(Published by Open Democracy, December 1, 2011)
Rome, November 28 2011
In the months of May and June of the current year, a political upheaval – scarcely noticed abroad – took place in Italy. A grossly disobedient electorate ignored warnings, threats and blandishments from the four main political forces (Berlusconi’s Party and the Northern League on the right, the Centrist coalition and the Democratic Party on the left), casting massive majority votes for candidates outside the political mainstream in both the Neapolitan and Milanese municipal elections. That same electorate, a scarce two weeks later, repeated its defiance on a national scale by voting – again with a massive majority – in favour of four referenda openly opposed by the Right and only tepidly supported by the Centre and Left.
Some commentators – in reality very few indeed – speculated that the Roman Catholic Church, slightly marginalised by the secular right wing parties in power, would seize the opportunity offered by this debacle of organized politics to regain the central role it has habitually played in Italian politics.
As the Berlusconi administration wound to its unhappy end, many of the party faithful started abandoning ship. This growing erosion was significant enough, but even more so was the circumstance that most of the defectors, including one of the most glamorous and “faithful” of Mr. Berlusconi’s political gynaecaeum, appeared to be drifting towards the one centrist party – the “U.D.C.” – which has constantly asserted its staunch Catholic obedience, under the leadership of darkly handsome Pier Ferdinando Casini. Some comment was also raised by the sudden reappearance on the public scene of old stalwarts of the so-called “First Republic”, long dormant relicts of the defunct “Christian Democratic Party”, which led Italy for over four decades after World War II. They also seemed to be attracted by Casini, on whom, perhaps, the Church is pinning its political hopes for the future.
The analysis of Italian politics always reveals situations of far greater complexity than expected. The fall of Berlusconi and the possible end of “Berlusconismo” or even of the “Second Republic” are important events, but even more significant are the medium and long term consequences of Mr. Berlusconi’s long awaited downfall and the creation of a competent but potentially fragile “technical” Government.
The stark contrast between the rigid sobriety of the Monti government and its predecessor seems to have overawed some commentators who - with the exception of the “Northern League”, and a group of diehard Berlusconi nostalgics – are pouring praise, largely deserved but rather extravagant and premature, on the newborn cabinet. True, some criticism was raised for the really small number of female ministers (only three) that it includes, but it is easy to point out that the three women in the Monti cabinet are figures of undisputed competence and are at the head of key Ministries, while Berlusconi’s female cabinet ministers were essentially decorative, patently incompetent and certainly did not enhance the role of Women in Italy.
There are other points on which this Government is already receiving critical comments, but most of these criticisms can be rebuffed. Some, for example, point out the extremely conservative stance shown by most of the leading ministers, and it has even been hinted that, finally, some of Berlusconi’s erstwhile campaign promises could end up being fulfilled by Monti (or “the Professor” as he prefers to be called): this is quite true, but it has to be considered that Parliament is still dominated by those elected in the Berlusconi landslide of 2008, and that any legislation going in a more “progressive” direction would fail to pass. Some have also been saying that what took place was against all democratic rules, and was, actually, a business and finance oriented “coup d’état”, placing, in key government positions, bankers, businessmen, and high ranking officials (an Admiral and an Ambassador), thus neglecting the weaker sectors of civil society. This particular complaint is making the rounds in the international media, but it is unjustified: there was no “coup” and constitutional legality has been and is being respected.
There are further considerations, however, that need to be more fully analysed, also because they are basically intertwined. Berlusconi, in reality, has not been “defeated”, and though his party has pledged support for the new Government, it still is, at least apparently, in control of both houses of Parliament, and Berlusconi has been alternating pledges of support with dire threats of withdrawing support should the government deviate from its initial programme. The potential fragility of the Government, however, appears tempered in the light of the re-emergence of the Catholic Church, which, after many years in the shadows, appears again as a determining factor in Italian politics.
The Church never could approve of Berlusconi’s flamboyant style, but it did lend its support in exchange for a growing number of benefits: this, in the long run, upset the rank-and-file faithful, and, after the governing parties’ defeat last May, it seemed inevitable that the Catholic Hierarchy would look elsewhere for a political force worthy of its support. The signals were many, far too numerous to go into at this stage, and became ever more obvious at the growing number of defections from Berlusconi’s party in the waning weeks of his government. These defections, which at the time were very visible mainly because they tended to undermine Berlusconi’s parliamentary majority, have probably continued virtually unobserved, strongly limiting the likelihood of Berlusconi making good his threat of toppling the Monti government “with a snap of the fingers”.
The perceived drift of “Catholic” members of Berlusconi’s erstwhile party to the centre, is likely to leave the Church as ultimate, albeit indirect, arbiter of the Government’s future.
It is significant that the very first international leader met by Italy’s new Prime Minister has been Pope Benedict XVI . The Catholic Church is evidently beginning to seize the advantage offered by the debacle suffered by almost all the Italian political parties in May 2011, and therefore appears set to play a growing role in Italy’s political life, ending up as the principal, though perhaps occult, arbiter of future decisions and orientations.
The decisive role of the Church in Italian politics is not new, and the Vatican's interference in Italian politics has prevailed since the early Carolingian days.
As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, in his “Discourses” in the early Sixteenth Century: “Our first debt to the Church and her priests is that, thanks to them, Italians have become irreligious and wicked. But we owe still a greater debt, for the Church has kept and still keeps this country divided”.
Half a millennium on, this reality still obtains.
Carlo Ungaro
giovedì 1 dicembre 2011
sabato 15 ottobre 2011
THE CRISIS IN ITALY: WHO WILL REAP THE BENEFITS?
Rome, October 13, 2011
Who will benefit from the Italian crisis?
Text:
Last May saw an unprecedented revolt by the Italian electorate, from which the governing majority emerged visibly humiliated and greatly weakened. The Opposition parties – excepting those at the fringe – did not benefit, and what emerged was a political void waiting to be filled. Some observers believed that this would be an occasion for the Roman Catholic Church to re-establish its political supremacy in Italy. Recent events seem to indicate that this is, indeed, happening, and. the Church has recently come out – with surprising clarity and energy – against the Berlusconi Government. This could be a direct consequence of what some have called the “Italian Spring”, referring to the remarkable “voters rebellion” in May of this year.
The long statement issued by the president of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI), though never mentioning Mr. Berlusconi by name, was a clear and eloquent denunciation of the Prime Minister’s lifestyle as well as the Government’s inaction on issues of vital importance, The statement caused a considerable flurry, and few commentators gave any credit to the ruling party’s (and the public Television’s) version according to which the Bishops’ criticisms were levelled at “all political actors”.
Italy’s financial and economic situation, is extremely fragile and constantly worsening in spite of (or perhaps precisely because of) hasty and uncoordinated corrective measures steamrollered through Parliament by an already beleaguered Government. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s legal problems have been accumulating to the point of sending him scurrying around Europe to avoid confrontation with the Judicial system. His Government recently lost a crucial vote in Parliament and will have to seek a “vote of confidence” the outcome of which is far from secure.
All this has raised the question on whether the all too brief “Italian Spring”, which many thought would soon fall victim to a political situation which, in these past weeks has been visibly drifting from Italian comedy to Greek tragedy..
It is generally assumed, in Italy and abroad, that the Berlusconi government, as well as the political organization he created and its allies are in deep trouble and risk either losing their majority in Parliament or, at least, facing the next political elections (possibly in 2012, and at the latest in 2013) from a position of great disadvantage.
The natural corollary to this axiom should be that the main opposition parties of the Left and the Centre are rejoicing, planning for an early overthrow of the Government and already savouring the satisfaction of returning to power.
Both the axiom and its corollary, however, are flawed, and also the opposition, following last May’s events, is facing a growing credibility gap with the electorate. Uncritical acceptance of such truisms, therefore, can only end up distorting the view of the Italian crisis.
Some observers had ventured to suggest that, after these unexpected political events, so much more significant than many understood, the Roman Catholic Church, ever present in the Italian political scene, would probably be the first to step into the resulting political void.
This, indeed, seems to be happening although it must be understood that the Roman Catholic hierarchy always acts with measured calm and never with undue haste. The clarity and vehemence of the CEI’s statement are exceptional enough, but it would be a mistake to believe in an immediate follow-up.
This new development adds yet another skein to the already complex tissue of Italian politics, which, never easy to analyse, now appear permeated with even greater complexity. It also raises a rather paradoxical question in that the intervention of the Church, not exactly a model of liberal democracy, could actually end up saving the democratic structure of the Italian Republic from the risk of Italy's sliding into a form of “soft”, bourgeois neo-fascism. This danger appeared quite real some months back and has not yet totally subsided, now that this Government, with its virtual monopoly on the media, feels itself cornered and victim of internal and international “plots”. With all the real and urgent problems facing the country, the Government is currently pushing a Bill through Parliament which would significantly curtail freedom of the press. This law is exclusively designed to protect the Prime Minister from excessive media exposure, and has nothing to do with the ongoing financial, economic and political crisis.
One of the current majority’s rearguard actions consists in the issuance of dire warnings to the tone of “if not Berlusconi, who?”, implying that the Italian electorate is irretrievably “right wing”, and that, therefore, an electoral process taking place in an atmosphere of institutional crisis, could lead to the election of right-wing adventures and populists.
The Italian electorate, however, was not “right wing” in the past (it is enough to remember that for over four decades Italy hosted the largest European Communist Party outside of the Soviet Bloc) and cannot be defined as such now: the May events referred to above (massive anti-establishment vote at four referenda and mayoral elections in Milan and Naples) were inspired by the left and not the right.
Elections, whether held in 2012 or in 2013, certainly will be unpredictable, and the drift of political events in Italy over the next months will be interesting to observe. The only prediction that can safely be made is that the “Catholic” electorate will make its presence felt, perhaps even with the creation of a political party or organization of its own and that the Italian political scene, static for such a long time, will return to its dynamic traditions.
Carlo Ungaro
Published by “Open Democracy” – October 14 2011
Who will benefit from the Italian crisis?
Text:
Last May saw an unprecedented revolt by the Italian electorate, from which the governing majority emerged visibly humiliated and greatly weakened. The Opposition parties – excepting those at the fringe – did not benefit, and what emerged was a political void waiting to be filled. Some observers believed that this would be an occasion for the Roman Catholic Church to re-establish its political supremacy in Italy. Recent events seem to indicate that this is, indeed, happening, and. the Church has recently come out – with surprising clarity and energy – against the Berlusconi Government. This could be a direct consequence of what some have called the “Italian Spring”, referring to the remarkable “voters rebellion” in May of this year.
The long statement issued by the president of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI), though never mentioning Mr. Berlusconi by name, was a clear and eloquent denunciation of the Prime Minister’s lifestyle as well as the Government’s inaction on issues of vital importance, The statement caused a considerable flurry, and few commentators gave any credit to the ruling party’s (and the public Television’s) version according to which the Bishops’ criticisms were levelled at “all political actors”.
Italy’s financial and economic situation, is extremely fragile and constantly worsening in spite of (or perhaps precisely because of) hasty and uncoordinated corrective measures steamrollered through Parliament by an already beleaguered Government. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s legal problems have been accumulating to the point of sending him scurrying around Europe to avoid confrontation with the Judicial system. His Government recently lost a crucial vote in Parliament and will have to seek a “vote of confidence” the outcome of which is far from secure.
All this has raised the question on whether the all too brief “Italian Spring”, which many thought would soon fall victim to a political situation which, in these past weeks has been visibly drifting from Italian comedy to Greek tragedy..
It is generally assumed, in Italy and abroad, that the Berlusconi government, as well as the political organization he created and its allies are in deep trouble and risk either losing their majority in Parliament or, at least, facing the next political elections (possibly in 2012, and at the latest in 2013) from a position of great disadvantage.
The natural corollary to this axiom should be that the main opposition parties of the Left and the Centre are rejoicing, planning for an early overthrow of the Government and already savouring the satisfaction of returning to power.
Both the axiom and its corollary, however, are flawed, and also the opposition, following last May’s events, is facing a growing credibility gap with the electorate. Uncritical acceptance of such truisms, therefore, can only end up distorting the view of the Italian crisis.
Some observers had ventured to suggest that, after these unexpected political events, so much more significant than many understood, the Roman Catholic Church, ever present in the Italian political scene, would probably be the first to step into the resulting political void.
This, indeed, seems to be happening although it must be understood that the Roman Catholic hierarchy always acts with measured calm and never with undue haste. The clarity and vehemence of the CEI’s statement are exceptional enough, but it would be a mistake to believe in an immediate follow-up.
This new development adds yet another skein to the already complex tissue of Italian politics, which, never easy to analyse, now appear permeated with even greater complexity. It also raises a rather paradoxical question in that the intervention of the Church, not exactly a model of liberal democracy, could actually end up saving the democratic structure of the Italian Republic from the risk of Italy's sliding into a form of “soft”, bourgeois neo-fascism. This danger appeared quite real some months back and has not yet totally subsided, now that this Government, with its virtual monopoly on the media, feels itself cornered and victim of internal and international “plots”. With all the real and urgent problems facing the country, the Government is currently pushing a Bill through Parliament which would significantly curtail freedom of the press. This law is exclusively designed to protect the Prime Minister from excessive media exposure, and has nothing to do with the ongoing financial, economic and political crisis.
One of the current majority’s rearguard actions consists in the issuance of dire warnings to the tone of “if not Berlusconi, who?”, implying that the Italian electorate is irretrievably “right wing”, and that, therefore, an electoral process taking place in an atmosphere of institutional crisis, could lead to the election of right-wing adventures and populists.
The Italian electorate, however, was not “right wing” in the past (it is enough to remember that for over four decades Italy hosted the largest European Communist Party outside of the Soviet Bloc) and cannot be defined as such now: the May events referred to above (massive anti-establishment vote at four referenda and mayoral elections in Milan and Naples) were inspired by the left and not the right.
Elections, whether held in 2012 or in 2013, certainly will be unpredictable, and the drift of political events in Italy over the next months will be interesting to observe. The only prediction that can safely be made is that the “Catholic” electorate will make its presence felt, perhaps even with the creation of a political party or organization of its own and that the Italian political scene, static for such a long time, will return to its dynamic traditions.
Carlo Ungaro
Published by “Open Democracy” – October 14 2011
mercoledì 12 ottobre 2011
DECLINE AND FALL: THE WEST'S POST 9/11 MISTAKES
Rome (Italy) October 12, 2011
Afghanistan and Iraq: the “War on Terror” ten years on.
The long, poignant period of reminiscence which led up to and beyond the tenth anniversary of “9/11”, and, of course, the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, could have been an occasion for objective analysis of that event’s impact, and an evaluation of its consequences after a decade. Unfortunately the circumstance also gave rise to a renewed spate of statements still imbued with whining and/or truculent rhetoric, understandable perhaps in the immediate aftermath, but totally useless and, indeed, perilous today.
Few have pointed out that, by transforming what was basically a criminal act of enormous impact into an “act of war”, our leaders contributed to the creation of an authentic “Clash of Civilizations” atmosphere of which we shall continue to pay the consequences for many years to come.
The Empire of Japan's 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour was certainly an act of much greater international relevance and significance than the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. Ten years later, however, in December 1951, I do not recall President Truman officiating a ceremony on the site of the attack. For this reason I strongly fear that by underscoring the “dastardly deed” aspects of the event, and thus fanning a generalised feeling of distrust and hatred towards Islam and its adherents, no progress will be made towards what, in reality, ought to be uppermost on most peoples’ minds nowadays: no longer “revenge”, but “dignified exit” from a stagnant and potentially dangerous situation.
There have been some attempts at analyzing the mistakes committed by the “West” after September 11th. It is difficult to single out the one greatest error, but it is easy to recall the sense of horrified disbelief when “respected” western leaders , referring to the ill - fated Afghan campaign, and, with even greater emphasis, to the totally unrelated and unjustified invasion of Iraq, coined and used the expression “war on terror”, apparently unaware of its irrationality and of the potential risks such superficiality entailed.
It is not without a sense of deep embarrassment that one recalls the clumsy attempts made to equate the post 9/11 situation to the events of September 1939, pointing to public ignominy those who favoured “appeasement” with Saddam Hussein – who had nothing to do with the attacks – and subtly (and not always subtly) comparing the active western leaders to Churchill or Roosevelt, often getting historical facts grievously mixed up in the process.
An estimated 100,000 civilian and over 6000 “allied” combatant deaths later, it would appear difficult to draw anything but a bleak picture of the damage brought about by the unbelievable hubris which animated those who took such fateful, unwarranted and unwise decisions after the Twin Towers’ attack. The fact is that a military struggle so rashly named as a “war on terror” can never be won: the last terrorist will not appear out of nowhere, hands up shouting for mercy in the best Hollywood war movie tradition.
Above all, the assertion that, thanks to this military folly, the world is a “safer place” today is substantially false and totally misleading.
Indeed, the military action both in Afghanistan and in Iraq led to terrorist attacks in Spain, in the United Kingdom, in India and elsewhere, and if greater tragedies have been prevented it is due not to the results of military victories but to the greater attention on security made necessary by a visibly growing danger of terrorist attacks.
The answer lies in trying to understand where all this has brought us, and to attempt to identify the least damaging way forward..
There have recently been several well targeted and certainly deftly timed attacks in Kabul, including those on the U.S. Embassy and the “C.I.A.. Headquarters”, as well as the assassination of former president Rabbani. These acts, carried out by the Taliban or by other probably more aggressive and better organised entities, are clear messages aimed at those NATO countries most active in Afghanistan indicating that the time is long overdue for a level-headed, unemotional analysis of all the fundamental mistakes made both in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 shock and in later moves aimed at enhancing the Western military presence where it is neither needed nor welcomed.
The escalation of Drone attacks, and the building up of “secret” Drone centres in this and other areas will enhance the aggressive stance of the insurgents and create a legacy of resentment which will endure long after the actual fighting has ceased. As the balance of initiative keeps shifting in favour of the insurgents, and public opinion in the NATO countries develops a growing hostility towards the expense and the human sacrifice this military action entails, the latitude for a satisfactory negotiated settlement keeps diminishing, and the unanswerable question remains on what the original “war aims” were to begin with and what they have in common with today’s confused enumeration of asserted objectives.
It is astounding that none of the strategists involved in this ill-conceived effort realised that by subjecting Pakistan to attack, would be seen as an attempt to reach the very heart of Islam, which for some centuries has ceased to be in the Middle East and has taken firm hold on the Indian Subcontinent. Just leafing through a book on the Mogul dynasty would have been enough, especially if coupled with an analysis of events tied to the Partition of 1947.
The developments in Iraq, years after the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner, are just as discouraging, and have the feel of a disaster waiting to happen. It is enough to ponder on recent statements by the Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada el Sadr, once very much in the limelight and now conveniently ignored by the media: His call to his followers to desist from hostile activities until the final departure of the occupying forces is an eloquent indication of the obvious need to remain there for an indeterminate further period, during which inter-sectarian acts of violence will keep multiplying.
The consideration that these two military ventures have not made the world a “safer place” – indeed, it would be closer to the truth to assert the contrary – enhances the need urgently to find a way out, without being distracted by unrelated events and situations, particularly of an electoral nature.
The Afghan situation is made all the more dramatic by the virtual absence of a political counterpart with whom to conduct serious, meaningful negotiations, and the efforts to form responsible and reliable Afghan security forces have been having uneven success, especially considering that they have been going on for several years. Difficult as it is to look into the future, it seems legitimate to feel that the ultimate situation which the West will leave in Afghanistan will be in many aspects identical to the one left by the Soviet forces in 1989, with the added weight of even greater destruction and resentment.
“OpEd News il 12 ottobre)
Afghanistan and Iraq: the “War on Terror” ten years on.
The long, poignant period of reminiscence which led up to and beyond the tenth anniversary of “9/11”, and, of course, the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, could have been an occasion for objective analysis of that event’s impact, and an evaluation of its consequences after a decade. Unfortunately the circumstance also gave rise to a renewed spate of statements still imbued with whining and/or truculent rhetoric, understandable perhaps in the immediate aftermath, but totally useless and, indeed, perilous today.
Few have pointed out that, by transforming what was basically a criminal act of enormous impact into an “act of war”, our leaders contributed to the creation of an authentic “Clash of Civilizations” atmosphere of which we shall continue to pay the consequences for many years to come.
The Empire of Japan's 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour was certainly an act of much greater international relevance and significance than the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. Ten years later, however, in December 1951, I do not recall President Truman officiating a ceremony on the site of the attack. For this reason I strongly fear that by underscoring the “dastardly deed” aspects of the event, and thus fanning a generalised feeling of distrust and hatred towards Islam and its adherents, no progress will be made towards what, in reality, ought to be uppermost on most peoples’ minds nowadays: no longer “revenge”, but “dignified exit” from a stagnant and potentially dangerous situation.
There have been some attempts at analyzing the mistakes committed by the “West” after September 11th. It is difficult to single out the one greatest error, but it is easy to recall the sense of horrified disbelief when “respected” western leaders , referring to the ill - fated Afghan campaign, and, with even greater emphasis, to the totally unrelated and unjustified invasion of Iraq, coined and used the expression “war on terror”, apparently unaware of its irrationality and of the potential risks such superficiality entailed.
It is not without a sense of deep embarrassment that one recalls the clumsy attempts made to equate the post 9/11 situation to the events of September 1939, pointing to public ignominy those who favoured “appeasement” with Saddam Hussein – who had nothing to do with the attacks – and subtly (and not always subtly) comparing the active western leaders to Churchill or Roosevelt, often getting historical facts grievously mixed up in the process.
An estimated 100,000 civilian and over 6000 “allied” combatant deaths later, it would appear difficult to draw anything but a bleak picture of the damage brought about by the unbelievable hubris which animated those who took such fateful, unwarranted and unwise decisions after the Twin Towers’ attack. The fact is that a military struggle so rashly named as a “war on terror” can never be won: the last terrorist will not appear out of nowhere, hands up shouting for mercy in the best Hollywood war movie tradition.
Above all, the assertion that, thanks to this military folly, the world is a “safer place” today is substantially false and totally misleading.
Indeed, the military action both in Afghanistan and in Iraq led to terrorist attacks in Spain, in the United Kingdom, in India and elsewhere, and if greater tragedies have been prevented it is due not to the results of military victories but to the greater attention on security made necessary by a visibly growing danger of terrorist attacks.
The answer lies in trying to understand where all this has brought us, and to attempt to identify the least damaging way forward..
There have recently been several well targeted and certainly deftly timed attacks in Kabul, including those on the U.S. Embassy and the “C.I.A.. Headquarters”, as well as the assassination of former president Rabbani. These acts, carried out by the Taliban or by other probably more aggressive and better organised entities, are clear messages aimed at those NATO countries most active in Afghanistan indicating that the time is long overdue for a level-headed, unemotional analysis of all the fundamental mistakes made both in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 shock and in later moves aimed at enhancing the Western military presence where it is neither needed nor welcomed.
The escalation of Drone attacks, and the building up of “secret” Drone centres in this and other areas will enhance the aggressive stance of the insurgents and create a legacy of resentment which will endure long after the actual fighting has ceased. As the balance of initiative keeps shifting in favour of the insurgents, and public opinion in the NATO countries develops a growing hostility towards the expense and the human sacrifice this military action entails, the latitude for a satisfactory negotiated settlement keeps diminishing, and the unanswerable question remains on what the original “war aims” were to begin with and what they have in common with today’s confused enumeration of asserted objectives.
It is astounding that none of the strategists involved in this ill-conceived effort realised that by subjecting Pakistan to attack, would be seen as an attempt to reach the very heart of Islam, which for some centuries has ceased to be in the Middle East and has taken firm hold on the Indian Subcontinent. Just leafing through a book on the Mogul dynasty would have been enough, especially if coupled with an analysis of events tied to the Partition of 1947.
The developments in Iraq, years after the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner, are just as discouraging, and have the feel of a disaster waiting to happen. It is enough to ponder on recent statements by the Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada el Sadr, once very much in the limelight and now conveniently ignored by the media: His call to his followers to desist from hostile activities until the final departure of the occupying forces is an eloquent indication of the obvious need to remain there for an indeterminate further period, during which inter-sectarian acts of violence will keep multiplying.
The consideration that these two military ventures have not made the world a “safer place” – indeed, it would be closer to the truth to assert the contrary – enhances the need urgently to find a way out, without being distracted by unrelated events and situations, particularly of an electoral nature.
The Afghan situation is made all the more dramatic by the virtual absence of a political counterpart with whom to conduct serious, meaningful negotiations, and the efforts to form responsible and reliable Afghan security forces have been having uneven success, especially considering that they have been going on for several years. Difficult as it is to look into the future, it seems legitimate to feel that the ultimate situation which the West will leave in Afghanistan will be in many aspects identical to the one left by the Soviet forces in 1989, with the added weight of even greater destruction and resentment.
“OpEd News il 12 ottobre)
domenica 14 agosto 2011
THE CRISIS IN ITALY: The Vatican and the end of the Berlusconi Era.
Dramatic developments in the world of finance have finally forced Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi out of his self-imposed silence. In one of his rare appearances in Parliament a few days ago, he delivered a speech which was generally deemed disappointing, laying the blame for the crisis on everyone’s doorstep but his own.
Whatever the immediate political developments in Italy, it is safe to assume that the end of the Berlusconi era is upon us, and many questions need to be raised about Italy’s political future.
One of these certainly concerns the Roman Catholic Church, especially in view of the fundamental conflict between pragmatism and dogmatism which has always characterized its attitude particularly, though not exclusively, in relation to the Italian political scene.
The evils of “relativism” constitute one of the mainstays of the current Pope’s ideological make up, and he has been repeating his warnings on the subject since well before his election. There is, indeed, a growing tendency within the Church to return to a more dogmatic attitude, especially in its approach to politics, in reaction to what some consider the “aberration” of the Vatican II Council..
The question has deep roots and subtle implications non lastly for the fact that it continues to be raised, from the highest possible Ecclesiastical authorities, in apparent contrast to the principles of tolerance and Ecumenism enunciated about half a century ago by the Vatican II Council and never explicitly disavowed by the Church.
In the genuine enthusiasm raised by the Council, a basic principle, ever present in the history of religions and ideologies, seemed to have been forgotten, viz. that an indication of tolerance more often represents a sign of organisational and ideological weakness and not necessarily of moral strength. This consideration keeps re-emerging as the Church backslides into older, essentially dogmatic and more familiar patterns of thought and behaviour, while outwardly paying lip service to concepts, such as tolerance and ecumenism, which, in fact, are alien to its fundamental tenets.
In the context of the Catholic Church’s perennial invasive presence in the Italian political spectrum, this dualism poses interesting questions on the policies which have allowed “the Vatican”, as it is often superficially and somewhat erroneously called, to keep a virtually uninterrupted grip on Italian affairs since the early years of the Holy Roman Empire.
The matter acquires even greater significance in view of the manifest fragility of the Italian political system. A political and institutional void is coming into being, and the more responsible elements of Italian civil society appear to be in desperate search for alternatives. This has created the type of situation which most ideally suits the Holy See’s political tactics.
The debacle suffered by both Government and Opposition parties in last May’s electoral results (local elections and referenda) has only deepened the sense of malaise, and induced large sectors of the Opposition, as well as formerly unreliable allies to prefer giving grudging support to the government rather than face the incognita of general elections. In this state of confusion – certainly not helped by the constantly threatened financial upheavals – it is very interesting to observe how the Church is modifying its stance from a highly pragmatic, or “relativistic” approach, to one of greater dogmatic severity, especially concerning the errant private life of the Prime Minister. Until now, in exchange for considerable benefits, the Church had adopted a remarkably benevolent, paternal “boys will be boys” attitude, with just occasional, almost playful slaps on the wrists.
This stance is visibly changing, partly because the Catholic rank and file had started questioning it, and partly because of the visible hostility shown to Berlusconi’s Government by the electorate – including Catholic voters – in the recent electoral results. All the main political parties, right, centre and left, have lost touch with their electorate, but it is unclear to whose advantage. Into this kind of chaos the Church is stepping with much greater assurance than any political party can muster, and the first to feel the sting, of course, has been the governing majority.
The Church, for example, through the extremely influential “Italian Bishop’s Conference” or CEI, has, for example, already expressed deep reservations about the bulk of the drastic and greatly unpopular economic and financial measures taken or planned by the Government to overcome the current crisis
These appear to be merely warning shots, for the state of confusion is remarkable even by Italian standards, and it is difficult to foresee what developments to expect. The main political parties, especially those in the governing majority, are torn by internal dissent, and their leaders (Berlusconi and Umberto Bossi, founder of the “Northern League”) appear to be losing their charismatic hold on the party faithful. The Northern League could well be the key to future developments, because the very vociferous base would like to abandon Berlusconi to his fate, while the leadership feels that a Government crisis, at this stage, would only benefit the Opposition, particularly the Left.
There is a possibility that, perhaps after the summer vacations, the façade will crack, leaving little alternative except for early elections, unless a “technical Government” can be formed to reach the end of the legislature and allow the political parties to nurse their wounds.
Should early elections be called, there will be a scramble to obtain the approval, however indirect, from the Church authorities (particularly the CEI ), and it is safe to assume that words of approval or support will bear their price, thus ensuring an even more invasive role of the Church in Italy’s future..
Carlo Ungaro
August 14, 2011
Whatever the immediate political developments in Italy, it is safe to assume that the end of the Berlusconi era is upon us, and many questions need to be raised about Italy’s political future.
One of these certainly concerns the Roman Catholic Church, especially in view of the fundamental conflict between pragmatism and dogmatism which has always characterized its attitude particularly, though not exclusively, in relation to the Italian political scene.
The evils of “relativism” constitute one of the mainstays of the current Pope’s ideological make up, and he has been repeating his warnings on the subject since well before his election. There is, indeed, a growing tendency within the Church to return to a more dogmatic attitude, especially in its approach to politics, in reaction to what some consider the “aberration” of the Vatican II Council..
The question has deep roots and subtle implications non lastly for the fact that it continues to be raised, from the highest possible Ecclesiastical authorities, in apparent contrast to the principles of tolerance and Ecumenism enunciated about half a century ago by the Vatican II Council and never explicitly disavowed by the Church.
In the genuine enthusiasm raised by the Council, a basic principle, ever present in the history of religions and ideologies, seemed to have been forgotten, viz. that an indication of tolerance more often represents a sign of organisational and ideological weakness and not necessarily of moral strength. This consideration keeps re-emerging as the Church backslides into older, essentially dogmatic and more familiar patterns of thought and behaviour, while outwardly paying lip service to concepts, such as tolerance and ecumenism, which, in fact, are alien to its fundamental tenets.
In the context of the Catholic Church’s perennial invasive presence in the Italian political spectrum, this dualism poses interesting questions on the policies which have allowed “the Vatican”, as it is often superficially and somewhat erroneously called, to keep a virtually uninterrupted grip on Italian affairs since the early years of the Holy Roman Empire.
The matter acquires even greater significance in view of the manifest fragility of the Italian political system. A political and institutional void is coming into being, and the more responsible elements of Italian civil society appear to be in desperate search for alternatives. This has created the type of situation which most ideally suits the Holy See’s political tactics.
The debacle suffered by both Government and Opposition parties in last May’s electoral results (local elections and referenda) has only deepened the sense of malaise, and induced large sectors of the Opposition, as well as formerly unreliable allies to prefer giving grudging support to the government rather than face the incognita of general elections. In this state of confusion – certainly not helped by the constantly threatened financial upheavals – it is very interesting to observe how the Church is modifying its stance from a highly pragmatic, or “relativistic” approach, to one of greater dogmatic severity, especially concerning the errant private life of the Prime Minister. Until now, in exchange for considerable benefits, the Church had adopted a remarkably benevolent, paternal “boys will be boys” attitude, with just occasional, almost playful slaps on the wrists.
This stance is visibly changing, partly because the Catholic rank and file had started questioning it, and partly because of the visible hostility shown to Berlusconi’s Government by the electorate – including Catholic voters – in the recent electoral results. All the main political parties, right, centre and left, have lost touch with their electorate, but it is unclear to whose advantage. Into this kind of chaos the Church is stepping with much greater assurance than any political party can muster, and the first to feel the sting, of course, has been the governing majority.
The Church, for example, through the extremely influential “Italian Bishop’s Conference” or CEI, has, for example, already expressed deep reservations about the bulk of the drastic and greatly unpopular economic and financial measures taken or planned by the Government to overcome the current crisis
These appear to be merely warning shots, for the state of confusion is remarkable even by Italian standards, and it is difficult to foresee what developments to expect. The main political parties, especially those in the governing majority, are torn by internal dissent, and their leaders (Berlusconi and Umberto Bossi, founder of the “Northern League”) appear to be losing their charismatic hold on the party faithful. The Northern League could well be the key to future developments, because the very vociferous base would like to abandon Berlusconi to his fate, while the leadership feels that a Government crisis, at this stage, would only benefit the Opposition, particularly the Left.
There is a possibility that, perhaps after the summer vacations, the façade will crack, leaving little alternative except for early elections, unless a “technical Government” can be formed to reach the end of the legislature and allow the political parties to nurse their wounds.
Should early elections be called, there will be a scramble to obtain the approval, however indirect, from the Church authorities (particularly the CEI ), and it is safe to assume that words of approval or support will bear their price, thus ensuring an even more invasive role of the Church in Italy’s future..
Carlo Ungaro
August 14, 2011
THE AMERICAN DREAM: THEN AND NOW
THE AMERICAN DREAM: THEN AND NOW
My early childhood memory of Americans coincided with the immediate post-war reopening of Italy as a destination for ostensibly wealthy tourists, and the great majority of these, at the time, were American.
The impression they then gave was that they came not from another Country, but from another planet. They appeared taller, straighter, prouder than the rest of us. Their clothes were always immaculately pressed, their teeth a brilliant white, their hair glossier than ours, their pockets bulging with treasures, such as chewing gum, which, for us, were almost unattainable. They seemed cheerfully immune to extremes of climate or fatigue, their brow never marred by a drop of perspiration, their smile always ready and cordial, their generous and affable concern ever ready to surface. Left wing Europeans feigned contempt for them (in France a heavily sarcastic movie short called “le Beaujolais des Americains” – i.e. Coca Cola - was instantly successful), but deep down viewed them with respect and more than a touch of envy. They exuded benevolent power for theirs was the “righteous empire”. Their music, their movies, their sporting prowess were conquering the world just as their armies had done only a few years earlier.
In the history of the world, political and social dreams have abounded, and some, such as the Roman Republic, prospered for many centuries while others, such as the French and Soviet Revolutions, though relatively short-lived, cast a very long shadow on the destinies of the world.
The United States of America is only infrequently referred to as a “revolutionary” society, but the fact is that the American Revolution, almost two and a half centuries on, still has its institutional significance and is still capable of directly spreading its message to a large part of the world.
The “American Dream”, is a term closely associated with the American revolution, and the idea survived even the worst of the Great Depression. It was certainly very much alive when, at the impressionable age of 12, I first set foot in the United States, taken there by my father who had been appointed Italian Consul in Los Angeles.
Life, as I experienced it in Southern California, was extremely close to the image of that dream, at least partially inspired by the movies. Cracks did show however, and we were shocked when, having been invited to an exclusive “Country Club” we had to declare, solemnly, that we were “not Jewish”, as, indeed, we gazed in wonder at the emerging McCarthy phenomenon. Incidents all too reminiscent of the recently defeated European regimes. But the dream, at least for large sectors of the population – particularly white and middle class - seemed to have a solid existence.
It certainly lived in the hearts and minds of the many Italian-American families who had settled in Southern California. In spite of the recent hostilities, which had placed many of them under suspicion, and in spite of an often outspoken admiration for Mussolini and Italy’s Fascist regime, Southern California’s Italian Americans were prime examples of successful migration stories. Their attachment to the heir new country had roots well beyond the economic success which would have been absolutely unachievable in early twentieth century Italy. They, above all, savoured the liberty which had been denied them by the Mother country.
Some of the older members of the Italian American community had crossed the Atlantic half a century earlier, and had never thought of going back, keeping, however, in their hearts, a strong, almost romantic nostalgia for the town or village of their origin.
Thus, as young teen-ager in Southern California, I came to understand and believe in the “American Dream”, although, I have to admit, I was too young to be aware of its ethnic and racial limits which, at the time were seldom, if ever, mentioned.
I wonder nowadays, some sixty years on, whether it is still realistic to speak of an “American Dream”, or whether we are now witnessing its waning years, with a much less innocent society continuing to go through the motions, pretending, often in good faith, that “Over the Rainbow” (an American rainbow, to be sure), skies indeed are blue, just as Roman Emperors fuelled the pretence that they still represented and defended Republican values and principles.
To what extent was the “American Dream” a reality, and when, if ever, did it start to founder are questions which appear interesting at a time when the United States, as well as most of the Western Democracies, are in the throes of one of recent history’s greatest economic emergencies, and seem unable to extricate themselves from military conflicts of dubious moral, or even strategic value which grow ever more unpopular at home.
venerdì 29 luglio 2011
IS ITALY ON THE BRINK OF DEBACLE?
(Published in “Open Democracy” on July 19 2011)
In the course of the past few weeks there was growing, ever more insistent speculation both in Italy and abroad as to whether the “Greek contagion” would end up hitting the Italian financial markets. The official reaction was to minimize the danger and to concentrate attention on the Government’s (and Parliament’s) efforts to approve an exceptionally severe austerity budget, designed to bring the country back from the brink of insolvency. While fierce debate was taking place within Italy’s governing majority on the austerity measures insistently demanded by the International community, the issue suddenly became urgent, as the Italian financial market was hit by a deep crisis which appeared likely to drag the country through a maelstrom of failures and insolvency.
In a remarkable, even surprising change of pace, at the end of the week both Houses of the Italian Parliament passed the most controversial budget law in the country’s history, with austerity measures valued at about seventy billion Euros. The main Opposition parties, still weakened and smarting from the recent electoral and referendum results, had no choice in the matter and adhered to the urgent request by the President of the Republic to abstain from obstructionist measures and to allow this most unpopular law, already defined as “brutal”, to pass speedily.
The dangers facing economic and financial markets in much of the world, and not only in Italy, have been and are being analysed with great competence, delineating an uncertain and potentially bleak future. In Italy the picture is further complicated by growing political chaos which could well reveal itself as a watershed in the short history of the Italian Republic with effects much deeper and graver than a traditional “Government crisis”..
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, after more than a week of uncustomary absence from the public scene, was present in the Lower House at the second parliamentary vote, but was extremely reticent, reserving a few remarks for a small, selected number of politicians and journalists. Berlusconi's silence is a new element in the Italian political scene, and has been much commented on.
It was on the disappearance of Silver Blaze, a champion race-horse, that Sherlock Holmes commented on the “strange behaviour of the dog in the night”. The dog, of course, had done nothing, and that had seemed strange to the great detective. The expression comes to mind in considering the long silence held by Berlusconi, normally a loquacious, indeed, garrulous personality not usually associated with the term “low profile”, especially in moments of political turmoil.. He has, nonetheless, made himself virtually invisible, his few comments doled out in laconic notes emanating from his office in Palazzo Chigi.
There are many possible explanations to Berlusconi’s silence, some connected to his personal vicissitudes which recently took a turn for the worse, but principally in the light of the fact that he is the ultimate populist and cannot bring himself to announce bad news unless it can be blamed on someone else. And, in spite of the apparent respite, with which Government spin doctors are trying to cope, brought about by the last minute approval of this incredibly severe, and perhaps not fully thought out packet of “austerity measures”, there has been plenty of bad news in Italy, with quite a bit more expected to come and all this with potentially uncertain and unpredictable consequences.
There already was, as customary in Italy, and more than ever in these days of looming political crisis, a feeling that things were falling apart, with, for example, the Government’s most influential member, the Minister of Economy, Giulio Tremonti, audibly and publicly calling one of his colleagues a “cretin” in the midst of a joint press conference, or the Prime Minister complaining to the opposition press that Tremonti himself was impossible to work with because he considered himself “the only intelligent member of the Government”
In today’s Italy, however, all this scarcely raised eyebrows, the Opposition’s principal complaint being that the most unpopular and painful measures envisaged in the proposed budget – which rose, in the course of a few days, from about 30 to about 70 billion Euros - were to take effect after 2013, leaving the difficult task of their fulfilment to the next Government.
Then came the violent attack on the Italian financial system (days unimaginatively called “Black Friday” and “Black Monday”) and all the dangers which had seemed safely distant suddenly became tangible and apparently imminent, forcing the Government’s hand and obliging the Opposition parties to swallow the bitter pill and allow the measures to be approved, albeit with their contrary vote.
A number of fundamental questions need to be addressed in any coherent attempt either to understand the current situation or to surmise what the near future holds in store.
The austerity packet has been subject to fierce, and somewhat justified criticism. Without examining the provisions in detail, some fundamentally negative, and perhaps even dangerous aspects emerge. The measures will be felt primarily by the lower middle-class, already tested by the ever growing divide between rich and poor in Italy. A greatly reduced spending capacity will diminish consumption and therefore risks slowing down the faltering economy, also in view of the fact that the package contains no credible stimuli to encourage production.
The fundamental question, however, rests in the doubt whether the current Italian Government, divided as it is, and with its extremely poor record in economic matters, will have the strength, the stamina, or indeed the political will to carry out measures which will certainly diminish its already shaky popularity. The omens are not encouraging, and the general political outlook is extremely bleak, well beyond the sense of panic caused by the economic and financial problems which beset the country.
The most recent events seem to show that the International financial apparatus is far from convinced by the validity of Italy’s austerity measures, and the pressure on the economy seems to continue unabated, while the confusion and the divisions in the governing majority appear, by now, to be totally out of control, with the normally hyperactive Berlusconi giving the impression of having become a spent force. In normal circumstances a Government caught in such a quandary would have no choice except to hand in its resignation, leaving the path open either for the calling of elections or to the formation of a new government, possibly headed by a personality not involved in the current political turmoil and with the task of bringing about the necessary amendments to the austerity packet and to attempt to last out the two years remaining in the current legislature.
At this moment neither of these solutions seems probable, and the country appears headed toward an extremely uncertain future, with popular discontent growing and mistrust of the political leadership – both in the majority and in the Opposition – having reached levels unprecedented even in Italy. Further blows to the financial market could possibly force a solution, and there are some signs, especially, but not only, in the opposition, that the formation of a “technical” government could be in the offing, but it would be unwise to display excessive optimism on the matter.
Carlo Ungaro
Rome, July 19 2011
In the course of the past few weeks there was growing, ever more insistent speculation both in Italy and abroad as to whether the “Greek contagion” would end up hitting the Italian financial markets. The official reaction was to minimize the danger and to concentrate attention on the Government’s (and Parliament’s) efforts to approve an exceptionally severe austerity budget, designed to bring the country back from the brink of insolvency. While fierce debate was taking place within Italy’s governing majority on the austerity measures insistently demanded by the International community, the issue suddenly became urgent, as the Italian financial market was hit by a deep crisis which appeared likely to drag the country through a maelstrom of failures and insolvency.
In a remarkable, even surprising change of pace, at the end of the week both Houses of the Italian Parliament passed the most controversial budget law in the country’s history, with austerity measures valued at about seventy billion Euros. The main Opposition parties, still weakened and smarting from the recent electoral and referendum results, had no choice in the matter and adhered to the urgent request by the President of the Republic to abstain from obstructionist measures and to allow this most unpopular law, already defined as “brutal”, to pass speedily.
The dangers facing economic and financial markets in much of the world, and not only in Italy, have been and are being analysed with great competence, delineating an uncertain and potentially bleak future. In Italy the picture is further complicated by growing political chaos which could well reveal itself as a watershed in the short history of the Italian Republic with effects much deeper and graver than a traditional “Government crisis”..
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, after more than a week of uncustomary absence from the public scene, was present in the Lower House at the second parliamentary vote, but was extremely reticent, reserving a few remarks for a small, selected number of politicians and journalists. Berlusconi's silence is a new element in the Italian political scene, and has been much commented on.
It was on the disappearance of Silver Blaze, a champion race-horse, that Sherlock Holmes commented on the “strange behaviour of the dog in the night”. The dog, of course, had done nothing, and that had seemed strange to the great detective. The expression comes to mind in considering the long silence held by Berlusconi, normally a loquacious, indeed, garrulous personality not usually associated with the term “low profile”, especially in moments of political turmoil.. He has, nonetheless, made himself virtually invisible, his few comments doled out in laconic notes emanating from his office in Palazzo Chigi.
There are many possible explanations to Berlusconi’s silence, some connected to his personal vicissitudes which recently took a turn for the worse, but principally in the light of the fact that he is the ultimate populist and cannot bring himself to announce bad news unless it can be blamed on someone else. And, in spite of the apparent respite, with which Government spin doctors are trying to cope, brought about by the last minute approval of this incredibly severe, and perhaps not fully thought out packet of “austerity measures”, there has been plenty of bad news in Italy, with quite a bit more expected to come and all this with potentially uncertain and unpredictable consequences.
There already was, as customary in Italy, and more than ever in these days of looming political crisis, a feeling that things were falling apart, with, for example, the Government’s most influential member, the Minister of Economy, Giulio Tremonti, audibly and publicly calling one of his colleagues a “cretin” in the midst of a joint press conference, or the Prime Minister complaining to the opposition press that Tremonti himself was impossible to work with because he considered himself “the only intelligent member of the Government”
In today’s Italy, however, all this scarcely raised eyebrows, the Opposition’s principal complaint being that the most unpopular and painful measures envisaged in the proposed budget – which rose, in the course of a few days, from about 30 to about 70 billion Euros - were to take effect after 2013, leaving the difficult task of their fulfilment to the next Government.
Then came the violent attack on the Italian financial system (days unimaginatively called “Black Friday” and “Black Monday”) and all the dangers which had seemed safely distant suddenly became tangible and apparently imminent, forcing the Government’s hand and obliging the Opposition parties to swallow the bitter pill and allow the measures to be approved, albeit with their contrary vote.
A number of fundamental questions need to be addressed in any coherent attempt either to understand the current situation or to surmise what the near future holds in store.
The austerity packet has been subject to fierce, and somewhat justified criticism. Without examining the provisions in detail, some fundamentally negative, and perhaps even dangerous aspects emerge. The measures will be felt primarily by the lower middle-class, already tested by the ever growing divide between rich and poor in Italy. A greatly reduced spending capacity will diminish consumption and therefore risks slowing down the faltering economy, also in view of the fact that the package contains no credible stimuli to encourage production.
The fundamental question, however, rests in the doubt whether the current Italian Government, divided as it is, and with its extremely poor record in economic matters, will have the strength, the stamina, or indeed the political will to carry out measures which will certainly diminish its already shaky popularity. The omens are not encouraging, and the general political outlook is extremely bleak, well beyond the sense of panic caused by the economic and financial problems which beset the country.
The most recent events seem to show that the International financial apparatus is far from convinced by the validity of Italy’s austerity measures, and the pressure on the economy seems to continue unabated, while the confusion and the divisions in the governing majority appear, by now, to be totally out of control, with the normally hyperactive Berlusconi giving the impression of having become a spent force. In normal circumstances a Government caught in such a quandary would have no choice except to hand in its resignation, leaving the path open either for the calling of elections or to the formation of a new government, possibly headed by a personality not involved in the current political turmoil and with the task of bringing about the necessary amendments to the austerity packet and to attempt to last out the two years remaining in the current legislature.
At this moment neither of these solutions seems probable, and the country appears headed toward an extremely uncertain future, with popular discontent growing and mistrust of the political leadership – both in the majority and in the Opposition – having reached levels unprecedented even in Italy. Further blows to the financial market could possibly force a solution, and there are some signs, especially, but not only, in the opposition, that the formation of a “technical” government could be in the offing, but it would be unwise to display excessive optimism on the matter.
Carlo Ungaro
Rome, July 19 2011
giovedì 7 luglio 2011
IS DEMOCRACY AT RISK IN ITALY?
Rome, March 6, 2011
After long and agonizing hesitations, the Italian Government proclaimed last March 17 a national holiday to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Italy as a Nation State. The circumstances surrounding this event raised many questions, and, in particular, caused doubts to be expressed as to whether Italy, after 150 years, is any more united than it was in 1861.
While, on their part, the Government and the institutions seemed almost embarrassed a the rhetoric and the flag waving, the popular response, instead, was actually warmer than expected, and, in many Italian regions, flags were hung out of windows and, indeed, some are still there.
The image of Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi kissing the hand of Colonel Gheddafi in the course of one of the Libyan leader’s frequent state visits to Italy was recently circulated, with adverse comment, in that part of the Italian press which is not totally subservient to Government control. In fact, Berlusconi’s often publicly reiterated admiration for Gheddafi and other authoritarian leaders, such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin and the President of Kazakhstan, who, according to the Italian Prime Minister, is “much beloved by his people”, have added weight to questions as to whether, under the Berlusconi leadership, Italy has reverted or is reverting to its Fascist past.
There is no simple answer to this question, for, on the one hand, It has to be pointed out that those marches, slogans and paramilitary uniforms typical of a Fascist regime have certainly not made an appearance, nor have there been episodes of physical violence meted out to political opponents. A recent massive demonstration against the Berlusconi Government took place unopposed even though it was then either ignored or harshly criticised by the Government media.
On the other hand, however, more subtle symptoms emerge which do indicate a constant, steady erosion of basic democratic values and a gradual slippage into what could be called a softer, homespun version of Neo-Fascism. Indeed, it is not difficult to find chilling similarities between attitudes prevalent in today’s ruling majority and those typical of the Fascist regime.
The esteemed journalist and writer Paolo Monelli (1891 – 1984), already professionally active and well-known during the regime, wrote in 1945, early after the fall of Fascism, that “it is difficult to imagine a more intense apathy in a nation. The Fascist dictatorship's greatest fault lies in having rendered an entire nation negligent, apathetic and indifferent.” (Paolo Monelli, “Roma 1943”).
In the course of the past 17 years, during most of which Berlusconi has been in power, he has been able to exert an almost total control on the media. Italians are stubbornly monoglot (most have never even seen a foreign film if not in a badly translated and atrociously dubbed version), and over 80% of the population depends exclusively on the TV as a source of information. The Prime Minister owns three private TV stations and has succeeded in transforming the principal of the three public channels into what can safely be defined as an all pervasive instrument of personal propaganda.
The viewers, therefore, are subject to a constant stream of totally inane shows (mainly “reality shows” or very elementary quiz shows), in which scantily clad female bodies are on constant display and which are quite blatantly geared to reach the lowest level of cultural awareness. This has greatly contributed to dull the general public’s critical alertness and, in a certain sense, to render it willing and ready to accept anything from the TV fare which, in analogy to the neologism “infotainment” could be dubbed “indoctritainement”. There are one or two extremely popular programmes which invite thought and argument. Their very popularity makes them “dangerous” and they are constantly facing the risk of being shut down by an irate Prime Minister who claims that “in no civilized country does the “State Television” criticise the Head of Government”. More than once has Berlusconi telephoned live his strong disapproval in the course of the programmes.
A recent example of media manipulation amply illustrates the situation. In protesting his total innocence on the many charges brought against him and for which he will have to stand trial, Berlusconi likened the “persecution” against him to the type of persecution operated by the notorious “Stasi” in the Democratic Republic of Germany. This statement was given ample, totally uncritical, coverage on the nation’s most followed newscast, on public television at 8:00 P.M.. After that, in an unannounced change of schedule, a recent award-winning film on the German police state was shown, convincing many of the basic truth in the Prime Minister’s complaints
Through constant, unopposed, reiteration on television, another much repeated “Leitmotif”, has taken hold of the public imagination, and a growing number of people seem to accept the totally illogical assertion that the very quantity of indictments brought against Berlusconi are themselves proof of his innocence. It was recently asserted on public television that a normal person may collect one or two criminal indictments in the course of his life. It should therefore be obvious that the Prime Minister, who has to fight against many more criminal indictments, is a victim of unjust persecution by “communist” judges who use illegal means in an attempt to get rid of him”.
The result is a growing conformity and passivity in the expression of opinions, as can be easily ascertained by listening to radio or TV shows which accept telephone messages from the public. This , in turn, generates an appalling docility in the acceptance of ascertained or alleged misconduct on the part of the Prime Minister..
Similarities with the Fascist regime are also noticeable in the growing, and at the end almost total, identification of the leader with the country itself: the embodiment of the dictum “L’Etat c’est moi”. Today’s leader, much like yesterday’s “Duce” seems to confuse his personal vicissitudes with the needs and problems of the nation.
Berlusconi has more than once, with no trace of irony, reiterated that he is the “greatest Prime Minister in Italy’s history”, and has also stated that those who criticise him are actually animated by “anti-Italian” feelings. According to him, Italy’s allegedly poor international reputation is exclusively due to all the poisonous articles written and published about him in the Italian “communist” press, and not a day goes by without some mention of the international “conspiracy” led by the “Anglo-Saxon media”, animated by envy at Italy’s resounding successes on the international scene.
Berlusconi has often inveighed against the system of “checks and balances”, which he attributes to a “Soviet inspired Constitution” and which prevents him from fulfilling the will of “the people who overwhelmingly voted for me”. His favourite target is the Judicial system which, in truth, does need urgent and drastic reform. In fact, trials in Italy take place in an absolutely Dickensian atmosphere, calling to mind “Bleak House” (Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Therefore, when Berlusconi talks about the need to reform the Judicial system, his appeals fall on fertile ground. The Government’s view of Judicial reform, however, is limited to assuring the Prime Minister’s impunity: some days ago a text was presented by a Government Parliamentarian granting considerable advantages to people “over the age of 75, with no prison record”. Not surprisingly, that particular segment of Italy’s population does happen to include the Prime Minister.
Even the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church shows some parallels with the past, when the womanizing, blaspheming, self declared atheist Mussolini, in the space of a few years went from the edge of excommunication to being dubbed “this man, sent to us by Divine Providence”. By the same token, in the name of “stability” Church officials turn a blind eye to Berlusconi’s peccadilloes, although, in truth, there are symptoms of disapproval from the Catholic rank and file, and these keep finding a growing coverage in the Catholic press.
The underlying fragility in Italy’s democracy is further enhanced by an absolutely irrational electoral law, which has transformed Parliament into the type of rubber-stamp assembly normally associated with Communist regimes, and situations such as these (there are many other significant episodes) risk undermining the very essence of the democratic institutions guaranteed by the republican Constitution of 1948. Italy is certainly not yet a Fascist state, but there are serious grounds to justify the uncomfortable feeling of a dangerous, inexorable drift in that direction.
Carlo Ungaro
carloungaro@gmail.com
After long and agonizing hesitations, the Italian Government proclaimed last March 17 a national holiday to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Italy as a Nation State. The circumstances surrounding this event raised many questions, and, in particular, caused doubts to be expressed as to whether Italy, after 150 years, is any more united than it was in 1861.
While, on their part, the Government and the institutions seemed almost embarrassed a the rhetoric and the flag waving, the popular response, instead, was actually warmer than expected, and, in many Italian regions, flags were hung out of windows and, indeed, some are still there.
The image of Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi kissing the hand of Colonel Gheddafi in the course of one of the Libyan leader’s frequent state visits to Italy was recently circulated, with adverse comment, in that part of the Italian press which is not totally subservient to Government control. In fact, Berlusconi’s often publicly reiterated admiration for Gheddafi and other authoritarian leaders, such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin and the President of Kazakhstan, who, according to the Italian Prime Minister, is “much beloved by his people”, have added weight to questions as to whether, under the Berlusconi leadership, Italy has reverted or is reverting to its Fascist past.
There is no simple answer to this question, for, on the one hand, It has to be pointed out that those marches, slogans and paramilitary uniforms typical of a Fascist regime have certainly not made an appearance, nor have there been episodes of physical violence meted out to political opponents. A recent massive demonstration against the Berlusconi Government took place unopposed even though it was then either ignored or harshly criticised by the Government media.
On the other hand, however, more subtle symptoms emerge which do indicate a constant, steady erosion of basic democratic values and a gradual slippage into what could be called a softer, homespun version of Neo-Fascism. Indeed, it is not difficult to find chilling similarities between attitudes prevalent in today’s ruling majority and those typical of the Fascist regime.
The esteemed journalist and writer Paolo Monelli (1891 – 1984), already professionally active and well-known during the regime, wrote in 1945, early after the fall of Fascism, that “it is difficult to imagine a more intense apathy in a nation. The Fascist dictatorship's greatest fault lies in having rendered an entire nation negligent, apathetic and indifferent.” (Paolo Monelli, “Roma 1943”).
In the course of the past 17 years, during most of which Berlusconi has been in power, he has been able to exert an almost total control on the media. Italians are stubbornly monoglot (most have never even seen a foreign film if not in a badly translated and atrociously dubbed version), and over 80% of the population depends exclusively on the TV as a source of information. The Prime Minister owns three private TV stations and has succeeded in transforming the principal of the three public channels into what can safely be defined as an all pervasive instrument of personal propaganda.
The viewers, therefore, are subject to a constant stream of totally inane shows (mainly “reality shows” or very elementary quiz shows), in which scantily clad female bodies are on constant display and which are quite blatantly geared to reach the lowest level of cultural awareness. This has greatly contributed to dull the general public’s critical alertness and, in a certain sense, to render it willing and ready to accept anything from the TV fare which, in analogy to the neologism “infotainment” could be dubbed “indoctritainement”. There are one or two extremely popular programmes which invite thought and argument. Their very popularity makes them “dangerous” and they are constantly facing the risk of being shut down by an irate Prime Minister who claims that “in no civilized country does the “State Television” criticise the Head of Government”. More than once has Berlusconi telephoned live his strong disapproval in the course of the programmes.
A recent example of media manipulation amply illustrates the situation. In protesting his total innocence on the many charges brought against him and for which he will have to stand trial, Berlusconi likened the “persecution” against him to the type of persecution operated by the notorious “Stasi” in the Democratic Republic of Germany. This statement was given ample, totally uncritical, coverage on the nation’s most followed newscast, on public television at 8:00 P.M.. After that, in an unannounced change of schedule, a recent award-winning film on the German police state was shown, convincing many of the basic truth in the Prime Minister’s complaints
Through constant, unopposed, reiteration on television, another much repeated “Leitmotif”, has taken hold of the public imagination, and a growing number of people seem to accept the totally illogical assertion that the very quantity of indictments brought against Berlusconi are themselves proof of his innocence. It was recently asserted on public television that a normal person may collect one or two criminal indictments in the course of his life. It should therefore be obvious that the Prime Minister, who has to fight against many more criminal indictments, is a victim of unjust persecution by “communist” judges who use illegal means in an attempt to get rid of him”.
The result is a growing conformity and passivity in the expression of opinions, as can be easily ascertained by listening to radio or TV shows which accept telephone messages from the public. This , in turn, generates an appalling docility in the acceptance of ascertained or alleged misconduct on the part of the Prime Minister..
Similarities with the Fascist regime are also noticeable in the growing, and at the end almost total, identification of the leader with the country itself: the embodiment of the dictum “L’Etat c’est moi”. Today’s leader, much like yesterday’s “Duce” seems to confuse his personal vicissitudes with the needs and problems of the nation.
Berlusconi has more than once, with no trace of irony, reiterated that he is the “greatest Prime Minister in Italy’s history”, and has also stated that those who criticise him are actually animated by “anti-Italian” feelings. According to him, Italy’s allegedly poor international reputation is exclusively due to all the poisonous articles written and published about him in the Italian “communist” press, and not a day goes by without some mention of the international “conspiracy” led by the “Anglo-Saxon media”, animated by envy at Italy’s resounding successes on the international scene.
Berlusconi has often inveighed against the system of “checks and balances”, which he attributes to a “Soviet inspired Constitution” and which prevents him from fulfilling the will of “the people who overwhelmingly voted for me”. His favourite target is the Judicial system which, in truth, does need urgent and drastic reform. In fact, trials in Italy take place in an absolutely Dickensian atmosphere, calling to mind “Bleak House” (Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Therefore, when Berlusconi talks about the need to reform the Judicial system, his appeals fall on fertile ground. The Government’s view of Judicial reform, however, is limited to assuring the Prime Minister’s impunity: some days ago a text was presented by a Government Parliamentarian granting considerable advantages to people “over the age of 75, with no prison record”. Not surprisingly, that particular segment of Italy’s population does happen to include the Prime Minister.
Even the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church shows some parallels with the past, when the womanizing, blaspheming, self declared atheist Mussolini, in the space of a few years went from the edge of excommunication to being dubbed “this man, sent to us by Divine Providence”. By the same token, in the name of “stability” Church officials turn a blind eye to Berlusconi’s peccadilloes, although, in truth, there are symptoms of disapproval from the Catholic rank and file, and these keep finding a growing coverage in the Catholic press.
The underlying fragility in Italy’s democracy is further enhanced by an absolutely irrational electoral law, which has transformed Parliament into the type of rubber-stamp assembly normally associated with Communist regimes, and situations such as these (there are many other significant episodes) risk undermining the very essence of the democratic institutions guaranteed by the republican Constitution of 1948. Italy is certainly not yet a Fascist state, but there are serious grounds to justify the uncomfortable feeling of a dangerous, inexorable drift in that direction.
Carlo Ungaro
carloungaro@gmail.com
AFGHANISTAN: THE ATTACK ON THE KABUL INTERCONTINENTAL
Rome, July 6, 2011
The “Kabul Intercontinental” hotel, attacked last week by insurgents, was built and inaugurated In those halcyon years preceding the end of Zahir Shah’s reign, when Afghanistan seemed like a haven of peace and Kabul was known – rather inappropriately – as “the Paris of Central Asia”.
Even then this massive structure built on a hill overlooking the city stood out and was the object of much comment, not all of it favourable. Already in those years, within the ostensibly “westernized” Kabul civil society, voices were raised which expressed disapproval and, above all, the fear that king Zahir Shah – just like one of his unfortunate predecessors, Amanullah Khan – was showing undue haste in aligning the Capital to Western models, failing to take into account the growing disapproval of the highly conservative rural population. The fact itself that this new modern hotel even had an outdoor swimming pool, open to both sexes, fuelled the growing tide of disapproval.
The significance of this recent Taliban action seems highly symbolic and therefore goes well beyond the loss of life and material damage caused. Many have been quick to point out the startling similarity of this episode to the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but a more appropriate parallel could be drawn with a similar assault on the Serena Hotel in the very heart of Kabul, some years ago.
At the time, this incident took many international observers by surprise, and did constitute a veritable turning point in the Taliban strategy, giving notice that nowhere in Afghanistan, not even the capital, could be considered even remotely safe.
No matter what the official line has repeatedly stated, events have been steadily deteriorating since then, and the erstwhile Cassandra's, those who have repeatedly stated that the war as such, is “unwinnable”, are unfortunately being proven right.
Cassandra, we know, was a tragic figure whose gift for prophesizing brought her only unhappiness and, ultimately, doom. There is, therefore, no sense of satisfaction, however grim, no hint of schadenfreude in those very few who, in the course of the past years, have been trying to steer international opinion’s attention to the impending and palpably inevitable disaster in Afghanistan.
It is undeniable that some positive points have emerged, not the least of them being the growing – albeit somewhat shaky - role of Afghan security forces in the armed struggle. It is also true that in many parts of the country, particularly the North and the West, the quality of life, especially for women, has somewhat improved, and that in some regions there is a growing taste for Civil Society’s active participation in local political life. The overall picture, however, remains bleak and desolate.
The term itself, “turning point”, employed ad nauseam on all occasions (lastly the elimination of Osama Bin Laden) is deceptive, because it seems evident that, at this stage, there really is nowhere to turn. Even if, through covert negotiations, power could be handed over to some “moderate” Taliban factions (whatever that may possibly mean), they themselves will probably experience great difficulty in controlling the more extremist elements. For their part, the NATO forces will not have the availability of a nearby haven from which to intervene and aid the new Government in its battle to control the extremists. Pakistan, in its present state of turmoil, is out of the question and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics do not offer guarantees of long term reliability. Their regimes, though apparently strong, would experience great difficulties in granting hospitality to NATO forces with the purpose of keeping an eye on Afghanistan. To what extent Drones can be used to this effect is open to question.
The situation is darkly reminiscent of the Soviet pull-out over twenty years ago: for a while, the Soviet Union was able to keep control of the Afghan skies and thus allow the survival of the Government, but the collapse of the Soviet structure fatally brought about the civil war which eventually led to the Taliban takeover.
“Staying on”, however, is out of the question, not only for the growing unpopularity of the conflict in American and European public opinion, but also because no advantage would be obtained, only the protraction of an equivocal situation which is destroying the very fabric of Afghan culture and civilization.
It seems clear that news of minor victories or setbacks on the military front have lost significance and that close attention has to be paid to the harsh messages that the Taliban have been sending not only to the NATO forces, but also to those sections of the Afghan population still inclined to welcome the presence of foreign forces and to collaborate with them. The attack on the Intercontinental, a very visible symbol of foreign presence has to be placed in this context.
It could well be too late, but perhaps attempts should be made to ensure some local autonomy in the Northern and Western provinces, granting the future Afghan government rather full power in the rest of the country. Perhaps some of the less sinister warlords, who, in some areas, still command respect and loyalty could be “rehabilitated” to this end.
The alternatives to total disaster are fast diminishing, and the time has come fundamentally to revisit Afghan policy, also, of course, in the military sector, but more particularly with an eye to civilian development.
It is almost impossible to keep track of the constantly shifting aims declared by the coalition upon invading Afghanistan and in subsequent years. The latest seems to be oriented toward leaving Afghanistan as a “neutral buffer state”, which, of course, has been its historical role for centuries. This would mean that a return to a distant past in a climate of total uncertainty will be considered sufficient to express satisfaction at the outcome of the long conflict in Afghanistan, and this is a point well worth reflecting upon.
Carlo Ungaro
The “Kabul Intercontinental” hotel, attacked last week by insurgents, was built and inaugurated In those halcyon years preceding the end of Zahir Shah’s reign, when Afghanistan seemed like a haven of peace and Kabul was known – rather inappropriately – as “the Paris of Central Asia”.
Even then this massive structure built on a hill overlooking the city stood out and was the object of much comment, not all of it favourable. Already in those years, within the ostensibly “westernized” Kabul civil society, voices were raised which expressed disapproval and, above all, the fear that king Zahir Shah – just like one of his unfortunate predecessors, Amanullah Khan – was showing undue haste in aligning the Capital to Western models, failing to take into account the growing disapproval of the highly conservative rural population. The fact itself that this new modern hotel even had an outdoor swimming pool, open to both sexes, fuelled the growing tide of disapproval.
The significance of this recent Taliban action seems highly symbolic and therefore goes well beyond the loss of life and material damage caused. Many have been quick to point out the startling similarity of this episode to the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but a more appropriate parallel could be drawn with a similar assault on the Serena Hotel in the very heart of Kabul, some years ago.
At the time, this incident took many international observers by surprise, and did constitute a veritable turning point in the Taliban strategy, giving notice that nowhere in Afghanistan, not even the capital, could be considered even remotely safe.
No matter what the official line has repeatedly stated, events have been steadily deteriorating since then, and the erstwhile Cassandra's, those who have repeatedly stated that the war as such, is “unwinnable”, are unfortunately being proven right.
Cassandra, we know, was a tragic figure whose gift for prophesizing brought her only unhappiness and, ultimately, doom. There is, therefore, no sense of satisfaction, however grim, no hint of schadenfreude in those very few who, in the course of the past years, have been trying to steer international opinion’s attention to the impending and palpably inevitable disaster in Afghanistan.
It is undeniable that some positive points have emerged, not the least of them being the growing – albeit somewhat shaky - role of Afghan security forces in the armed struggle. It is also true that in many parts of the country, particularly the North and the West, the quality of life, especially for women, has somewhat improved, and that in some regions there is a growing taste for Civil Society’s active participation in local political life. The overall picture, however, remains bleak and desolate.
The term itself, “turning point”, employed ad nauseam on all occasions (lastly the elimination of Osama Bin Laden) is deceptive, because it seems evident that, at this stage, there really is nowhere to turn. Even if, through covert negotiations, power could be handed over to some “moderate” Taliban factions (whatever that may possibly mean), they themselves will probably experience great difficulty in controlling the more extremist elements. For their part, the NATO forces will not have the availability of a nearby haven from which to intervene and aid the new Government in its battle to control the extremists. Pakistan, in its present state of turmoil, is out of the question and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics do not offer guarantees of long term reliability. Their regimes, though apparently strong, would experience great difficulties in granting hospitality to NATO forces with the purpose of keeping an eye on Afghanistan. To what extent Drones can be used to this effect is open to question.
The situation is darkly reminiscent of the Soviet pull-out over twenty years ago: for a while, the Soviet Union was able to keep control of the Afghan skies and thus allow the survival of the Government, but the collapse of the Soviet structure fatally brought about the civil war which eventually led to the Taliban takeover.
“Staying on”, however, is out of the question, not only for the growing unpopularity of the conflict in American and European public opinion, but also because no advantage would be obtained, only the protraction of an equivocal situation which is destroying the very fabric of Afghan culture and civilization.
It seems clear that news of minor victories or setbacks on the military front have lost significance and that close attention has to be paid to the harsh messages that the Taliban have been sending not only to the NATO forces, but also to those sections of the Afghan population still inclined to welcome the presence of foreign forces and to collaborate with them. The attack on the Intercontinental, a very visible symbol of foreign presence has to be placed in this context.
It could well be too late, but perhaps attempts should be made to ensure some local autonomy in the Northern and Western provinces, granting the future Afghan government rather full power in the rest of the country. Perhaps some of the less sinister warlords, who, in some areas, still command respect and loyalty could be “rehabilitated” to this end.
The alternatives to total disaster are fast diminishing, and the time has come fundamentally to revisit Afghan policy, also, of course, in the military sector, but more particularly with an eye to civilian development.
It is almost impossible to keep track of the constantly shifting aims declared by the coalition upon invading Afghanistan and in subsequent years. The latest seems to be oriented toward leaving Afghanistan as a “neutral buffer state”, which, of course, has been its historical role for centuries. This would mean that a return to a distant past in a climate of total uncertainty will be considered sufficient to express satisfaction at the outcome of the long conflict in Afghanistan, and this is a point well worth reflecting upon.
Carlo Ungaro
AN "ITALIAN SPRING"? VOTERS REBELLION IN ITALY
Rome, July 5, 2011
The extent of the damage inflicted on Italy’s governing majority by recent electoral results can be measured by a recent statement uttered on public Television by one of the most austere and influential Government ministers who recalled an anecdote about Louis XVI refusing to believe that the attack on the Bastille was a “revolution”, treating it rather as a “revolt” and consequently coming to a grisly end. Giulio Tremonti, Minister of the Economy, thus publicly warned Berlusconi that what had taken place was not a “revolt”, but a real “revolution” by the Italian electorate and ought to be taken seriously.
Even a few months ago, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s hold on power seemed impregnable, largely through his vast control over private an public media.
In the course of the past four weeks, however, both Mr. Berlusconi and his only meaningful political ally, the “Northern League”, have suffered a number of unpredicted and severe setbacks as a result of what amounts to a virtual revolt by the Italian electorate which, in recent years, had seemed very passive, to the point of indifference, and readily obedient to their party’s call.
The results of recent local elections in Milan had sounded a warning, with Mr. Berlusconi being defeated in his own territory in spite of an unprecedented, totally personalised media propaganda onslaught, but the hardest and perhaps fatal blow came two weeks later as the results of four public referenda showed the electorate’s disillusionment, even hostility, to the current governing coalition.
In commenting the recent referendum results in Italy, most observers have put the accent on the massive vote (well over 90%) against the nuclear power program which had been similarly rejected by a popular referendum in 1987. The situation, however, needs to be viewed in a much more complex light and could well constitute a fundamental turning point in the Italian political scene.
According to the Italian Constitution, a referendum will be considered valid only if “50% plus 1” of the voters cast a ballot. Many previous attempts at repealing laws through the referendum process have failed because those who opposed the referendum simply abstained. In spite of an abstention campaign launched by both the majority parties, counting on the obedience of their followers, a massive 57% of the electorate chose to vote, and the vote in favour of repealing the laws subject to referendum was uniformly above 90%.
The laws thus repealed concerned the nuclear power programme, the privatisation of the water supply and – perhaps most importantly – the right of the Prime Minister and other Government officials to refuse to appear in court if subject to prosecution for crimes allegedly committed even in periods prior to their accession to office. This last law had been hastily passed with the express intention of protecting the Prime Minister from prosecution. The extremely high proportion of votes cast for its repeal therefore shows an unexpected disaffection of the electorate with Mr. Berlusconi..
A great many questions have been raised by this result, and it would be difficult to tackle them all. Some issues, however, seem of primary importance, and the first consideration that comes to mind is that the main opposition parties, though eager to board the victory bandwagon , were also taken by surprise and can be considered victims of the new political climate, which they did very little to inspire. The successful candidates in Milan and Naples actually ran against the “official” opposition candidates and therefore, until the very end, received only tepid support. Similarly, the referendum vote was considered a lost cause, and only two fringe parties campaigned in its favour: Berlusconi's unwise decision to put himself in the front line, signifying that a vote against his party was a vote against him certainly helped the winners much more than the late and ineffectual support of the main opposition parties. While it is easy to indicate who came out as the loser – and it has been an unprecedented personal defeat for Berlusconi – it is much more difficult to understand who the ultimate winner will be, and the next few, certainly hectic, weeks of Italian political activity will certainly concentrate on the solution of this conundrum..
It is also interesting to note that supporters of the winning candidates and of the referenda received very limited exposure on TV: this could be the beginning of the end of the so-called “videocracy” which has ruled Italy for the past years. The term “videocracy” was recently coined as the title of an excellent, bitter-sweet documentary about Italian politics. Television seemed to be the dominating power, and those who controlled Television controlled the nation. Perhaps the governing parties, and particularly the Prime Minister, have been guilty of over-exposure thus creating irritation instead of consensus. In the recent municipal elections, the parties least exposed to TV coverage came out on top, and this seems highly significant.
Another important concern, which has not been addressed by international observers, is the effect that these results will have on the Catholic hierarchy which, particularly in the recent past, has had a strong, and at times pernicious influence on Italian politics. It may appear specious to speak of the “Catholic vote” in an almost totally “Catholic” country. But traditionally there have always been politicians who have identified themselves as “Catholic” and have therefore received approval and backing from the Church hierarchy. The attitude of the Church towards Berlusconi has been ambiguous: he has occasionally had his knuckles lightly rapped for his behaviour, but the Church has constantly given him its support in exchange for remarkably useful favours. There were complaints, however, from the grass roots, expressed mainly through Parish Priests and the surprisingly massive turnout in a referendum which was widely regarded as for or against Berlusconi will cause some rethinking and could end up with the Church withdrawing its support with understandably negative consequences for the Government.
An early symptom of this change of attitude came very shortly after the vote, when the Italian Bishops Conference came out very strongly against some statements by a member of the Government.
One of the primary considerations, of course, concerns the effect these two “slaps in the face” (as a high ranking Northern League official put it) will have on the ruling coalition and the way in which Berlusconi will choose to react: at the moment he seems intent on the suicidal policy of urgently enacting a questionable fiscal reform, in spite of the fragile situation of the economy.
Berlusconi has been promising “tax cuts” and “Fiscal reform” ever since he first came to power in 1994, but there has been no visible decrease in taxation. He is very much of a populist leader and he has made it known that he wants urgently to enact a “fiscal reform” to alleviate taxes, obviously in the hope of regaining popular support. The type of reform he has in mind would end up increasing Italy’s public debt – one of the highest in the world – and would go against EU advice and rules. His view of fiscal reform, moreover, has always been in favour of the upper income brackets, and this would cause further dissent in a moment when the gap between rich and poor is visibly increasing. This is a risky path and an injudicious fiscal policy at this stage could reduce Italy to the conditions faced by Greece, Portugal and other “problem” Countries.
The ruling majority is in deep trouble. Some stalwart party members openly and ostentatiously disobeyed Party orders by casting their votes in the referendum, and there already have been acrimonious exchanges between the two ruling parties and also within the parties themselves. There is much uncertainty on what the future developments will be, but this has certainly all the earmarks of an important watershed moment.
The extent of the damage inflicted on Italy’s governing majority by recent electoral results can be measured by a recent statement uttered on public Television by one of the most austere and influential Government ministers who recalled an anecdote about Louis XVI refusing to believe that the attack on the Bastille was a “revolution”, treating it rather as a “revolt” and consequently coming to a grisly end. Giulio Tremonti, Minister of the Economy, thus publicly warned Berlusconi that what had taken place was not a “revolt”, but a real “revolution” by the Italian electorate and ought to be taken seriously.
Even a few months ago, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s hold on power seemed impregnable, largely through his vast control over private an public media.
In the course of the past four weeks, however, both Mr. Berlusconi and his only meaningful political ally, the “Northern League”, have suffered a number of unpredicted and severe setbacks as a result of what amounts to a virtual revolt by the Italian electorate which, in recent years, had seemed very passive, to the point of indifference, and readily obedient to their party’s call.
The results of recent local elections in Milan had sounded a warning, with Mr. Berlusconi being defeated in his own territory in spite of an unprecedented, totally personalised media propaganda onslaught, but the hardest and perhaps fatal blow came two weeks later as the results of four public referenda showed the electorate’s disillusionment, even hostility, to the current governing coalition.
In commenting the recent referendum results in Italy, most observers have put the accent on the massive vote (well over 90%) against the nuclear power program which had been similarly rejected by a popular referendum in 1987. The situation, however, needs to be viewed in a much more complex light and could well constitute a fundamental turning point in the Italian political scene.
According to the Italian Constitution, a referendum will be considered valid only if “50% plus 1” of the voters cast a ballot. Many previous attempts at repealing laws through the referendum process have failed because those who opposed the referendum simply abstained. In spite of an abstention campaign launched by both the majority parties, counting on the obedience of their followers, a massive 57% of the electorate chose to vote, and the vote in favour of repealing the laws subject to referendum was uniformly above 90%.
The laws thus repealed concerned the nuclear power programme, the privatisation of the water supply and – perhaps most importantly – the right of the Prime Minister and other Government officials to refuse to appear in court if subject to prosecution for crimes allegedly committed even in periods prior to their accession to office. This last law had been hastily passed with the express intention of protecting the Prime Minister from prosecution. The extremely high proportion of votes cast for its repeal therefore shows an unexpected disaffection of the electorate with Mr. Berlusconi..
A great many questions have been raised by this result, and it would be difficult to tackle them all. Some issues, however, seem of primary importance, and the first consideration that comes to mind is that the main opposition parties, though eager to board the victory bandwagon , were also taken by surprise and can be considered victims of the new political climate, which they did very little to inspire. The successful candidates in Milan and Naples actually ran against the “official” opposition candidates and therefore, until the very end, received only tepid support. Similarly, the referendum vote was considered a lost cause, and only two fringe parties campaigned in its favour: Berlusconi's unwise decision to put himself in the front line, signifying that a vote against his party was a vote against him certainly helped the winners much more than the late and ineffectual support of the main opposition parties. While it is easy to indicate who came out as the loser – and it has been an unprecedented personal defeat for Berlusconi – it is much more difficult to understand who the ultimate winner will be, and the next few, certainly hectic, weeks of Italian political activity will certainly concentrate on the solution of this conundrum..
It is also interesting to note that supporters of the winning candidates and of the referenda received very limited exposure on TV: this could be the beginning of the end of the so-called “videocracy” which has ruled Italy for the past years. The term “videocracy” was recently coined as the title of an excellent, bitter-sweet documentary about Italian politics. Television seemed to be the dominating power, and those who controlled Television controlled the nation. Perhaps the governing parties, and particularly the Prime Minister, have been guilty of over-exposure thus creating irritation instead of consensus. In the recent municipal elections, the parties least exposed to TV coverage came out on top, and this seems highly significant.
Another important concern, which has not been addressed by international observers, is the effect that these results will have on the Catholic hierarchy which, particularly in the recent past, has had a strong, and at times pernicious influence on Italian politics. It may appear specious to speak of the “Catholic vote” in an almost totally “Catholic” country. But traditionally there have always been politicians who have identified themselves as “Catholic” and have therefore received approval and backing from the Church hierarchy. The attitude of the Church towards Berlusconi has been ambiguous: he has occasionally had his knuckles lightly rapped for his behaviour, but the Church has constantly given him its support in exchange for remarkably useful favours. There were complaints, however, from the grass roots, expressed mainly through Parish Priests and the surprisingly massive turnout in a referendum which was widely regarded as for or against Berlusconi will cause some rethinking and could end up with the Church withdrawing its support with understandably negative consequences for the Government.
An early symptom of this change of attitude came very shortly after the vote, when the Italian Bishops Conference came out very strongly against some statements by a member of the Government.
One of the primary considerations, of course, concerns the effect these two “slaps in the face” (as a high ranking Northern League official put it) will have on the ruling coalition and the way in which Berlusconi will choose to react: at the moment he seems intent on the suicidal policy of urgently enacting a questionable fiscal reform, in spite of the fragile situation of the economy.
Berlusconi has been promising “tax cuts” and “Fiscal reform” ever since he first came to power in 1994, but there has been no visible decrease in taxation. He is very much of a populist leader and he has made it known that he wants urgently to enact a “fiscal reform” to alleviate taxes, obviously in the hope of regaining popular support. The type of reform he has in mind would end up increasing Italy’s public debt – one of the highest in the world – and would go against EU advice and rules. His view of fiscal reform, moreover, has always been in favour of the upper income brackets, and this would cause further dissent in a moment when the gap between rich and poor is visibly increasing. This is a risky path and an injudicious fiscal policy at this stage could reduce Italy to the conditions faced by Greece, Portugal and other “problem” Countries.
The ruling majority is in deep trouble. Some stalwart party members openly and ostentatiously disobeyed Party orders by casting their votes in the referendum, and there already have been acrimonious exchanges between the two ruling parties and also within the parties themselves. There is much uncertainty on what the future developments will be, but this has certainly all the earmarks of an important watershed moment.
mercoledì 2 febbraio 2011
The Catholic Church and Italian Politics
(This article was published today by OPed News)
Rome, Italy, February 2 2011
Much has been written about the tragicomic aspects of the current Italian political crisis. As so often happens, Italian politics have become embroiled in a combination of Greek Tragedy and Comic Opera: Shakespeare rewritten by Feydeau.
Last December, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi survived a Parliamentary “no confidence” motion by the scantiest of margins. As a result, his position has remained shaky, and the Italian situation appears unhealthy or, at the very least incongruous and likely to keep the country adrift on a sea of inaction where strong measures would be needed .
Few, however, have shifted the focus of their analysis on the role played by the Roman Catholic Church, embodied by the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), whose interference in Italian political life has become increasingly pervasive and forceful, filling, as it were, a preoccupying political and institutional void.
An overall evaluation of the Italian political situation, which, in spite of appearances, is actually neither amusing nor immune from the risk of resurgent neo-fascist nostalgia, has to take into account the extent of the permanent and mainly negative influence that the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Holy See (three very distinct realities) exert on the Italian political, cultural and social scene. The origins of this phenomenon have deep historical roots, but the effects are readily visible, as is the realisation that, with the present Pontificate, the Church’s interference has been steadily growing..
Long before becoming Pope, Joseph Ratzinger had repeatedly preached against “relativism”, viewed as a dangerous deviation from the absolute truths contained in the Teachings of the Church. He has continued on that theme also after his election as Supreme Pontiff, and it would be safe to say that “anti-relativism” constitutes one of his most cherished doctrinal points.
It could therefore appear ironic that he, of all people, should now reign at the head of one of the world’s most politically pragmatic organisations. Symbols of this pragmatism abound and are evident all over Rome: The Church, for example, has always been and still is adamantly opposed to homosexuality, and yet two self confessed homosexuals, who, while in Rome, led scandalously open love lives, are very ostentatiously buried within Saint Peter’s Basilica. I refer, of course, to Queen Christina of Sweden (1689) and Charles Edward, the last heir to the Stuart throne, known also as “Bonnie Prince Charlie” or “The Young Pretender”, who died in 1788.
This spirit of pragmatism was put to extremely good use in the first years of the Fascist regime in Italy, in the early 1920’s. In the space of about six years, Benito Mussolini, an anti-Catholic, blaspheming womanizer, and an avowed atheist, was transformed into “the man sent to us by Divine Providence” and proceeded to “normalise” the relations between the Church and the Italian state, which had been very strained at least since 1861, by signing the “Lateran Pacts”, or the “Concordat”, in February 1929.
What was shown then, and is now being repeated with chilling analogy, was the masterful way in which Catholic Church manipulates political life in Italy more than it does in other Catholic countries. The technique used then, and still used today is of disarming simplicity and is limited to meting out reprimands and rewards with the aim of bringing the erring Government to heel.
It could therefore be argued that Silvio Berlusconi, with his growingly erratic behaviour, has actually played into the hands of the Catholic Hierarchy, who, with a sagacious use of the many Catholic media outlets, have alternated sharp words of criticism with warm praise for the Government’s readiness to toe the line in matters of interest to the Catholic Church, gaining, in a moment of drastic financial cutbacks, substantial subsidies for “private” (i.e. Catholic) schools..
There is, however, a growing perception that a large part of the Catholic electorate has been profoundly shocked by the latest information on the Prime Minister’s activities, and that this sense of disquiet has filtered up, through the Parishes, to the Bishop’s Conference and, finally, to the Holy See and the Pope himself. As a result, the Supreme Pontiff and leading personalities in the Church have come up with formal statements – couched, of course, in extremely cautious and indirect terms – critical of the lack of moral sensibility on the part of “those elected to high government office”. It was interesting, almost amusing, to not the haste with which the Prime Minister’s political party assured the public that those words “are not addressed to us.”
For many years the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has been outspoken in its support for right-wing governments in Italy, particularly those formed by Berlusconi, and, therefore, bland as they were, the words spoken by high ranking prelates have to be taken into consideration. In spite of this unquestionable support, there is a strong possibility that, in the future, the Church may abandon Berlusconi and prefer sustaining a prominent Catholic political figure. On the other hand, the Church may use the occasion to increase the pressure on the Prime Minister thus bringing the Italian Government even closer to the approved Catholic ideology.
The question remains as to why Italian political leaders should be so sensitive to the pressures of the Church, considering that the Italian population is not particularly devout in its adherence to Catholicism.
This is a very interesting issue which would deserve closer scrutiny, but the paradox remains in the sense that the “immoral” behaviour of the Prime Minister and the subsequent Catholic reaction could end up further reducing Italy’s status as a secular state.
Rome, Italy, February 2 2011
Much has been written about the tragicomic aspects of the current Italian political crisis. As so often happens, Italian politics have become embroiled in a combination of Greek Tragedy and Comic Opera: Shakespeare rewritten by Feydeau.
Last December, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi survived a Parliamentary “no confidence” motion by the scantiest of margins. As a result, his position has remained shaky, and the Italian situation appears unhealthy or, at the very least incongruous and likely to keep the country adrift on a sea of inaction where strong measures would be needed .
Few, however, have shifted the focus of their analysis on the role played by the Roman Catholic Church, embodied by the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), whose interference in Italian political life has become increasingly pervasive and forceful, filling, as it were, a preoccupying political and institutional void.
An overall evaluation of the Italian political situation, which, in spite of appearances, is actually neither amusing nor immune from the risk of resurgent neo-fascist nostalgia, has to take into account the extent of the permanent and mainly negative influence that the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Holy See (three very distinct realities) exert on the Italian political, cultural and social scene. The origins of this phenomenon have deep historical roots, but the effects are readily visible, as is the realisation that, with the present Pontificate, the Church’s interference has been steadily growing..
Long before becoming Pope, Joseph Ratzinger had repeatedly preached against “relativism”, viewed as a dangerous deviation from the absolute truths contained in the Teachings of the Church. He has continued on that theme also after his election as Supreme Pontiff, and it would be safe to say that “anti-relativism” constitutes one of his most cherished doctrinal points.
It could therefore appear ironic that he, of all people, should now reign at the head of one of the world’s most politically pragmatic organisations. Symbols of this pragmatism abound and are evident all over Rome: The Church, for example, has always been and still is adamantly opposed to homosexuality, and yet two self confessed homosexuals, who, while in Rome, led scandalously open love lives, are very ostentatiously buried within Saint Peter’s Basilica. I refer, of course, to Queen Christina of Sweden (1689) and Charles Edward, the last heir to the Stuart throne, known also as “Bonnie Prince Charlie” or “The Young Pretender”, who died in 1788.
This spirit of pragmatism was put to extremely good use in the first years of the Fascist regime in Italy, in the early 1920’s. In the space of about six years, Benito Mussolini, an anti-Catholic, blaspheming womanizer, and an avowed atheist, was transformed into “the man sent to us by Divine Providence” and proceeded to “normalise” the relations between the Church and the Italian state, which had been very strained at least since 1861, by signing the “Lateran Pacts”, or the “Concordat”, in February 1929.
What was shown then, and is now being repeated with chilling analogy, was the masterful way in which Catholic Church manipulates political life in Italy more than it does in other Catholic countries. The technique used then, and still used today is of disarming simplicity and is limited to meting out reprimands and rewards with the aim of bringing the erring Government to heel.
It could therefore be argued that Silvio Berlusconi, with his growingly erratic behaviour, has actually played into the hands of the Catholic Hierarchy, who, with a sagacious use of the many Catholic media outlets, have alternated sharp words of criticism with warm praise for the Government’s readiness to toe the line in matters of interest to the Catholic Church, gaining, in a moment of drastic financial cutbacks, substantial subsidies for “private” (i.e. Catholic) schools..
There is, however, a growing perception that a large part of the Catholic electorate has been profoundly shocked by the latest information on the Prime Minister’s activities, and that this sense of disquiet has filtered up, through the Parishes, to the Bishop’s Conference and, finally, to the Holy See and the Pope himself. As a result, the Supreme Pontiff and leading personalities in the Church have come up with formal statements – couched, of course, in extremely cautious and indirect terms – critical of the lack of moral sensibility on the part of “those elected to high government office”. It was interesting, almost amusing, to not the haste with which the Prime Minister’s political party assured the public that those words “are not addressed to us.”
For many years the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has been outspoken in its support for right-wing governments in Italy, particularly those formed by Berlusconi, and, therefore, bland as they were, the words spoken by high ranking prelates have to be taken into consideration. In spite of this unquestionable support, there is a strong possibility that, in the future, the Church may abandon Berlusconi and prefer sustaining a prominent Catholic political figure. On the other hand, the Church may use the occasion to increase the pressure on the Prime Minister thus bringing the Italian Government even closer to the approved Catholic ideology.
The question remains as to why Italian political leaders should be so sensitive to the pressures of the Church, considering that the Italian population is not particularly devout in its adherence to Catholicism.
This is a very interesting issue which would deserve closer scrutiny, but the paradox remains in the sense that the “immoral” behaviour of the Prime Minister and the subsequent Catholic reaction could end up further reducing Italy’s status as a secular state.
giovedì 13 gennaio 2011
Is This the End of the Road for Berlusconi?
With their typical and incurable penchant for over dramatisation, the Italian media and many political commentators had dubbed December 14, 2010, as “the day of reckoning”. Many, in fact – but not all – firmly believed that, on that fateful day, the Berlusconi Government would lose a vote of confidence and be compelled to resign, thus finally ushering in a new political era.
The Prime Minister, instead, using tactics which many decried as “shameful”, was able to attract a sufficient number of vacillating parliamentarians to his cause and survived the vote of confidence by the narrow margin of three votes. This was remarkable, considering that his majority, just a few months back, had seemed virtually unassailable.
The really important events, however, took place not within the “Palazzo” – as Italians contemptuously call the seats of power – but rather in the streets of Rome where a protest demonstration called by students exposed the City centre to episodes of violence unheard of since the seventies, and which caught the nation by surprise revealing, as it did, the extreme anger of the younger generations as well as their growing disaffection with the Machiavellian manoeuvrings which typify the Italian political scene.
Whatever his shortcomings, real or perceived, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, in power for the most part of the past sixteen years, has succeeded in forging much of Italy’s social reality and perceptions to his own image. If, on the one hand, recent events had led some to believe that he had come to the end of his remarkable political career, others did not hesitate to assert that it would be a bit early to start trotting out his political obituary, since he had given signs of a remarkable survival instinct several times in the past.
There is however no doubt that, even up to a few days before the vote, Berlusconi and his closest entourage appeared nervous, ill at ease, more irritable than usual and even beset by a sense of panic, as shown by their renewed and ever more violent attacks on hostile media, allegedly “communist inspired”, whose criticism of the Government has been defined as “anti-Italian” by the Prime Minister himself. Frequent references were also made to an alleged “international anti-Italian conspiracy” supported by the international media. To prove the existence of this supposed “foreign conspiracy” a variety of allegations were brought into play, such as the insistence, by the international press, to publicize “negative” stories about Italy, for example the garbage scandal in Naples or the Prime Minister’s sexual escapades.
It could be entertaining, but, in the long run, fatuous and useless, to sift through all the events and statements which have typified these days, some verging on the farcical, such as the shouting match, using raunchy epithets in the Neapolitan dialect, held between Alessandra Mussolini, the “Duce’s” granddaughter, and one of Berlusconi's former beauty queen cabinet ministers, recently dubbed by “Der Spiegel” as “the world’s most beautiful minister”. This, as well as other episodes, could indicate that there is trouble brewing in Berlusconi’s gynaeceum, for beauty queens, as a rule, seem unwilling obediently to toe the party line.
The basic situation, though apparently complex, can be defined by a few fundamental guidelines: The opposition parties, loud in their disapproval of Berlusconi, would, in reality, prefer to see the Government last a while longer, because they feel politically insecure and fear defeat should early elections be called.
The Prime Minister himself, though quite sure of victory, would also prefer to avoid elections, fearing the apparent surge in the popularity of his allied party, the Northern League, which, for its part, would, instead be very glad to see the fall of the Government, knowing that they would emerge with renewed strength in case of early elections.
At least three possible scenarios could emerge from this unpleasantly chaotic atmosphere:
By very aggressively continuing in his campaign to pursue and purchase the votes of insecure parliamentarians, Berlusconi could weather the storm and continue until 2014. At that date a successor will have to be found for president Napolitano, who will have reached the end of his mandate, and Berlusconi would have a good chance to be elected President by a joint session of the Italian Parliament. This solution may seem rather unlikely, but is certainly not impossible.
A more likely scenario, the one pursued, sometimes obliquely, more often openly, by the Prime Minister’s main ally, the Northern League, would have Berlusconi handing in his resignation to president Napolitano, acting on the assumption that the President will call for the dissolution of Parliament and new elections. Those very opposition political forces who are clamouring for Berlusconi's resignation fear this outcome because they feel that a coalition between Berlusconi and the xenophobic, racist “Northern League” would almost certainly win, bringing Berlusconi back into power, albeit under the Leagues' thrall.
The only way in which Berlusconi can be defeated would be through the creation of a “national unity“ caretaker transitional Government, perhaps under the leadership of a non-political figure, to last out the remaining years of the legislature. This is probably the solution also favoured by president Napolitano – for there is no love lost between him and Berlusconi – but it risks being stymied by the divisions which beset the opposition political parties, who seem intent in an almost suicidal campaign destined to discourage any attempt at unity. Berlusconi’s attitude is ambiguous: on the one hand he has repeated his opposition to early elections, but, at the same time, he has been multiplying his appearances on Television and has refurbished all his old electoral slogans against “Communists in Cashmere sweaters” who have infiltrated the Judicial system and are out to get him.
In this volatile, unpredictable and perhaps ultimately dangerous situation, it would be useful to shift the focus of analysis on the role played by the Roman Catholic Church, embodied by the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), whose interference in Italian political life has become increasingly pervasive and forceful, filling, as it were, a preoccupying political and institutional void.
The Vatican, viewed from Rome, appears far more intriguing and interesting – some would even say sinister - than is generally recognized. Outsiders – even journalists and commentators who have lived in Rome for some time - seldom fully appreciate the burdensome weight that the Vatican, the Holy See and the Church (three quite distinct realities) represent in the complex, sometimes comically ritualised Italian political game. A review of the attitudes and moves of the Roman Catholic Authorities over the past months and years could bring about a deeper understanding of the grave – some would say epochal – current state of political upheaval in Italy.
The suffocating grip that the Catholic Hierarchy has and keeps on the Italian political and social scene, beginning, of course, with the main sources of information, needs to be understood. Italian public radio and television, even in the very rare programs which are critical of the Government, dare not contradict or critically comment the Vatican’s line on the principal and most sensitive issues. This is of particular significance in a monoglot society in which foreign sources of information are ignored.
It should be understood that, by his erratic behaviour (i.e. affairs with young girls of dubious reputation, occasional use of blasphemous language, etc.), Berlusconi has actually played into the hands of the Catholic Church, which, by shifting from attitudes of condemnation to expressions of support has been able to obtain privileges and to prevent the discussion of sensitive topics in Parliament.
At this stage, in an attitude chillingly reminiscent of the early years of Fascism, the Church seems rather inclined to favour the continuation of the present Government, using the votes of one of the opposition parties, the U.D.C,, whose leader, Ferdinando Casini, with the shy smile of an unfrocked priest, could well be the political personality most favoured by the Church to take over from Berlusconi when the time is ripe.
The Northern League has practically issued an ultimatum: if the Government cannot obtain a credible majority by the end of January, it would be best to have new elections. The tough, competent Minister for the Economy has indirectly made it clear that no money would be available further to purchase favours and votes, and this seems to put Berlusconi in a weakened position, unless Casini, encouraged by the Vatican, should step in, abandoning his opposition allies and thus ensuring a solid majority.
This solution also has risks, because the Northern League has stated that it would not be ready to share power with the U.D.C. unless Casini’s party gives assurances that it will make vital concessions in the League’s struggle to pass laws transforming Italy’s structure into a federal system.
The situation is far from clear and seems to get murkier by the day. Perhaps by the end of January a solution will be found, but the ensuing political scene will be more fragile and volatile than ever.
Published by Open Democracy on January 12 2012
The Prime Minister, instead, using tactics which many decried as “shameful”, was able to attract a sufficient number of vacillating parliamentarians to his cause and survived the vote of confidence by the narrow margin of three votes. This was remarkable, considering that his majority, just a few months back, had seemed virtually unassailable.
The really important events, however, took place not within the “Palazzo” – as Italians contemptuously call the seats of power – but rather in the streets of Rome where a protest demonstration called by students exposed the City centre to episodes of violence unheard of since the seventies, and which caught the nation by surprise revealing, as it did, the extreme anger of the younger generations as well as their growing disaffection with the Machiavellian manoeuvrings which typify the Italian political scene.
Whatever his shortcomings, real or perceived, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, in power for the most part of the past sixteen years, has succeeded in forging much of Italy’s social reality and perceptions to his own image. If, on the one hand, recent events had led some to believe that he had come to the end of his remarkable political career, others did not hesitate to assert that it would be a bit early to start trotting out his political obituary, since he had given signs of a remarkable survival instinct several times in the past.
There is however no doubt that, even up to a few days before the vote, Berlusconi and his closest entourage appeared nervous, ill at ease, more irritable than usual and even beset by a sense of panic, as shown by their renewed and ever more violent attacks on hostile media, allegedly “communist inspired”, whose criticism of the Government has been defined as “anti-Italian” by the Prime Minister himself. Frequent references were also made to an alleged “international anti-Italian conspiracy” supported by the international media. To prove the existence of this supposed “foreign conspiracy” a variety of allegations were brought into play, such as the insistence, by the international press, to publicize “negative” stories about Italy, for example the garbage scandal in Naples or the Prime Minister’s sexual escapades.
It could be entertaining, but, in the long run, fatuous and useless, to sift through all the events and statements which have typified these days, some verging on the farcical, such as the shouting match, using raunchy epithets in the Neapolitan dialect, held between Alessandra Mussolini, the “Duce’s” granddaughter, and one of Berlusconi's former beauty queen cabinet ministers, recently dubbed by “Der Spiegel” as “the world’s most beautiful minister”. This, as well as other episodes, could indicate that there is trouble brewing in Berlusconi’s gynaeceum, for beauty queens, as a rule, seem unwilling obediently to toe the party line.
The basic situation, though apparently complex, can be defined by a few fundamental guidelines: The opposition parties, loud in their disapproval of Berlusconi, would, in reality, prefer to see the Government last a while longer, because they feel politically insecure and fear defeat should early elections be called.
The Prime Minister himself, though quite sure of victory, would also prefer to avoid elections, fearing the apparent surge in the popularity of his allied party, the Northern League, which, for its part, would, instead be very glad to see the fall of the Government, knowing that they would emerge with renewed strength in case of early elections.
At least three possible scenarios could emerge from this unpleasantly chaotic atmosphere:
By very aggressively continuing in his campaign to pursue and purchase the votes of insecure parliamentarians, Berlusconi could weather the storm and continue until 2014. At that date a successor will have to be found for president Napolitano, who will have reached the end of his mandate, and Berlusconi would have a good chance to be elected President by a joint session of the Italian Parliament. This solution may seem rather unlikely, but is certainly not impossible.
A more likely scenario, the one pursued, sometimes obliquely, more often openly, by the Prime Minister’s main ally, the Northern League, would have Berlusconi handing in his resignation to president Napolitano, acting on the assumption that the President will call for the dissolution of Parliament and new elections. Those very opposition political forces who are clamouring for Berlusconi's resignation fear this outcome because they feel that a coalition between Berlusconi and the xenophobic, racist “Northern League” would almost certainly win, bringing Berlusconi back into power, albeit under the Leagues' thrall.
The only way in which Berlusconi can be defeated would be through the creation of a “national unity“ caretaker transitional Government, perhaps under the leadership of a non-political figure, to last out the remaining years of the legislature. This is probably the solution also favoured by president Napolitano – for there is no love lost between him and Berlusconi – but it risks being stymied by the divisions which beset the opposition political parties, who seem intent in an almost suicidal campaign destined to discourage any attempt at unity. Berlusconi’s attitude is ambiguous: on the one hand he has repeated his opposition to early elections, but, at the same time, he has been multiplying his appearances on Television and has refurbished all his old electoral slogans against “Communists in Cashmere sweaters” who have infiltrated the Judicial system and are out to get him.
In this volatile, unpredictable and perhaps ultimately dangerous situation, it would be useful to shift the focus of analysis on the role played by the Roman Catholic Church, embodied by the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), whose interference in Italian political life has become increasingly pervasive and forceful, filling, as it were, a preoccupying political and institutional void.
The Vatican, viewed from Rome, appears far more intriguing and interesting – some would even say sinister - than is generally recognized. Outsiders – even journalists and commentators who have lived in Rome for some time - seldom fully appreciate the burdensome weight that the Vatican, the Holy See and the Church (three quite distinct realities) represent in the complex, sometimes comically ritualised Italian political game. A review of the attitudes and moves of the Roman Catholic Authorities over the past months and years could bring about a deeper understanding of the grave – some would say epochal – current state of political upheaval in Italy.
The suffocating grip that the Catholic Hierarchy has and keeps on the Italian political and social scene, beginning, of course, with the main sources of information, needs to be understood. Italian public radio and television, even in the very rare programs which are critical of the Government, dare not contradict or critically comment the Vatican’s line on the principal and most sensitive issues. This is of particular significance in a monoglot society in which foreign sources of information are ignored.
It should be understood that, by his erratic behaviour (i.e. affairs with young girls of dubious reputation, occasional use of blasphemous language, etc.), Berlusconi has actually played into the hands of the Catholic Church, which, by shifting from attitudes of condemnation to expressions of support has been able to obtain privileges and to prevent the discussion of sensitive topics in Parliament.
At this stage, in an attitude chillingly reminiscent of the early years of Fascism, the Church seems rather inclined to favour the continuation of the present Government, using the votes of one of the opposition parties, the U.D.C,, whose leader, Ferdinando Casini, with the shy smile of an unfrocked priest, could well be the political personality most favoured by the Church to take over from Berlusconi when the time is ripe.
The Northern League has practically issued an ultimatum: if the Government cannot obtain a credible majority by the end of January, it would be best to have new elections. The tough, competent Minister for the Economy has indirectly made it clear that no money would be available further to purchase favours and votes, and this seems to put Berlusconi in a weakened position, unless Casini, encouraged by the Vatican, should step in, abandoning his opposition allies and thus ensuring a solid majority.
This solution also has risks, because the Northern League has stated that it would not be ready to share power with the U.D.C. unless Casini’s party gives assurances that it will make vital concessions in the League’s struggle to pass laws transforming Italy’s structure into a federal system.
The situation is far from clear and seems to get murkier by the day. Perhaps by the end of January a solution will be found, but the ensuing political scene will be more fragile and volatile than ever.
Published by Open Democracy on January 12 2012
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
