Comments on: Italian Elections 2006 Part II

By: Luk

Luk — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:01:24 +0000

Many foreigners often ask me how is it possible that a relatively modern, big, educated and democratic country as Italy could ever have elected Berlusconi. I agree this should never have happened, but I would like to rationalize it. In a nutshell, my answer is this: because the center-left parties have often acted worse than Mr. B. Three quick examples. The media: Mr. B controls his media empire and now also most of the public media, but during the center or center-left governments the RAI was also totally and scandalously controlled by the current opposition (or their political ancestors). So the control of the public media is not Mr. B’s invention.
The finance: Italian national debt passed from roughly 60% to more than 100% from the early 70s to the end of the 90s, when all center-left parties were either directly in power or in some form of more or less open collaboration with it (I refer to the years of close collaboration and co-legislation between the PCI and the DC in the late 70s). So again the huge economic problems of Italy are not Mr. B’s invention. Democracy: Italian democratic system is corrupt from inside, due to the selection process (even a party with 2% could have representatives in the parliament and render the system unstable), and to the huge influence of politics in all economic, social, cultural quarters. Parties have a tremendous and unbalanced power, an unlimited publicly financed budget (despite a referendum that succeeded in canceling it for a few years), they nominate head of banks, of hospitals, of companies, of cultural institution (even the election of the deans of universities is directly influenced by political parties) etc etc. And again, this is a heritage from the years of the communist and christian democrat’s mass parties, not Mr. B’s invention.
So here it is: Mr. B is just the consequence, not the cause, of a long and deep illness of our country. People voted for him because thay see that he is not worse than the others and at least he could say that he was not responsible for the past. Now finally he is part of the past…and I hope for good.

By: marco

marco — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:19:23 +0000

Ben P, to make a long story short, I think that Berlusconi won the elections the first time mainly because he managed to convince people that he was
a)a ‘homo novus’, an outsider with respect to the world of politics
b)A self-made billionaire who could do to Italy and Italians the same wonders he did to his bank account.
No matter if his claims were actually true, he managed to ’sell’ them.
His first government lasted for two years only, because the Lega Nord left the center right and Berlusconi had to resign.
Belusconi’s second victory can therefore be interpreted as a second chance he was given when people felt that the first failure was not entirely his fault.
Another reason for the second victory is that the candidate for the center-left (Rutelli) looked weak and unconvincing even to many center-left voters.
Control on the media was a plus, but IMO it was not the main reason for Berlusconi’s second victory

By: Ben P

Ben P — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:57:23 +0000

I ask this question as an ignorant outsider, so anybody who could enlighen me, please do so:

How could Berlusconi have won 2 elections and how could he have any chance of winning this one?

Yeah - the worst economy in Europe, but I own 90% of the media. Great leader, great for democracy. The states has nothing on Europe with idiots like this guy running around.

By: claus vistesen

claus vistesen — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:06:14 +0000

What about the (external) reasons why Berlusconi would very much want to win this one …

Does he not have numerous criminal charges hanging over his head which would resurface as his immunity withers away with a loss?

Or have those (criminal charges) already fallen for the investigation time limit?

On another note,

“What I am sort of ironically hinting at here is that the idea of the separation of religious and civil entities is not a question which only needs to be raised in the context of non-European countries with another religion. I think we also need to practice what we preach to others and tidy our own house up a little.”

Ah yes, perhaps we should all conform ourselves to the French prerogative of laïcité and indeed I am personally both an atheist and secular person … but that is another discussion which I should not begin in this thread.

By: bert

bert — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:50:00 +0000

:o)

By: Wind Rose Hotel

Wind Rose Hotel — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:38:17 +0000

Bert, Berlusconi would say: “Comunista!”

By: bert

bert — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:52:14 +0000

if Labour had won in 1991
1992 of course. Oops.

By: bert

bert — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:39:12 +0000

Sorry, I seem to be spraying around fascist analogies when I discuss these elections.

Edward, I can see the logic of why this might be an election it’s smart to lose. (An example from my own country: if Labour had won in 1991, it would have been blamed for the disruptive sterling crisis that followed, and Britain’s ejection from a European currency project; by losing, it sowed the seeds for its domination of UK politics for the next decade and more.) But I’m struggling to think of a ruling party that’s entered an election with a strategy that it’s going to try to lose. And I draw a total blank on finding a precedent when you add in the fact that the polls are balanced 47:51.

By: bert

bert — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:10:39 +0000

… the mausoleum Berlusconi wants to be buried in …

By: Joerg Wenck

Joerg Wenck — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:43:37 +0000

Well, Edward leaves some stones unturned, but I´m not quite willing to get into topics here that aren´t really Italy-specific. After all, Berlusconi really is a throwback to the past - not just to the postwar era, but further back still.
On German TV, a “close personal aide” once showed a TV reporter around the mausoleum Berlusconi wants to be buried in, and at the end of that TV piece, the aide said he wanted to be buried there, too - along with his master, so to speak.