire. Le irregolarità esistono solo, e solo se riconosciute da un Giudice. In assenza d’una sentenza, non sono mai esistite e/o accadute!

Per tali motivi non suggerisco a nessun: di fare alcunché di legale; e/o protestare dinanzi all’ineluttabile decadenza del Sistema. Di contro, nel caso in cui i Rappresentati degli Studenti abbiano voglia di difendere i diritti di quest’ultimi, questi potrebbero tentare un “azione politica” all’interno degli Organi dell’Università per modificare tali prassi. Il punto è: dove sono finiti i Rappresentanti degli Studenti del Dipartimento? Che cosa stanno facendo? Sono tutti troppo intimoriti per osar parlare?
Il loro silenzio di certo spiega poiché la stragrande maggioranza non vada a votarli.

Concludo dicendo: non fraintendete questo Post. Con esso, non dico che in Italia le cose vadano peggio che all’Estero! Non è così. All’Università di Cambridge, ad esempio, ho visto accadere irregolarità e violazioni ben peggiori di queste (fatte con tutt’altra intenzionalità). Qui le cose sono largamente migliori. Le stesse violazioni, quando accadono, spesso conseguono innocentemente ad un eccessivo carico di lavoro subito dai nostri docenti. Exempli gratia, fanno assai molte più ore di insegnamento rispetto ai loro colleghi stranieri (e.g. Inglesi. A Cambridge un docente fa raramente più di due ore di lezione a settimana). Quindi, ho deciso di spezzare una lancia a loro favore, ma non tutte. Pur riconoscendo che tale prassi sia conseguita: all’assenza di tempo; alla stanchezza per l’eccessivo lavoro; alla loro più lunga esposizione (per maggior età) alla “corruzione” del Sistema; … ritengo che si possa ripristinare l’Antica Tradizione Italiana di valutare lo studente solo dopo un attento ascolto della discussione orale. D’altronde l’Italia, non era il Paese della Cultura?