Sergio Cofferati is particularly convinced that the Italian left must move “without further hesitation” and much more energetically than it has done so far, because a very serious risk looms: “In the collective imagination the wave of corruption can have devastating effects in terms of image and of credibility also on organizations not directly involved as such”. Starting with the European and Italian left, which moreover, Cofferati argues, “have already suffered a very hard blow”. From 1994 to 2002 Secretary General of the CGIL, promoter of the largest street demonstration in the history of the post-war Italian left, former mayor of Bologna, Sergio Cofferati was a MEP (elected with the Democratic Party) and therefore very few like him know the environments touched or touched from Qatargate.
The affair widens: the number of parliamentarians interested in various capacities increases but above all – and it is even worse – the number of suspected states increases. Is there an avalanche risk?
«We are faced with very serious facts and I am speaking of established ones. Corruption is always to be condemned, whatever the objective of those who practice it and it is never justifiable. Never. In this case it served to provide a positive image to subjects of a country where democracy is lacking and where the dignity and rights of many people have been trampled upon. Corruption, as it turns out, would have served to “erase” the worst crimes, given that fundamental rights have been trampled on in Qatar. Starting with that of living, given that hundreds of workers engaged in carrying out the works for a football championship have died. And in any case, yes, if the trend starting from Morocco were confirmed, an equally disturbing question would arise: in this case, what are the “motives”?».
In the CGIL Antonio Panzeri opposed it, but it was still a top-level manager: were you surprised?
«The surprise, as I imagine for many others, was very big. The suffering as well. Also because if there is no responsibility for the organization, the image-effect that is transmitted, in any case, is high».
Incalculable as they are at the moment, don’t you think that the repercussions in terms of credibility concern above all the European Parliament, the epicenter of public opinion in the Union and a symbol of human rights?
«Of course, there is the risk that someone will start saying: what is Parliament for? Woe, also because the comments of Orban and historically anti-European subjects in these hours are poisonous. And instead we must strengthen the Parliament as a place of supranational democracy and rewrite the Treaties to go in the direction that the founding fathers had indicated to us and where we have never arrived”.
As an MEP, have you ever had the feeling that the vast world of collaborators and consultants could represent a soft and permeable underbelly?
«Several figures move around the parliamentarians but the soft underbelly does not lie in their function. It would be very important – and urgent – to regulate the relationship between Parliament and the lobbies, in particular by making the connections transparent”.
Speaking of consultancies, all the leaders of the political and trade union left of the last 30 years, including you, left the public scene at some point. Did Massimo D’Alema’s career choice impress you?
«I speak for myself: I think that there shouldn’t be any dragging after the end of a public activity, during which you assert the previously obtained visibility. I think it’s not useful. Neither to the person concerned nor to the values for which you fought».
Why didn’t the reaction of Article One, the Democratic Party, the union convince you?
“A just condemnation has been expressed, but so far with too much caution. On this occasion, the constitutional values that the left and trade unions have always tried to practice were affected. The unions in this matter are not formally compromised, but the state of excitement that surrounded the World Cup was not preceded by a visible and strong initiative to denounce the serious violations of the rules of safety at work”.
During Clean Hands the communists “stopped” said: I did it for me and not for the party, those in government maintained: I did it for the party and not for me. This time nobody thinks about the parties…
«In fact, for now it seems that the corruptive action was aimed at giving material advantages to individuals and not to organizations. Paradoxical: organizations do not have “material” advantages but only damages».