Visiting Italy at the time of the 2006 election, I described Silvio Berlusconi as “a larger-than-life figure who evokes a reluctant admiration even from those who are appalled by his ability to get away with things that would have put lesser people in prison long ago.”
And his remarkable career continues. Berlusconi lost that election by the tiniest of margins, but the new centre-left government fell after less than two years, and he returned to power with a comfortable victory in fresh elections in April 2008.
It’s been a rocky ride since then. Berlusconi’s marriage collapsed after a string of lurid sex scandals, his nose was broken when a protester threw a statuette at him, and his country’s economy continues to give headaches to European policymakers. Worst of all, his trusted lieutenant, former deputy prime minister Gianfranco Fini, broke away from Berlusconi’s “People of Freedom” party and tried to unseat him in parliament.
But Il Cavaliere, as he’s known, is nothing if not resourceful. Against all expectations, he survived votes of confidence on Tuesday — relatively comfortably in the senate, and by just three votes in the chamber of deputies. The result was met with large-scale rioting in Rome.
Taking the longer view, there is nothing new in any of this. Italy was a byword for political instability for decades. Berlusconi, with his tireless efforts to unite the centre-right forces into a single bloc, is the one who has given it a degree of stability in recent years; from
2001 to 2006 he presided over the only full-term government Italy had had since World War II. (Which, depending on one’s point of view, suggests either that the Italians are an ungrateful lot, or that the virtues of stability are over-rated.)
What made Italy more ungovernable than its western neighbors was the presence of a powerful Communist Party: too large to be ignored, but too dangerous to be allowed into the normal business of coalition-making.
Only after the end of the Cold War was Italy allowed to develop something like a normal party system.
But its history means that Italy remains something of a special case: wanting to be counted in the club of political and economic stability with France, Germany and Britain, but still plagued by uncomfortable similarities with the more volatile Mediterranean group that includes Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Berlusconi aptly personifies the contrast: an experienced world statesman who nonetheless behaves all too often like a cuckoo in the nest.
Although he has survived this time, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Berlusconi’s career is drawing towards a close. At 74, he must be wondering how many more fights he has left in him. The largely ceremonial post of president, which falls vacant in 2013, is said to be an attraction for him — not least for the comprehensive immunity from prosecution that it would bring.
The bad blood between Berlusconi and Fini is unlikely to be overcome; three votes is not enough of a margin to face another two years with the current parliament, but the governing coalition is in no shape to contest fresh elections. Something will have to give.
Yet Berlusconi is not without claims on his country’s gratitude. Corrupt and idiosyncratic he may be, but his government has been generally moderate and responsible. Italy remains a civilised place, and its economy has so far weathered the storm, albeit precariously. Compared to many less corrupt and more principled leaders, the harm that Berlusconi has done barely registers.
George W Bush and Tony Blair never took bribes or cavorted with prostitutes, but they caused untold human suffering and laid waste whole countries. Our own John Howard, faced with a refugee problem several orders of magnitude less than Italy’s, chose to thumb his nose at international law in a way that horrified European opinion.
The demonstrators on the streets of Rome may not appreciate the point, but when it comes to politics, the corrupt are the least of our worries.
[ Italy was a byword for political instability for decades. ]
Charles, sorry to be the resident nit-picker but this statement is slightly misleading. In common with Japan, until quite recently there has in fact been essentially one government/one party in power in these countries since the end of WW2. The “instability” is in leadership: Italy has had 41 PMs in 59 governments in 64 years, and Japan—48 PMs with 46 from the LDP.
This is not trivial because there are important conclusions: first, if it is instability then it is obviously not particularly relevant to economic success with Italy the 9th largest and Japan the second largest economies until recently (now 3rd after China). Second, the reality is these countries do not have enough instability: rotating leadership has not provided enough new ideas or courage to puruse reform and although economically successful both countries have a massive inertia to change.
@Michael – that’s a very good point. I think “political instability” is still a valid term to apply to Italy, since the composition of governments did regularly change (in contrast to Japan, where it was mostly just factional rearrangement within the LDP), but it’s true they were all fundamentally similar coalitions, with the Christian Democrats always the major force. I think the lessons the Italians have drawn from this is that government doesn’t matter much, so they just go on and do their own thing – usually quite successfully. But you’re certainly right about the absence of new ideas.