BERLUSCONI - HAS THE ARTFUL DODGER MET HIS MATCH?

Article published by "Open Democracy"  on August 12 2013

It is never easy to write  about the  Italian political situation, but after  the  verdict handed out by the highest court confirming a four year jail sentence, for tax fraud,  against the  previously indestructible former Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi,  epochal questions arise over the future of this  fragile government,  over  Mr. Berlusconi himself and, even more so, over  Italy’s  own political destiny.

 More than ever before,  Mr. Berlusconi’s actions and behaviour  bring to mind Charles Dickens’ “Artful Dodger”,  even up to the words of defiance  uttered  very shortly after  the  news of the verdict reached him, and reiterated in a much publicized  pubic appearance a few days later. However, unlike Oliver Twist's friend, Berlusconi will not end up in a penal colony, or, indeed, in a prison cell, but will continue to be an uncomfortable presence in  Italian political life and will pose a real threat to the  government’s stability and  survival.

The government’s survival

It has to be remembered that the present Government in Italy has one of the largest majorities in the Republic’s history, bringing together, after weeks of sterile negotiations, the two main political parties,  Berlusconi’s “People of Liberty” and the  Centre-Left “Democratic Party”, until recently   opponents in a cut-throat electoral campaign, unprecedented for  its acrimony and verbal violence.  Paradoxically, however, this  vast, apparently unassailable majority, does not keep the government alliance  from being extremely fragile and  unstable, held together  mainly by the  fear, shared by both protagonists, of having to face the angry and disillusioned Italian electorate again after an election, held in February, which had cost both of them millions of votes, most of which went to Beppe Grillo’s maverick “Five Stars” movement, a veritable thorn in the side of both  the leading parties.

After the  verdict delivered on the first of August, more than one political commentator has defined the Government as a “dead man walking”, the main burden falling not on Berlusconi’s movement but on the   majority Democratic party who will have a difficult time explaining to their electorate  their choice to continue sharing  the burdens of government with a  party led by a  convicted felon. The next few days, therefore, will be quite crucial in determining whether this  brave experiment at a “grand coalition” will have any chance of survival beyond the Summer.

At the moment, after 100 days in which virtually nothing has been achieved,  one has the eerie feeling of  witnessing  an oneiric situation, in which the members of the government are clinging to a raft which is floating out of control down a  treacherous river. They know that the rapids are  not far away, but dare not touch the shores (i.e. end the experiment and  call early elections) because they know that these are populated by hostile tribes, and  thence the brave   insistence that “the show must go on” for the good of the country,

The  prevailing feeling, however,  is that,  sooner or later, some catalytic event will cause the   government’s  implosion, the only question   being how long this situation can endure.

Mr. Berlusconi’s future

But what about Berlusconi himself? Has he really reached the end of his political career? Many would wish to think so, but he has been written off more than once in the past and has always  managed to stage  an incredible comeback. According to recent legislation, no person  having been sentenced to two years or more imprisonment   should be allowed to sit in Parliament: and here comes the first uncertainty which will have to be tackled by his  present  allies:  Berlusconi has been sentenced to  four years, but, according to  another  strange instrument of Italian legislation, the first three years of his sentence are condoned, and so, “de facto” he should serve only one year.  A  political-legal battle will take place  to determine which of these terms  needs to be considered, and  further  doubts arise as to whether the Democratic Party will, in any case,   find the political courage to vote for the removal from the Senate of the  leader of their  principal ally in Government. By the month of October,  an additional sentence of up to three years’ interdiction from public office will probably  be  issued, but this should not necessarily stop him from running his political party “from the outside”, just as Beppe Grillo has done, being interdicted from seeking office because of a  preceding penal sentence. By playing the part of an innocent victim of a “left-wing judicial conspiracy”, Berlusconi could even increase his party’s as well as his own  popularity and cause further turmoil on the Italian political scene: the paradox here would be  that the Democratic Party would end up being damaged  more than any other, because of the verdict  against its main opponent.

There has been insistent talk of asking the President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, to grant Berlusconi a “presidential pardon”, but there are strong doubts as to whether this path will be undertaken, also in view of the fact that Mr. Berlusconi is facing even stiffer sentences in the near future, for crimes  of a rather graver nature, among which the accusation of having had sexual relations with  a minor.

Last Sunday a large demonstration by Berlusconi supporters was planned in the Centre of Rome. Buses were laid on, and the participants were offered a free meal. The crowd was  vociferous, but  disappointingly scanty, and this is also a factor that Berlusconi needs to consider before  taking any  potentially rash decisions.

Italy’s political future

The real question goes well beyond Berlusconi’s personal fate or the Government’s immediate  chances of survival, and concerns the  future of the democratic process itself in a country  in the throes of an economic, political and moral crisis  unprecedented since the immediate post-war years. Italy’s history  shows that a state of turmoil and  confrontation has been a constant  for centuries, and that Italians have   always  overcome their difficulties, mainly by  shrugging them off as matters concerning “others” (i.e. the Pope, and the Emperor in the distant past, the  Political parties or the “Caste” in the present day). This attitude of cynical sagacity may,  however, no longer be possible, given the immediacy of  all communication and the highly felt  apprehension for the future, combined with the dramatic fall in the standard of living, with no immediate prospect of  a turn-around.

ALL QUIET ON THE ITALIAN FRONT

Article published by "Open Democracy" in June, 2013

To the inexperienced eye, all appearances would seem to indicate that the Italian political scene – normally rather colourful and volatile – has quieted down  to a considerable extent, to the point of having become rather humdrum and devoid of  general interest.  Extremely significant municipal elections have been held in many  cities (including Rome), both on the continent and in Sicily, with no major surprises and  in an atmosphere of  good-humoured tranquillity. The conclusion, therefore, would seem to indicate that all is quiet on the Italian political front (a circumstance, in itself, likely to arouse suspicion and apprehension), but the reality is, instead  really  quite different. This extremely odd  “grand coalition” government,  even  more incongruous than its  “technical” predecessor, emerges  greatly weakened  and condemned to  impotence, as, indeed,  it has already shown, having emerged as  one of the most unproductive governments in recent Italian history. Paradoxically, its survival, at least over the next few months, appears guaranteed, but only  by   the understandable fear, by both of the leading parties, of facing  an increasingly angry and unpredictable electorate in case of early elections. Even a superficial analysis of the vote, held over the past two weeks, and still  having to be concluded in Sicily, indisputably shows that again, just as in the case of February’s national elections,  there have been no winners, but only losers, this time including  the maverick “5 Stars movement” founded and led by former comedian Beppe Grillo.

Four key factors have emerged from  these  local elections.

Firstly the ever increasing rate of abstentions. In a country where, even a couple of decades ago, a 90% electoral turnout was considered normal,  the percentage of voters has dropped to just over 50%,  and  the  non voters thus  form a considerable  political force. There are mixed reactions to this phenomenon. The prevailing feeling is that  the exceptional rate of abstention, and, above all,  its vertiginously  rapid  increase,  denotes  a growing sense of disillusionment and anger on the part of the electorate, and that  this widespread feeling could  play into the hands of any new  populist  movement, especially if  “right-wing”, anti European and hostile to immigrant labour. More optimistic, or at least cautious,  observers, however,  seem to  believe that this is a normal  trend which brings Italy closer to older established democracies,  the examples of France, the United Kingdom and the United States are usually cited, in which the rate of   abstention is normally just as high, even higher,  with no  doubts being expressed on the legitimacy of the emerging governments. This optimistic, or more positive assessment, however,  fails to take into account a fundamental aspect of political life in Italy, as compared to the other    countries indicated as examples. The Italian electorate’s role in the democratic process  has always been limited to the vote,  after which things tend to be  “left to the politicians” until the  next  electoral appointment, with no significant participation to the political  process at the grass-roots level. This is what, in the prevailing view, makes “turn-out” such a vital issue in Italy..

The second element to emerge – but which has to be taken with a great deal of caution – has been the virtual collapse of the maverick “Five Stars” movement led by former comedian Beppe Grillo. Triumphant at the outcome of  its first ever national electoral test last February, the “Movement” emerged as Italy’s strongest single political party, thus creating a  virtually unmanageable three-way tie with the  left wing Democratic Party and Mr. Berlusconi's “People of Liberty”, basically the  greatest loser in the process.

Also the further  weakening of  Berlusconi’s party has to be taken into account,  mainly  because, paradoxically, in spite of its miserable showing last February, it still is an influential participant in the “grand coalition” and, for the time being, seems  to be in a position to call many of the  shots, through a masterful use of the constant threat of causing  paralysis by  refusing to play the game, as temperamental  children threaten to do  on the play-ground.. As a perhaps marginal, but not insignificant corollary, it has to be noted that Berlusconi’s traditional ally, the “Northern League”, torn by vicious internal rifts and fighting,  has lost  key positions and major cities in an area which has always been considered its home ground (i.e. the North and the North East).

“If Athens cries, even Sparta can’t laugh” was the saying that emerged at the end of the  Peloponnesian conflict (Fourth Century BC), and it is  much quoted in Italy these days in order to illustrate the paucity of the Democratic Party’s victory. The paradoxes, which abound in the sometimes indecipherable Italian political context,  are confirmed by the fact that  the  leading political party, victorious in February’s general elections,  which has just made a record-breaking clean  sweep of all the municipal elections,  winning them all and leaving none to the opposition, in reality has emerged weakened, and not strengthened by the experience. And this ongoing, apparently incurable weakness in Italy’s centre-left  “Democratic Party” is the fourth of the above quoted factors  to be taken into account.

The  deeper reasons behind the exceptional rate of abstention will have to be examined with care and competence in the near future, when it will be possible to   break the numbers down into age,  professional and other groupings: a superficial view, as yet unconfirmed,   seems to indicate that  it affects the younger electorate in greater numbers.

It is difficult to  foresee what the future holds in store for Grillo’s movement, but there are signs of a growing disaffection not only in the electorate, but also within the movement itself, due  to Grillo’s excessively dictatorial stance, to some very obvious tactical and strategic mistakes   made   at a moment in which the movement was  on the crest of the wave, as well as to the  confusion which seems to reign over the movement’s official position on many key issues.  The fact is that, politically speaking,  the entire movement, from Grillo down, is basically  made up by political amateurs who proved to be no match against their much more seasoned peers  in the traditional parties.  There is time for   regrouping and recovery, but  at the moment the trend  appears rather negative,

Berlusconi’s party,  a bit like Grillo’s, suffers from the fact that it is essentially a one-man show, and the “Cavaliere”, as he is known,  has never really attempted to groom  younger party members in the art of political leadership. In fact, he always appeared to be rather suspicious of  political allies who threatened to be seen as “charismatic”, and has systematically and ruthlessly eliminated them. The crisis within the party is very deep, and Berlusconi’s advancing age (he is 77) and his  judicial  problems which might end up making him  legally ineligible to run for office are all elements which add to the visible discomfort of Italy’s centre-right.

By contrast, the Democratic Party suffers from a lack of leadership and  of internal cohesion. A Party Congress will be held in the Fall, but  the danger of a split is  ever present, and would certainly further complicate  the situation.

The present government, holder of a massive parliamentary majority, has not achieved much in these first weeks of existence and arouses  almost no   confidence  in the  Italian public opinion. Grounds for optimism have always been tenuous, and are now  very quickly disappearing.

ITALY'S DOOMED QUEST FOR STABILITY

(This article was published by "Open Democracy" in May 2013)

Rome, Italy, May 6 2013

Italy’s brave attempt at  forming a new Government  has been facing severe and growing difficulties from the very beginning. The effort is haunted, above all,  by two separate  problems each of which could   bring about the Government’s early downfall. There are  two “ghosts” at the banquet  who appear  determined and capable of  ruining the festivities. On the one hand,  the event appears dominated by a particularly burdensome and unwelcome  “Convitato di Pietra”  (The “stone guest” at Don Juan’s dinner table) in the form of  Beppe Grillo’s  powerful “Five Stars Movement”, while, on the other hand it is easy to spot an even more  insidious and dangerous threat, posed by the  internal instability which has brought about a very improbable mixture of personalities and ideologies. The resulting political compromise could  well turn out to be   destined to exhaust its energies, weak as they are, in the struggle for survival.

If, therefore. to all appearances, especially judging by the prevailing   international media reports,  Italians should be basking in the prospect of a newly found political stability, a more realistic  vision  would  suggest a very different picture. True, a Government  has been formed and granted a massive vote of confidence by both Houses of Parliament, and it is led by the youngest  Prime Minister in the Republic’s history. The calumet of peace is apparently being shared  among  previously warring factions,  some very respected technical figures have been placed at the head of  key economic ministries and the  Government has the largest female presence in the history of the country. The euphoria – albeit cautious – exhibited by  the Markets and by some of the leading  international media does not appear shared, however, by public opinion in Italy, ready, perhaps,  to  acknowledge the brave effort undertaken by Prime Minister Enrico Letta, but aware that this brilliant spectacle is marred by the presence of what  could be best described as the shadow of disaster, a veritable Phantom of the Opera, lurking  in the beautiful, historic houses of Parliament, ready to profit from any sign of failure or even weakness.

The term “Convitato di Pietra”  refers to  the cumbersome presence of a dinner guest such as the “Commendatore’s” statute in the various versions of “Don Juan” - I particularly refer to Mozart’s “Don Giovanni”. In this case,  the  extremely uncomfortable presence of the largest  political party to emerge from last February's election, Beppe Grillo’s “Five Stars Movement”, incongruously, and some would say undemocratically, relegated to the role of opposition, is certainly  unwelcome, uncomfortable and potentially fatal, even though it does not, by itself, represent the greatest danger to the Government's stability. This danger – and it is  a constant and pressing issue – is found within the  Government alliance itself which is quite likely to fall apart at any moment,  perhaps mainly to the benefit of Grillo’s movement.

The experiment of a “Grand Coalition”, more or less on the German model (the first such attempt in Italy since 1947), has been  much talked about and described as  the only possible solution to the political impasse resulting from last February’s elections.  Some  basic  historic  misinterpretations have, however, been  brought into play, either wilfully or through  a superficial grasp of history. The post-war instance of coalition –  between the Christian Democrats and the Communists – has been much quoted as an example of working together in times of crisis, and, indeed, Italy's democratic republican Constitution owes its existence to  that  moment of joint endeavour. The situation, however, was totally different then, and the two sides were adversaries but not enemies: indeed. Many of them had struggled, even fought,  on the same side against Fascism, and, of course, the “opposition” – i.e. the Fascists – were seen as a defeated enemy and not  part of any political set-up or alliance. Historical parallels  are tempting to draw, but they can  be dangerously deceptive.

The Letta Government therefore,   newly born as it is, already shows  serious structural faults, and these  initial, apparently minor cracks in the show of unity appear bound to widen into irremediable  rifts.

The fact is that the apparent  unity, as  well as the vast majority obtained in the initial votes of confidence, are primarily based not so much on the desire to give the country   a much needed leadership as, instead, on  the evident fear, shared by  the three leading coalitions (Former Prime Minister Monti’s centrist coalition has to be added to the  two principal players), of having to face the electorate again, as would be inevitable  if either Berlusconi’s centre-right or the beleaguered,  perhaps  hopelessly weakened centre left led by the Democratic Party, should  find it impossible to continue in what is basically a charade of political  cooperation.

The most dangerous paradox to emerge from the situation is that the Democratic Party finds itself to be heading a Government bent on fulfilling many of Mr. Berlusconi’s campaign promises and almost none of those  which gave the Democratic  Party itself victory – fragile though it was – in the polls. The paradox can be labelled “dangerous” because  the Democratic  Party’s electorate    has already been showing signs of disquiet,   and could well provoke a  definite internal split , separating the two main currents which were never quite able to coexist comfortably,  the  “Catholic” faction against the more left-wing bloc which includes many former Communists.

All this is further complicated by the sidelined but vociferous presence of Beppe Grillo’s “Five Stars Movement” – which could well end up reaping the advantages of having  kept clear of the  dubious, presumably unsavoury intrigues which have  led to the formation of this  uncertain  coalition. At the moment Grillo actually serves a useful purpose, and his presence and popularity are used, with the almost unanimous support of the media, as a means to persuade sceptics, both at home and abroad, that this government  constitutes the only  means to prevent Italy’s sliding into a “populist nightmare”. To this effect Grillo’s movement is continually   being paraded as an Italian equivalent of UKIP, or of Golden Dawn or other far right populist movements in Europe, but the comparison is  unjustified and completely misleading.

The  prevailing sentiment of fear within the  members of  the coalition is certainly justified by the latest opinion polls. Should elections be held in the very near future, it appears that the Centre Right (i.e. Berlusconi) would come out on top, but with  a limited majority  which would  make it impossible for it to form a Government, while  Grillo’s “Movimento”, although perhaps losing a few votes, would still emerge as the largest single political party, The   current Democratic Coalition, narrowly victorious in the last elections, would be the  biggest losers, relegated to third place: in other words, a dramatic repetition of the current situation with a reversal of the roles played by its most important components, and, as an additional  negative  prospect, a further growth in the number of abstentions

It is, therefore, fear, and  only fear which keeps the coalition going, and  a Democracy in which the governing parties live and act  in fear of the electorate does show  preoccupying signs of  fragility.

It is to be expected, therefore, that even should the present formula survive,  all its energies will be concentrated on keeping  the “Grand Coalition”  alive,  with little or no  forceful action taken to address the  immense problems  which  currently  are causing  unrest and growing anger  in the population.

ITALY’S POLITICAL SITUATION. HUBRIS AND NEMESIS IN SLOW MOTION

This Article was published by OPEN DEMOCRACY  on April 26, 2013

The Media, both Italian and International, as well as the financial markets, appear to have responded with understandable but scarcely justified  optimism, almost enthusiasm, at the outcome of the  deepest crisis  encountered in the  short history of the Italian Republic (founded  in 1946)..

It has to be said that, by Italian standards, the presidential elections, which took place between the 18^th and the 20^th of April, were not particularly  disorderly: or drawn out:  for example,  one of the most popular of the 11 presidents who have led  post-war Italy – Sandro Pertini – was elected on the  sixteenth ballot, whereas the  re-election of the incumbent Giorgio Napolitano was concluded in six. The  outcome of this electoral process, however, enhances the feeling of decay in the country’s political and social structure, and is bound to have negative reverberations.

Moving at a breakneck pace, the  newly elected  President has  given  the task of forming a “grand coalition” government to Enrico Letta, of the majority  Democratic Party. Should Letta succeed, he would be the youngest Prime Minister in the world, serving under the oldest  Head of State – Napolitano, born in 1925, barely noses out Queen Elisabeth,  1926.

Starting on Thursday, April 18, a body of about 1000 “great electors”,  formed by a joint session of Parliament with the addition of regional representatives began the  electoral process, which, though relatively brief,  has brought about a deep and probably long-lasting crisis in the Italian democratic system.

In the past, the  basic  superficiality of the Italian approach to  political problems had discouraged foreign observers from using over dramatic terms in describing them and  from hinting at the possibility of a tragic outcome: Somehow, at the last moment, the Goddess Nemesis, in her Italian version, had always spared  her intended victim, allowing life to continue without missing a beat.

But the  unbelievable hubristic attitude adopted by the main Political Parties in Italy, as shown on the occasion of the complex procedure devised  for the election of the President of the Republic could well indicate a much more dramatic outcome than what normally emerges from political sparring in Italy.

In spite of the existence of a very unfair  electoral law, designed to muzzle opinion rather than to encourage it, the remarkable, almost incredible, electoral victory of comedian Beppe Grillo’s “Five Stars Movement”,   appeared to give a clear indication  that  Italians had voted for a radical change. Grillo’s “Movimento” emerged as the single largest party in Italy, with almost 25% of the popular vote  attributed to an electorate composed of people of various ages, of different political  provenance and of all professions. It was evident that this very variegated electorate had really had enough of the political posturing which had become particularly  unproductive and sterile during the past two decades and had voted as they did in the hope of  a change.

At first, the  leading coalition, the Centre-Left led by the Democratic Party, which holds an absolute majority in the lower house but not in the Senate,  really seemed to  have  accepted the message and began, albeit sluggishly and with visible reluctance, to  undertake token gestures in the right direction (e.g. pay cuts for Parliamentarians, reduction of  political expenditures, attempted dialogue “outside the box” with Grillo).

The imminent election of the new Head of State, appeared, however, to have reversed these timid  approaches to  innovation, and the most negative aspects of the old secret  dealings  re-emerged with a vengeance. Only Grillo’s Movement, later followed by a minor left wing  party, SEL, acted with transparency and  a  few  very interesting candidates had been nominated through  an online method of selection. There seemed little chance, however, that the voice of Grillo’s electorate would be heard and the two “old” parties, with the addition of  outgoing Prime Minister Mario Monti’s Centrist party evidently coalesced on  the selection of personalities who, by now, are politically  burned out and  by and large mistrusted by the population.

The astounding re-election of an 87 year old veteran politician by a Parliament ostensibly bent on “innovation”, may well buy some time, but is difficult to imagine that a viable, lasting and, above all, efficient Government will be formed in these tense circumstances. Before the end of the year, in all probability,  elections will have to be called and the traditional parties  may well suffer another humiliating defeat, as they did last February, but this time, perhaps, with even more damaging long-term  results.

The choice of Napolitano – the first incumbent  Italian president to be re-elected to a second term - does not, at this stage,  have as much relevance as the method of selection and the consequences of the main parties’ conspiratorial behaviour. The result, though  much acclaimed by the mainstream media,  is far from popular and is being seen  as a product of all too familiar unsavoury back-room deals and will not be respected by the majority of the people. In the current fragile state of Italian political life, this  exercise in political wheeling-dealing while the country is visibly in a state of collapse will be bound to leave   traces and to create a bitter legacy for the future.

The concept of a “grand coalition”,  forcing  a coexistence between two rival parties, can work in some Social  structures – such as Germany – but is unlikely to last long in Italy, especially in the climate of tension and reciprocal  distrust between the two principal rivals (the Democratic Party and Mr. Berlusconi’s “People of Liberty”) which has poisoned the political atmosphere for years and has brought about a virtual paralysis in Government activity. The situation, difficult enough, is further complicated by the sometimes erratic behaviour of Beppe Grillo’s “Five Stars Movement”, which, having emerged as the strongest single party from last February’s election, is in a position to wield considerable weight..

It is what could be called a no-win situation with the principal loser, of course, being Italy itself.

ITALY'S PERFECT STORM

Rome. March 5 2013

THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED BY "OPEN  DEMOCRACY" IN EARLY MARCH. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN HIGHLY PROPHETIC, UNFORTUNATELY)

Some foreign publications, in commenting the situation in Italy after the recent electoral results, have reverted to the offensively superficial  and trite image of “bring on the clowns”. The term, however can be used both in a derogatory and a purely descriptive sense, and the one real winner of the election, Mr. Beppe Grillo, being a professional comedian, could be called a “clown” without  causing offence. Politically speaking, however, the  epithet would not apply. Grillo has shown remarkable ability, and has created a powerful  political movement, the  single party which has  received the greatest number of votes (around 25%) from scratch, with no public financial backing, and in the teeth of ridicule at first and then very  violent criticism on the part of almost  all the media. Whether this structure will show itself to be stable and lasting is another question, but it certainly wields decisive  weight at this time. The same publications apply the epithet also referring to Mr. Berlusconi,  mainly because, in their very superficial view of the situation, they consider him as being one of the “winners”, even though his Party has had the poorest electoral result in its history.

The Italian press, perhaps more imaginative and often aiming at a higher  cultural level, has preferred to describe the present political situation with the term “Perfect Storm”, which appears much more suitable.

It would be  wrong to state that  there is no solution to the problems arising from Italy’s recent elections: the art of politics, after all, thrives on the search for unlikely solutions to complex situations, and this has  very often been the case in Italian republican history.  Doubts  can be raised, however as to whether there are any good or lasting solutions to the present situation of chaos.

Italy is no stranger to tense, unwieldy and even potentially dangerous political situations, but never, not in 1948,  when the charismatic leader of Italy’s powerful Communist Party was shot and severely wounded while leaving Parliament, not even  during the terrorist years in the seventies, culminating with the  kidnapping and  assassination of a former Prime Minister has there been a storm as “perfect” as this one.

The elections held last February  resulted in a virtual tie among three political groups which show no inclination of  wanting to work together towards a solution, albeit temporary, of the crisis. Former Prime Minister Mario Monti, had he abstained from entering such a violent, unproductive electoral fray, could have emerged once again as a  presidential choice to lead an emergency government  with the aim of  bringing sufficient stability to enable the Government to continue on its  very controversial path toward reform. As it is,  having suffered a humiliating electoral defeat, he appears to have burned his bridges, and one of the few areas of agreement among the other three contenders is their refusal to envisage any form of cooperation with Monti or his  coalition.

Political analysts , at this point, see only  three possible outcomes:

-          a German style “Grand Coalition” in which the two archenemies, the Democratic Party and Mr. Berlusconi’s “People of Liberty”, both heavy losers in the  recent elections, unite in a majority and form a Government  mandated to solve the  country’s more pressing problems;

-          a “minority Government”, in which the ostensible “winner” of the  elections (i.e. the coalition with  the  greatest number of votes), the Democratic Party, would be  asked to form a Government, having negotiated an unsteady truce aimed at ensuring that the remaining forces in Parliament will not  create a “no confidence” situation;

-          a “President’s Government”, in which, with some analogy to the  Monti experience, and to some precedents in Italy’s recent history, president Napolitano asks an outsider – possibly one of the numerous “elder statesmen”  so abundant in Italy – to form an “apolitical” Government, with the support of both the major  contending coalitions.

The situation is greatly complicated by the fact that president Napolitano, being in the last semester of his mandate,  has his hands tied and is prevented, by the Constitution, from dissolving Parliament and calling for new elections.

None of the above scenarios appear realistic, at least  how things stand now.

In the thirteen months of  Professor Monti’s “Technical Government”, its supporting  majority in Parliament was massive, ensured by the very two parties which would be now called upon to cooperate, and yet  nothing was achieved  outside of the measures imposed by the Government itself.  The result, in electoral terms was the loss of an estimated 5 million votes by Berlusconi and 3 million by the Democratic Party, all to the benefit of Genoese comedian Beppe Grillo’s basically populist “Five Stars Movement”. There never was  a desire to work together, and now, of course, especially after the heavy-handed insults traded during the electoral campaign, the very idea  would appear repugnant to their electors.

A “minority Government”, headed by the Democratic Party, would have to rely on Grillo’ external support, thus allowing him to hold the Democratic Party hostage and perhaps attempt to impose measures totally unpalatable to its more “reformist” members, with the risk of the party splitting into splinter groups. Grillo could also, at any moment, withdraw his support and force new elections.

A “President’s Government” could cause  a veritable upheaval and provoke violent criticism   at the popular level mainly, of course, amongst  Grillo’s supporters, who could  immediately accuse the President (and the “establishment”) of  flouting the Constitution and of ignoring democratic  principles. It could be done, but with scant   chances of lasting success, since it would  be seen as carrying further votes to the Genoese comedian.

Some are putting forward a solution which  owes more to fantasy than to political realism, but this does not automatically exclude it from succeeding.

If president Napolitano, tearing a leaf out of Benedict XVI’s book,  should resign ahead of the end of his mandate (May of this year), Parliament would be compelled to elect a new  President.  Once elected,  he (or, as some would prefer, she) could  undertake a new attempt to form a Government  with the  impending  threat of calling new elections right away in case of failure. At this moment both the leading Coalitions fear  elections like the Bubonic Plague, and could therefore  feel compelled to toe the line. This unprecedented situation, improbable though it may appear, is not outside the realm of possibility.

At the moment, however,  the impasse appears to be total, and the solution, when it will be found,  will most probably only have temporary and unsatisfactory results, leaving Italy's most pressing problems unsolved.

This  indeed  has all the makings of a “perfect storm”.

AND THE WINNER IS .... REFLECTIONS ON THE ITALIAN ELECTORAL RESULTS

This Aricle was published by "Open Democracy" on February 28, 2013

Italians woke up on the morning of Tuesday, February 26^th with the realisation that not one of the numerous opinion polls set to predict the outcome of the  elections held between Sunday and Monday  had been correct, and that the country was probably facing a period of turbulence without parallel in its post-war history

In 1948 all the opinion  polls published in the United States had assured that  President Truman could not possibly win the  presidential elections. Truman responded  by stating that the opinion polls were “eyewash” and proceeded to win, rather comfortably. In his  Genoese dialect,  Mr. Beppe Grillo, the  undisputed winner of these elections, is probably echoing the same thought.

There are many amazing results from this electoral exercise, amazing even in a land of paradoxes such as Italy, the principal one being the fact that  the ostensible  “winner” (i.e. the coalition that  has the  largest number of  elected officials in Parliament, the “Democratic Party” and its allies) is, in reality, one of the principal losers, having gained the  smallest percentage of the total vote in its history, and finding itself in a position which  will make it well nigh impossible to govern according to its electoral commitments.

These elections have, in fact, produced only one undisputable winner,  the totally unpredictable maverick “Five Stars Movement” created and headed by former  comedian Beppe Grillo. This extremely populist movement, which has refused  all financial aid and has  never appeared on  the innumerable Television programmes much favoured by its rivals,  ended up  with around 25% of the popular vote, making it the  largest single Party represented in Parliament.

Another surprise “winner” is certainly the much reviled  Silvio Berlusconi, who also ran on an incredibly  naïve  populist  campaign, and who, after having been virtually written off both by Italian and foreign observers, has almost pulled one of his   miraculous comebacks,  with  his coalition losing out to the Centre Left by only a handful of votes. Berlusconi also, however, can be termed a “loser” if  his  results are compared to those obtained previously

The biggest loser, however, is certainly outgoing Prime Minister Mario Monti, who entered the political fray against the advice of many, including  an astute  veteran political figure such as the President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, a former Communist octogenarian who  has been active in Italian politics for all of his adult existence. It is said that he advised Monti to play  the role of Cincinnatus, and to let the active political parties and coalitions tear one another apart in what promised to be a very intense battle, with the possibility of emerging, once again, as a possible solution to the country’s instability.  Monti was convinced, instead,  that  his “Centrist” movement would give him a sufficient number of  votes to  guarantee him  a fundamental  role  in the post-electoral political spectrum, whereas, in reality,  the coalition just barely scraped through to collect the minimum number of votes needed to get into  Parliament.

Two questions arise: firstly we need to ask ourselves the reasons behind such an unpredictable outcome, and secondly, whether there is any hope to form a reasonably stable Government in the next weeks or months. The situation is complicated by the fact that president Napolitano, finding himself in the last  six months of his mandate,  does not have the Constitutional power to dissolve Parliament, and it would therefore be difficult to  return to a new electoral process before the nomination of the next President at the hands of a joint session of Parliament, augmented by  other institutional  figures.

 These  fundamental queries can be approached only after an analysis of the winning movement’s power of attraction to people of various age groups and former political allegiance. In European politics the  term “populist” can be misleading, and  brings to mind some extreme right-wing movements, bordering on the neo-fascist, which exist  elsewhere. Grillo refuses  to be cast in a “right wing” or “left wing” role, and, in fact, his basic ideas are slightly more to the left of Centre, without, however, allowing the conservative parties to raise the spectre of Communism. Even his anti-European stance is not really all that absolute, and is rather a criticism of  the heavy handed nature of EU interference than a desire to quit the Euro-zone or the Union itself. His common sense approach seems to attract his voters: everyone, for example,  has been claiming that   elected politicians are overpaid, but no attempt has been made to remedy the situation. Grillo’s elected officials have voluntarily docked their own pay, and this has scored many points in his favour.

The feeling is that the electorate wanted to punish the two most powerful political coalitions – Berlusconi’s to the right and Bersani’s to the left – for their inactivity during  the thirteen months of Monti’s “Technical Government”, a period which could have been dedicated to  the carving out of essential systemic reforms and was instead spent  in totally  vacuous political  posturing and  sparring.

The way the  electoral campaign was conducted is also indicative of the vast difference in approach between Grillo and his adversaries. While the traditional parties campaigned almost exclusively on Television, as guests  in the many available “talk-shows”, Grillo  undertook what he called a “tsunami tour” of the entire country, with no barriers  between himself and the people, and was seen addressing ever larger crowds which turned out in all weather conditions and kept showing undiminished enthusiasm.

The present situation appears almost hopeless: the writer of these notes has been following Italian politics since 1948, and does not recall a state of comparable confusion.

The  Left has a comfortable majority in the Lower House of Parliament, but the Senate is totally deadlocked. Italy is very dissimilar to Germany, and the idea of a “Grand Coalition” for the sake of stability and progress would be unlikely to  function, since it would have to bring together the two factions which have been at loggerheads for the past  two decades..

The Democratic Party could court Grillo and ask  his movement to join forces, but Grillo is unlikely to fall for  the traditional Siren Song (a few  ministerial positions in the future Government) at the risk of being  trapped in the quagmire of Italian politics and losing his popular momentum.  If he does collaborate, it will be at a price, and this price  may not appear acceptable to all the components of the  majority coalition, which could end by splitting up.

The justified fear is that, as has happened in the past, diverse groups will glue together a clumsy, unworkable governing coalition which will stagger through the coming months, unable to complete the reforms initiated by the Monti administration. The result could well end up in disaster.

The question remains open, and only the next few days will give an indication of what the outcome could turn out to be.

Carlo Ungaro

THE POPE IS OUT. LONG LIVE THE POPE

Published by "Open Democracy" on February 22, 2013 

The imminent resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was announced on February 11, and the choice of dates, as always in matters concerning the Vatican was  certainly not coincidental. February 11 is, in fact, the anniversary of the  1929 Lateran Pacts, which put an end to almost sixty years of the Holy See’s virtual and  largely self imposed diplomatic isolation which had followed the irrevocable 1870 declaration of Rome as the Capital of the  newly emerged Kingdom of Italy.  Any pretense to real temporal power had been lost for ever, but  February 11, 1929 signified the Holy See’s return as a fully recognized actor on the International scene,  deprived though it may have been of some of the more visible  indications of temporal power such as a national territory and a military defense force.

The flurry of comments  following the historic announcement,  include a number of interesting and thoughtful  assessments of Pope Benedict’s Pontificate, and the general evaluation has been preponderantly, in some cases even scathingly, negative, or, at best, critical. The most noticeable in this negative evaluation has been the German press, which, at the time of his nomination had been rather optimistic, at times even lyrically enthusiastic..

At this stage, however, such assessments could well be premature, influenced, as they inevitably are, by the contrast in style, although  much less in substance, between Benedict and his predecessor.

 There are, nonetheless, some fundamental aspects  that need to be examined, considering the historical impact of the decision, an extremely rare event in the history of the Papacy.

It would appear particularly relevant objectively to analyse the  veritable reasons  which induced the Pope to  announce this decision, which, it is said, took even some of his closest aides by surprise. Those who have had the opportunity to meet Benedict in recent weeks have been unanimous in their assessment that he indeed appeared  ailing, weakened and, above all, fatigued,  so that the  motivation given for the decision is certainly to be accepted, also in consideration of the fact that Benedict himself had been  considerably shocked by John Paul’s insistence  of continuing in the fulfillment of his mandate until the very end, in spite of severe health problems. 

It has to be stressed, however that age and ill health, though certainly relevant,  were  not the only factors to induce the Pope’s resignation.

Pope Benedict XVI presented himself, from the outset, as an extremely committed conservative theologian, but never  showed those  leadership traits which are essential in the governance of such an immense and complex empire as the Roman Catholic Church. Although the Pope's powers appear to be absolute – he is perhaps the only remaining absolute monarch in the world – his actions are  strongly limited by the political complexity of the governing body itself, in which  Cardinals of different  nationalities and schools of thought vie in a centuries old ruthless struggle for supremacy and need a strong hand to keep their actions under control. When Benedict took over the Papacy – and this was a  carefully planned election which took no one by surprise - the  evidently growing weakness of his predecessor’s  reign had already given  rise to a strong accentuation of the powers of the Curia. And the new Pope, since the very beginning,  was unable to exercise the  authority required to bring all these factions under control.

Much stress has been put by commentators on the scandals which supposedly weakened Benedict’s Pontificate  ultimately causing it to be considered a failure. It has to be remembered that  scandals,  whether of a financial nature or otherwise,  have riddled the Vatican for many years, and  also the  sex abuse scandals  in reality predate Benedict’s accession to power: it could even be said that he had the courage publicly to admit their existence  and  thus depart from the preceding  policy of  simply sidestepping the issue by  appointing the guilty to  different posts. Scandals alone were certainly not the sole cause  of  the Pope’s apparent  failure, but rather a weakness in leadership and an inability to  appoint  appropriate  people to delicate posts and, above all, to remove others  from positions  of power which they used unabashedly  for their own political agenda.

On the other hand, however, in dramatic contrast to these considerations, it has to be recalled that Pope Benedict found no opposition within the curia in  his determined drive to distance the Church from the Ecumenical  “liberal” directions taken half a century ago by John XXIII on the occasion of the Vatican II Council. This is a difficult task because, according to the doctrine of papal infallibility, (a rather recent addition to Roman Catholic Dogma, proclaimed by Pius IX at the Vatican I Council in the eighteen sixties), a Pope cannot be  accused of having erred, and corrections to directions taken by a Pontiff  can take many decades. The very short Pontificate of John Paul I – slightly over a month long – was the last to be held by a Pope publicly committed to the respect of the dictates of the Vatican II Council, and the Church, since the election of John Paul II, has been constantly distancing itself from Vatican II. The idea, of course, is to lay the blame not on Pope John XXIII, by definition blameless, but on those, both within and outside the Catholic world who have constantly, often willfully  misinterpreted the meaning of the event which needs to be shown as a moment  consecrated to continuity rather than  rupture.

There is an understandable tendency to concentrate attention on statements made by public figures on  important, formal occasions, but Vaticanists know that  Popes sometimes use more obscure or modest instances to enunciate  important principles. In a homily recently delivered to  an audience of humble Parish Priests, the Pope  very firmly reiterated  his belief that  the “misinterpretations” of  the Vatican II results  have to be corrected, and it is safe to  say that this will be the more probable direction taken by the future pontificate.

Speculation abounds on the possibility that, for the first time in its history, the Conclave will elect a non European – even an African or an Asian – Pope. This is actually a matter of very relative importance and, should the Conclave so decide, it would be more  with a view of showing the  “universality” of the Church, and  also of  giving vicarious pleasure and pride to  a particular nationality or ethnicity rather than in the  effort to  impart a new direction to the Vatican’s policies. All the Cardinals deemed  possible papal candidates, be they African, Asian or from the Americas, have spent enough time in the Curia to be thoroughly trained, some would say “Italianised” and  the vast majority of the  present day Cardinals,  no matter what their geographic or ethnic origins, have been chosen by  extremely conservative Popes, precisely with a view of preventing “dangerous” deviations, of the type experienced in 1978.

With the voting  hotly contested as it probably will be there is also the possibility of an outsider, a maverick  unexpected  candidate obtaining the required majority, and thus upsetting the  plans of the mainly Italian led conservative  faction of the Curia. This is, of course, possible, but extremely unlikely,  and the winner will most probably be if not Italian, at least a man of the Curia, well versed in what his duties will be expected to be.

Carlo Ungaro 

PAPAL RESIGNATIONS: GREGORY XII IN 1415

This was a resignation which was  motivated by the need to end the Western Schism by  agreeing to the joint resignation of the Pope and the Anti Pope. The agreement  was the object of much negotiation, and finally  Gregory's resignation did put an end to the schism.Those were tempestuous years for the Papacy

THE FIRST PAPAL RESIGNATION SINCE 1294

News is just out that  the incumbent Pope, Benedict XVI, intends to resign at the end of this month.
There had been some talk about this over the past  months, but always  denied by Vatican sources.
Papal resignations have been very few in the institution's centuries long history.
Pope Benedict  IX resigned in 1045 but became Pope again two years later after the resignation of his successor, Clement II who had actually forced Benedict out of the Papacy.
The most important resignation, which was at the beginning of a long crisis in Papal history, was that of Celestine V, in 1294.
There have been no Papal resignations since.

ITALY'S POLITICAL QUAGMIRE: IS BERLUSCONI ON THE COMEBACK TRAIL?

Article Published by OPED NEWS on January 14 2013

Rome, January 13, 2013

The unexpected resignation of Prime Minister Mario Monti,  a few weeks before the natural, constitutionally appointed end of the Legislature, has thrown  Italy’s political life into a state of turmoil and confusion reminiscent of former times.

The fact that Monti himself,  as he announced in the course of his end of year  press conference, has become an active participant to the electoral race, although in a rather unique and indirect way, has certainly not simplified matters. He, in fact is playing a rather audacious role, trying to appear as a modern-day Cincinnatus,  (or, for that matter, de Gaulle) waiting to be called to the helm of the Republic.

One of the many paradoxes in Italy’s present political setup is given by the remarkable influence still being wielded by Professor  Monti, a figure who has never run for office before and who, until  now, had been totally absent from the country’s political life.

This confusing situation has been considered a Godsend by the  more stalwart followers of  former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who, in spite of appearances to the contrary, and notwithstanding his  self-contradicting remarks, cannot be considered a spent force in the  political spectrum. He has, in fact,  launched a massive campaign in the attempt to stage one of those “come-backs” for which he is famous. As  his opponents  grudgingly admit,  Berlusconi has proven to be totally ineffectual as a leader, but he is an incredibly efficient campaigner, aided in this by the control he wields on six of the seven major television networks. The question that is being asked by perplexed observers in Italy (and abroad) is whether  Berlusconi’s unrivalled showmanship will  convince the Italian voters next February, or whether, after a year of political sobriety and harsh austerity measures, they will tend to focus more on concrete issues.

 There are signs of  unusual cohesion in the Centre-Left Democratic Party, which, according to current polls, could emerge as the winner in the next elections,  remaining short, however, of the overall majority in both Houses of Parliament which would allow it to govern efficiently.

The Prime Minister himself has openly faulted the  majority Centre-Right party, Mr. Berlusconi’s “People of Liberty”,  for its lack of support, accusing  it of having caused a premature and needless  Government crisis and reserving some  elegant but venomously caustic remarks for Mr. Berlusconi himself. He has also confirmed his hope to witness the formation of a credible “centrist” coalition whose platform would be a political  agenda issued by Monti, available on line, and which will participate in the elections bearing Monti’s name..

Berlusconi's party still has a majority in Parliament, but  its popular support,  according to reliable polls, has fallen dramatically to all-time low levels (between 15 and 18%). Since the inception of an aggressive Television campaign, it appears, however, to be on the upswing again.

In this complex, and in many ways typically Italian, game,  the newly formed Centrist party, led by Monti, which at the moment has limited popular appeal could end up  influential enough to become a decisive element in Italy’s future political setup. Not only is it  totally committed to Professor Monti, but it also has the explicit backing of the Roman Catholic Church. There are renewed signs, just as in the summer of 2011, that  many Catholic oriented political figures from the right and the left have converged upon this grouping, thus recreating, “de facto” the Christian Democratic Party which dominated the Italian political scene from the late forties until well into the nineties.

The other players, at the moment, have only minor roles to fulfil, although It would be a mistake to underestimate the negotiating strength of the separatist, anti-European, xenophobic and sometimes racist “Northern League”, which played a vital role in the former government and could again become an important player with its newly forged – albeit fragile -  alliance with Berlusconi, particularly in the Northern regions, which, thanks to Italy’s extremely complex electoral system could allow its members an important numerical presence in the Upper House of Parliament..

In this game, one can say that “The Joker is Wild”, and  it is therefore essential to keep an eye on the maverick, populist “Five Stars” movement, founded and run by comedian Beppe Grillo, which, at the moment  has significant popular support. The question is whether it can keep the momentum it has gained or whether it is destined to shrink to its former size or perhaps disappear from the political scene altogether.

Shrewd politicians have also got their  eye on the  record number of declared non-voters (over 30%, a record in Italian politics), but the feeling is that as political activity  gains momentum this number is bound to shrink.

The occult  aim of a number leading political figures appears to be the creation of a  hung Parliament, given the apparent impossibility of any one of the players to  form a significant majority in both Houses.  The President, Giorgio Napolitano, could thus move to renew the Monti experience, this time, however,  giving the Government a more political character. As an alternative, a mixed Parliament could hold together just long enough to elect Monti as President of the Republic (Napolitano’s mandate expires in April), and then proceed to new, even more uncertain elections.

The pattern is neither unexpected nor accidental and appeared with some clarity as early as the Spring of 2011, when the Italian Bishops’ Conference, acting in harmony with the Holy See,  withdrew its support from Berlusconi’s party, thus openly encouraging the formation of a Catholic oriented  political grouping in Parliament.

If Berlusconi should succeed in his  come-back attempt – which, at the moment, appears unlikely – he could upset this  delicate balance and  provoke a return to the disastrous policies of the past.

In all probability, however, no matter which of the other contestants should obtain a majority  in next February’s elections, the real winner will be the Roman Catholic Church, and this, of course, will have a strong influence on Italy’s internal politics, although it should not modify the country’s basically pro-European stance.