Qatar gate: where actually existing, it would be a pure and simple fact of widespread or not widespread systemic corruption, and to varying degrees, among the various liberal-democratic countries, or an anomaly of the supranational political system, or again a hypothesis of individual responsibility of certain individuals involved in the affair?
In recent days, it has been learned from the media, "an indeterminate and very large group of people" would appear to have been discovered dedicated to the "consumption" of "facts of corruption" and who allegedly operated within "European structures with or without links with the European Union”.
The circumstance, without prejudice to the need to know the outcome of the investigations by the competent Authority in progress, the only epilogue of which, evidently, will be able to shed light on the existence and effective consistency of a "phenomenon" which in very recent times seems to have occurred disturbing the serenity of the European institutions, would appear to appear in all its seriousness, especially for having emerged in one of the most complex moments, on an economic and social level, in the life of the Union.
If it were, and the conditional is extremely necessary when the terms of the reasoning can only be hypothetical and possible, of a systemic phenomenon, and if, as such, it was so deeply rooted as to have succeeded in influencing the trend of the bureaucratic and supranational party apparatus, then the danger would be that of finding oneself faced with a "skein" that is very difficult to "unravel", due to the simple and decisive circumstance that, the more widespread and radicalized that phenomenon was (and the reasoning arises only and solely in argumentative-hypothetical terms), then he would be even more inclined to operate under the radar under the appearance of an almost usual "modus-operandi" and therefore difficult to perceive in practice. Where, on the other hand, it were an anomaly of the supranational political and party system, considered in its instrumental complexity, the circumstance would be perceived by the community in terms of a profound crisis of that same party system and of the relationship of mutual trust that should permeate their action in the best common interest, with all consequences in terms of trustworthiness and credibility. When, on the other hand, we were dealing with or wishing to consider that much-talked-about phenomenon as an "individual fact", limited only to the actions of the subjects specifically involved, appearing to concern a hypothesis of "voluntary exchange" of resources, then, probably, the question , far from investing the "union" institutional Eden, would be placed in terms of an isolated and circumscribed "human error" encouraged by the institutional position once covered or currently covered by interested parties who would seem to infer little or nothing from the single reference parties and with their ideologies and/or activities. Said differently, and being clear on the point: depending on the classification that one were to decide to give to the story, the terms of the reasoning that one would be induced to conduct would change.
