If bipolarism, which has just returned, is reduced to an accusation of massacre- Corriere.it

just got back, and look how the bipolar disorderafter just
five months. The opposing supporters of the two poles, political and media, launch each other accusations of massacre. The right would be responsible for having left die at seaThere is, perhaps even deliberately, an unfortunately still unspecified number of poor refugees (because these were those desperate people who were fleeing persecution and war, who were cynically reproached for having left).

The left on the other hand would be responsible for having left in nurse of Covid in Val Seriana a not unknown, but rather very precise number of people, to be exact 4,148 (and then it must not be said that the judicial system can only ascertain procedural truths; not if it has the virologist-senator Crisanti as maxi-super-consultant) .
With an irrepressible voluptuousness, bipolarism thus returned to using judicial investigations as drones to strike the enemy in the heart. To transform the political judgment on the adversary, always lawful in an open society, into moral reprobation. To solicit public disgust, the anathema, the nunca mas, as is done against regimes. In fact, anyone who had really committed massacres of this kind would no longer even deserve to participate in the political competition.
So some would like to abolish the right, and the other the left. At that point only the good and the just would be in government, and our problems would largely be solved.

To accomplish this mystification neither of the two warring factions can agree to contemplate the category of the error than in life, and also in the practice of government, on the agenda.
One can make mistakes by making very important decisions in a very short time, and for this there are better governments and worse governments. But the error is not necessarily a fault, which presupposes a violation of the rules, or a negligence, or a carelessness. And least of all automatically willful misconduct, which consists in a conscious will to violate the law.
Instead in our public debate (dear fellow journalists, let’s examine our conscience), the launch of an investigation is a moral sentence. Confusing from the outset not only the stages and degrees of the trial, but also the judicial level and the political level.

There are cases where not even afull acquittal it can erase a historical judgment. There are cases instead in which, as happened to Boris Johnson in Great Britain, a TV series and a few journalistic inquiries are enough to issue a political sentence without the need for any trial.
With us, on the other hand, not even the risk of bad impressions slows down or moderates the fighters of the two camps. So the coryphaei of each prosecutor’s office are forced to criticize the prosecutor’s office that investigates friends. And proud guarantors of even days, they rediscover their enthusiasm for warranty notices in the odd ones, provided they are directed at the enemies.
All of this – at this point we would venture to say fortunately – finds a brake only in the infinite times of our justice. After all, Berlusconi was acquitted after six years, the Bergamo investigation concerns events of three years ago and has just begun, the one on Cutro has not yet even suspected of a crime and who knows when it will produce its first cries. None of today’s conflicts will know a procedural truth in a reasonable time. We’ll talk about it in any case in years. When we have moved on to new and increasingly frantic brawls.

The twenty months of government of national unity stood on the goiter of many, who dreamed of a return to politics and a healthy bipolarity. what did they mean? Does Italian-style bipolarity necessarily require this degree of dependence on the judiciary, and this load of hatred?