Italy. Berlusconi’s downfall. The end of “Videocracy?

 Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, a pivotal presence in Italian politics for the past two decades,  formally announced his retirement from political activity, and a day later, after being sentenced  to a prison term for tax fraud, announced, instead, his return. The announcements were greeted with  relief ,  incredulity and derision, and are an invitation  to analyze both his  brutally  uninhibited use of  the Media – especially Television - to enhance his presence and appearance, as well as his rapid fall, to the point of becoming an almost pathetic figure..

The term “Videocracy”,  coined  by Italian film-maker Erik Gandini, was the title of a controversial 2009  documentary which described and explained the  ruthless use made by  Berlusconi of the many TV  outlets he either directly or indirectly controlled.

The subtitle of the film, however,  “basta apparire” (“It is enough to appear”) is  even more noteworthy and illustrates  the growing need for constant visibility, not only in public life.

An appearance  on  a TV programme – any programme, no matter how insignificant, vulgar or unintelligent – had become essential to satisfy career ambitions and, in particular, was seen as a very likely  introduction to positions of responsibility, especially in the glitzy political  world  characteristic of the Berlusconi years.

Significantly, a considerable number of teen-age girls, when interviewed about their  ambitions for the future, put, as a first (and  sometimes only) choice, participation and victory in a beauty contest, any beauty contest, as long as it was televised. Indeed, many Italian  female parliamentarians, and a number of particularly glamorous and inefficient cabinet ministers in Italy’s self-styled “second Republic” began their careers either as beauty queens or in similar pursuits.

“Videocracy”, therefore, was alive and well, and the need to “appear” was universally felt.

 Clever and apt though the term may be, and however accurate the interpretations given, three  immediate  considerations come to mind, especially when it is applied to political leadership..

The first of these, historical in nature,  has nothing to do with television, but essentially with the subtitle, that is, the need for a leader (or an aspiring leader) to be visible, and this has always been  true  both in democratic societies and in others. In military campaigns, for example,  a successful commander, to gain the loyalty and  affection of his troops,   had to be  seen leading his men, taking the same risks, and showing himself to the enemy. Julius Caesar was a master at this type of visibility, and through  able and  credible  spin doctors, made sure that  news of his  courage and military prowess  was spread with great speed  among the people of the Republic which he was serving, and which he is, somewhat unfairly and superficially, accused of having destroyed.

 The Emperor, the King, the Dictator and other leaders have always had to show themselves to the people in order to encourage and maintain their affection and support, and this truth has been well known  throughout the ages. Image and reality have always had to merge, and this takes  a considerable amount of manipulation.

Of course, since the twentieth century,  through the miracles of  cinema newsreels, of radio and, finally, of television, there has been an exponential growth in the  visibility of leaders. As a result, today, it is very difficult – not only in “personality cult” dictatorships, but also in democratic societies – to avoid being constantly exposed to their voice and image.

This  leads directly to the second of the critical considerations,  i.e. the danger of over-exposure, which could, in the long run, threaten to alienate the very people who are supposed to be attracted and fascinated,

There are  credible indications that this could well be the case, at least in some societies, such as Italy itself.  “Videocracy”,   brought to an unprecedented level by Berlusconi, seems to have peaked, with the apparent effect of  turning public opinion away from politics  and creating an aura of indifference and contempt. This is indicated, primarily, by the incredible and growing percentage (over 30%) of people who, according to reliable polls, do not intend to vote in the next elections, and this in a country in which a voter turnout below 85% was usually considered disappointing. In the latest regional elections in Sicily, once a Berlusconi stronghold,  the voter turnout was  under 50%, an unprecedented event in Italy, and  Berlusconi’s  “Liberty” party  lost heavily. Other indications are the catastrophic fall in the former Prime Minister’s personal popularity and the unpredicted growth of a totally populist “anti-political” movement led by an erstwhile comedian, Beppe Grillo who now leads what could possibly be the second largest political party in the country.

A third, and very significant question arises from these considerations, and  people are  asking themselves if “Videocracy’s” ultimate effect will be the end of  the democratic process as it has been known until now with, perhaps, a return to a quasi-Grecian  model based essentially on local politics, and with the internet substituting the Agora. This is not a vain or otiose question, but a consideration which deserves  attention and careful reflection.