The Charter does not protect health only as a fundamental right of the individual, but also as an interest of society as a whole
Is Italy experiencing a “health dictatorship”? Is the Green Pass an illiberal provision? Let’s briefly analyze these two questions, given that there are those who consider all the anti-covid provisions, first the masks, then the lockdown and now the Green pass, as the result of a “health dictatorship” or illiberal measures.
Thanks also to the echo chambers of social networks, criticisms of the use of green certification have rapidly degenerated into meaningless comparisons, such as those – proposed by illustrious philosophers – which assimilate these measures to the internal passport in use in the Soviet Union or to control practices in present-day China. The well-known philosopher Giorgio Agamben went so far as to affirm that «the green card constitutes those who are without it in bearers of a virtual yellow star». Some politicians have produced statements, such as that of Giorgia Meloni, according to which «the idea of using the green pass to be able to participate in social life is chilling. An unconstitutional madness. For us, individual freedom is sacred and inviolable ». Now, that individual freedom is sacred and inviolable is not questioned by anyone. It is sanctioned by the Constitution, which in fact recognizes it as the first of rights. But the Constitution itself places limits on freedom since Article 13.
In particular, article 32, which recognizes health as a right of the individual and in the interest of the community, establishes that “no one can be obliged to a specific health treatment except by law”. Everyone has the right to freely decide on the treatment they intend to receive, but if individual free choice can be dangerous to public health or the lives of others, the state has the right and duty to impose health treatment, including ‘obligation to vaccinate. The Constitution, therefore, does not protect health only as a fundamental right of the individual, but also as an interest of society as a whole. And this does not exclude the imposition of health treatment if aimed “not only at improving or preserving the state of health of those subjected to it, but also at preserving the state of health of others”, as established by the Constitutional Court with a sentence of 2018. Whoever speaks of “health dictatorship” to denounce an alleged authoritarian interference by the State does not show any willingness towards a fundamental principle, namely that for which, in exceptional circumstances such as those we are experiencing, it may be necessary to accept certain limitations of individual freedom in order to protect collective health. In addition, those who speak in these terms also show that they adhere to an idea of freedom that encourages a social system of selfishness rather than a system of social cooperation or democratic deliberation.
An idea, that is, according to which the individual can pursue his own desires and intentions without obstacles “from the outside” and without any control by higher principles. An idea that does not foresee the existence of original ties and mutual dedication, since it is inspired by the image of the human being as an atomized being, whose main interest is to be able to act without limitations, according to one’s preferences.
These are indeed incompatible perspectives with liberal principles, with an idea of the individual which by definition is always in relation to a social context. Furthermore, it seems decidedly out of place to speak of a “dictatorship”, of an absolute power that has continued since the beginning of the pandemic through emergency legal instruments. The fact that the practice in the use of the emergency decree has gone beyond the limits provided for by the constitutional dictate is a fact that has been known for some time, and no one denies it. And that this phenomenon does not fall within the physiological expectation that the governing bodies respond quickly to social demands is also recognized by those who avoid talking about pathological abuse. But from here, from this true but circumstantial observation, we get to talk about dictatorship.
The emergency decree requires respect for “extraordinary cases of necessity and urgency”. This is what we are talking about, and therefore the measures made necessary by the pandemic should not be traced back to the model of surveillance and control theorized by thinkers like Foucault. Rather, we should be concerned about the possibility that the provisions made by the government are implemented ineffectively and that they prove insufficient to contain the pandemic, postponing the time when we can resume our normal life further than necessary.