Antonio Di Pietro, the Prosecutor that ten Years Ago Shook the Italian Republic, Remembers

by Stefano Vaccara

Antonio Di Pietro, now Representative to Europe, former Senator of the Italian Republic, and above all, protagonist ten years ago in Mani pulite (Operation Clean Hands) was the leading judge in the “Milan Pool”. Di Pietro was in New York for a Bronx evening of solidarity to raise funds for the victims in the earthquake of Molise his home town. At the Jolly Hotel the ex- judge bought us a coffee and we talked about the war. But we were there mostly to ask him about the time in Italian history when he was an absolute protagonist. When Tonino Di Pietro's popularity indices among Italians were second to none but Giuseppe Garibaldi's.
Since Mani Pulite, ten years have passed. What is the balance?
"You mean what came out of all this story? The investigations revealed mass corruption, vast, environmental in our country. A virus that had produced a social disease in our country, in the democracy, in the economy. In a normal country when doctors in a hospital discover a virus, then diagnose two, the next day three...they realize there's an epidemic. Something has to be done about it. So in a normal country what happens? The doctors search for the antivirus, in other words some way to sterilize the infection. But in our country they "treated" the doctor instead of the disease. Instead of the disease, the body attacked the doctors for discovering it. That's the balance of how I've lived these years. A few years doing the investigation, twice as many under investigation myself, defending myself. But what was my misdeed? I found the virus. Or at least, I'm told there was no virus but nobody can say that, because it was there. . . I don't say thank me, but at least stop attacking the doctor. These last ten years, if you notice, the government hasn't made the necessary laws. Two things did not occur. The sick, the contaminated, were not placed in quarantine; and the antivirus to prevent the disease from lasting into the future was not created. Translated, what had to be done? The persons who committed the crimes had to be removed from politics and from business, and the government had to make laws for the future, to ensure these crimes would no longer be committed. Instead, during these years the government made laws to ensure that through pardons, prescriptions, dragging out the trials, immunities, etc., the people who committed the crimes could all go right back into politics. And for those who discovered the crimes, a whole series of laws ensuring for the future that everything that was a crime before is no longer a crime."
Looking back, is there anything you did ten years ago that you wouldn't do now?
"The exact opposite. If I could go back it's not that I wouldn't do what I did, I'd do more than I did. Because some diseases require surgery. That I did not do in all its depth. I tried, in respect of the law, to operate only where the disease was evident. I'll translate what I mean: I should have made more arrests and I should have been even more determined."
So perhaps you shouldn't have left the judgeship when you did?
"Eh no, you see that's the whole point. Because as long as we're dealing with a state like Italy, whoever does his job is immediately accused himself..."
But you have no second thoughts, maybe that you should have waited longer before you resigned. . .
"We're not understanding each other. If I had not resigned, the one ending up in jail would have been me. This is the concept: in Italy, the government, instead of sticking up for its children, who are doing their jobs, criminalizes them. For holding one trial I was put through 27! I could not go on and incriminate, arrest, investigate, indict, interrogate, search, intercept, the same people in the morning who were bringing charges against me in the afternoon. . ."
So in a way they succeeded in stopping you.
"Not in a way, in every way. There are more than 30 decisions in black and white that say that's exactly how it happened. The last one is from the Court of Cassation."
So when you stated in court that you were tired of being yanked around by the jacket so you took off your robe, did you mean that to defend yourself better against certain charges you had to leave the magistrature? But didn't that make the plan to stop you succeed?
"Of course it succeeded, that is the Italian anomaly. Because the government, instead of doing its job, which is to create the laws to make people stop commiting the crimes, and support the people who are doing their job..."
So what should the government have done at that point?
"I'll tell you right away. First: who was Council President at the moment? Giuliano Amato. When he, the head of the government, discovered there were dossiers on me, he should have done what all public officials do, gone to the nearest police station and reported it. We would have arrested Craxi, for defamation and for attempting to block the investigations."
In other words Amato should have charged the man who charged you?
"Listen, unfortunately you can't solve a problem ten years long with one question. Pardon my bluntness, but this question is too small for such an enormous problem. But I'll try to explain. What is the first thing that blocks our investigations? Craxi at a certain point saying all that glitters isn't gold. They have a meeting on September 2, 1992 at Socialist Party headquarters. At the end of the meeting Rino Formica says 'we've got four aces to use on Di Pietro. That meeting generated the whole series of attacks that lead to my resignation. I had to resign or I couldn't defend myself. How could I still be a judge while I was a defendant? Amato was involved in that meeting but he wasn't like the others, he was the Council President. In other words it was like the police were present, he's a public official. It was his duty to report them."
That's why years later, as Senator in the Ulivo, you didn't give your vote of confidence to the last Center Left government with Amato as Council President. . .
"Of course that's the reason. And when I didn't give my vote of confidence, my party expelled me [the Popolari, now the Margherita]. Do you see why then I ended up alone?"
People who criticize that period say true, Italy had the virus of corruption, true the judges attacked the virus, but they only medicated part of the diseased body. And it wasn't only Berlusconi who said this, or people on a particular political side. I'm referring more to observers, opinion makers and academics, Italian and American, people who if they get it wrong it's not because of some mysterious agenda. Their main criticism of Mani Pulite, is that it's not that the judges didn't arrest the corruptors and the corrupted, but that they investigated some harder than others...
"Who said? Who? Where is the proof of this? Romano, or Galli Della Loggia, or Panebianco [Corriere della Sera editorial writers] are lying, and if they don't know it, then they have the added aggravant of stupidity, despite being great observers. Because if you say 'What the judges did was great, but why did they go after Berlusconi's company and not Fiat?' it's false. I arrested 82 people from Fiat and 12 of Berlusconi's people. I arrested 78 people from DC-PCI, and 14 from PSI. They think they're telling the truth? That's worse, a case of the arrogance of ignorance, people who don't know the facts and speak falsehoods as if they go without saying."
Here in America for example several observers, Stanton Burnett, Joseph La Palombara and others, have said this: in Italy ten years ago an entire political class, the one running the government, was put on trial, creating a void and leaving only one surviving political force to fill it, the leadership of the ex PCI.
"It's the same old story and you're falling for it too. It is a falsehood."
I'm reporting analyses of well known academics. Isn't it a given that in '93-'94, on the eve of Berlusconi's entrance into politics, suddenly the political forces that had been governing the Republic for a half century were eliminated by Mani Pulite? Even if the judges didn't do it on purpose, wasn't a void created, and wasn't there only one political force ready to fill it?
"And who gained from it, the left or the right?"
In the end the right, with Berlusconi, but if he hadn't run, there's no doubt who would have won in '94. Berlusconi's friend and confidant, the president of his company, Fedele Confalonieri, repeats this point: "I had told Silvio not to go into politics, because the moment he did he'd get himself in trouble...". Then if you look at the investigation note (avviso) received by Berlusconi as soon as he's the head of the government. .
"The tragedy is that there are still good people saying these things you're saying right now. There are ten decisions that state exactly the contrary. Pages 16 and 17 of the May 16, 2001 acquittal from the Brescia investigating judge: 'contrary to the representative's statement,' Berlusconi's that is, 'it is not at all true that the judicial investigations followed Berlusconi's decision to enter politics, rather, 34 of the investigations preceded it.'
But I repeat, and I'm not trying to be for or against the judges, the fact remains that in 1993 an entire governing political class was spirited away and if Berlusconi hadn't entered the game, the moderate or conservative voters in Italy basically wouldn't have had anybody to vote for.
"Name me one politician who fell."
What? For example Forlani, the secretary of Democrazia Cristiana, ten years ago...
"His ward, Pier Ferdinando Casini, is now president of the House. Cirino Pomicino [ex DC Minister, ndr], in his book asks 'Why wasn't Casini investigated?' And Casini is part of the right, not the left."
Berlusconi wins in '94 because the Italians are ready to vote for anyone just to keep the ex Communists from winning?
"No, Berlusconi in '94 is a creation of Mani Pulite. Because of Mani Pulite, he could continually convince the citizenry that he represented the new. So he wins, and the ones who profit from the fall of the parties of ten years ago aren't the left, but Berlusconi and Fini, who were the strongest supporters of Mani Puliti at the time."
What are the most urgent reforms needed to improve Italian justice, that should have been made and weren't? Or do you think everything's fine and nothing needs changing?
"Today just one law would be enough but nobody wants to create it; and it would send a strong and clear message. An article with two clauses: first, persons convicted of and sentenced for crimes are not permitted to run for election. They aren't allowed to be traffic cops, why should they go to Parliament? Second clause: those who have been indicted for public administration crimes can go ahead and be candidates, but they cannot hold positions in either local or central government."
Here in America, and in most of the West, it looks very strange that an ex head of government is on trial for ten years like Andreotti. And with Andreotti we're still only halfway there. Decisions for the accused, against him, and so on to the end which is who knows when. In Western judiciary systems the prosecutor can't appeal a judgement against the accused. He plays all his cards in one trial, if he loses that's it. In Italy he has more chances. From here it looks really strange that the prosecution has as many chances as the defense.
"That's quite a trick the Americans have, not allowing appeals. But do we always have to do what they do? They make mistakes too. Let's not forget the death penalty. The problem we have in Italy is the trials are too long. In protections of rights, we have some selling points. The system of obligation to criminally prosecute, of independence of the magistrature, protections for the defendant, we have things the Americans could use, also the Europeans. If you don't mind my saying, in the Western international reality, this social disease we've been speaking of is not only in Italy. The United States too, they feign purity, then travel the world corrupting everyone. The state first able to take action against this corrupt political class was Italy. Not France, not Spain. . ."

We'd like to continue this fiery but frank discussion, with a Di Pietro. But the protagonist of such an important part of Italian history is interrupted, he has to go to the airport. It's too bad because we had more questions. But maybe, in Italy as in America, there's no end to the questions on the theme of Justice.