(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
venerdì 29 luglio 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.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
