"I am well aware that a judicial “truth” does not exempt us from the obligation to go further. But it almost seems that, through these explanations, we are trying to free ourselves from the burden of analysing specific facts and personal responsibilities. An old vice of our political culture resurfaces: talking about general things to avoid concrete ones. Just as the far left did, everything is attributed to the dynamics of the “system”, which is invincible in its own way. The result is either a great condemnation or a great acquittal: conclusions that are apparently antithetical but essentially coincidental; which embody a political will, even understandable, to turn the page and start a new era, but which can become an obstacle to in-depth, detailed analysis. Many of the theses mentioned resemble an alibi rather than an explanation. Some, incidentally, do not even stand up to a trivial test based on the principle of non-contradiction. It is recalled, for example, that it was impossible for the PCI to enter the government. And then the PCI is blamed for not having made possible the alternation that would have immunised the system from the virus of corruption. Since the supporters of such arguments are not stupid (or, at least, not always), it is clear that their only aim is to prevent any distinction or gradation of responsibility, lumping together government and opposition parties in a single condemnation."