There are certain moments in history that just the day before seemed completely impossible. Events like the Sputnik launch perhaps that force you to re-arrange your compass so to speak. Moments in history like these are ones that almost physically stop you and compel you to think them over with great attention instead of blowing them off like less important news stories. For 12 years, many Italians and many people around the world for that matter kept asking themselves when PM. Berlusconi would stop holding his post. Perhaps we did not care how or when, just that it would happen. Now, Berlusconi leaving the PM position should not and will not be considered to have the same magnitude as Sputnik in human history, but it does have quite the significance with the "Couch-Carbonari" in Italy and abroad (although the archaic, thick, shiny dome aspect does appear to be the greatest common denominator between the two). I'm here to argue that the rest of the world (apart from those still supporting him; for them there is no hope) should stop trying to synthesize the Berlusconi experience and truly understand what kind of man led the world's 7th largest economy, an already deeply divided country, and a generation of youths into the valley of darkness.
My first quarrel stands with the terms associated with Berlusconi's departure in the American press. Words like "divisive", "marginalizing", "colorful", and "off-color" are adequate when you want to describe someone like comedian Daniel Tosh, or columnist Dan Savage. They are not adequate however at describing a politician that openly jokes about allegations of sexual relations with a minor, tax evasion, and connections with the mafia. The word that may frequently come to mind in that case may be "criminal" but we cannot lower ourselves down to a level of mud-slinging (this is a moderate outlook after-all). Thanks to Italy's more than flawed legal system, Berlusconi is still technically innocent until proven guilty. This of course is because of his effort in reforming the judicial system to provide more and more loopholes for elected officials on the grounds of "removing obstructions against governance". Because we cannot call him a criminal, we must resort to another, more appropriate label. My personal preference is that of "disgrace". Not to divulge too much into semantics, but this term suits the situation better than others because of the position Berlusconi tried to measure up to. If he had been out of public office, we would see him as simply a rotten apple with a dubious character. Instead, the very fact that he was a real international mover and shaker makes his abuse of power shameful, while his using of the Italian people's social capital as an unlimited credit card puts him at a level of disrespectfulness that we may never really figure out a way to label.
This leads me to my second point; in an effort to remain objective and perhaps even politically correct in the very sense of the word (catering to as many political spectrums as possible in an article), reporters have managed to downplay the gravity of Berlusconi-gates to mere headline news. Again, there is a sense that in our modern political discourse and in an era of viewership trumping real investigative journalism, we are left with a watered down version of one of the greatest con-men to ever live. In some cases, this is fine if we find reports about banal topics, but it seems weird to me that the moment that a man who publicly admits to modeling himself after Benito Mussolini is not only a Prime Minister of any country, but more importantly that of a country with the political problems that Italy had and still has. Let's not forget, the Years of Lead in Italy have passed so far as Wikipedia is concerned, but the political strife left behind has not yet dissipated (if you would like proof, I can direct you to the thousands of YouTube clips of Ignazio LaRussa, a die-hard neo-fascist outright reject criticism from a university student on one of the later episodes of Annozero). Whatever hope there was of that happening was dashed with "Tangentopoli" on the political end and Prodi's Dash for the Euro on the socio-economic front. It was not Berlusconi's personality that was "divisive", it was Berlusconi's policy by braggadocio that acted as a catalyst in an already splitting country. Economically, the gap between the rich and the poor grew more than five points on the GINI Index from 1995 to 2006 (that only takes into account reported earnings which has been a large problem in Italy on account of tax evasion by the wealthy). Socially, the lack of finding worthwhile merit-based jobs has created an exodus of Italian high-labor to Europe and the United States, draining the country of its best minds. Politically, it's made the theory of accountability in political office a joke. Not a far off dream, not a once-in-a-while occurrence, but a joke. Something that makes not only Italians, Europeans, but also heads of state (see Sarkozy and Merkel) laugh; sadly, the joke is about as funny as one of Berlusconi'sBerlusconi and the chances to reflect upon his "work" is an odd story to pass up.
Yet where do we stand now? We are four weeks into the Monti era and now Franco-Deutsch podiums have a third, more Italian looking flag and podium arrangement at EU centers, a phenomenon we have not seen recently. Does this then mean that Berlusconi is out of the picture? Absolutely not. The man is still the life of the party in more ways than one. He literally is the face of Italy's biggest right wing political party which he himself formed and tinkered with since the beginning, and it would just be hard to imagine someone like Mr. Alfano not only leading a major party but also keeping Mr. Bossi and his cohorts in political check (funny thing about separatist movements is that at the end of the day, they want to separate from their coalition allies too). There is also the very real possibility of Berlusconi carrying out his oppositional promise to block reform legislation his party feels very strongly against. In the short term this doesn’t cause a big problem as opposition to big austerity measures is sure to be had almost anywhere. In the long term, it acts as Berlusconi's foot in the door back into the Prime Minister's office. Let's remember how Berlusconi came to be in power in 1994; he was not a philosophical genius, nor did he want to tackle Italy's really big social issues (coming to grips with the end of the Cold War, tackling the Mafia as a whole and in society, etc.). He rode in on a white horse promising peace and stability for the individual, and that he was the one to tell the individual that everything was going to be alright right after Tangentopoli. The same premise awaits Berlusconi in about nine months from now when Monti's government will not have solved the Euro debt crisis or unemployment (this isn't a critique on their capabilities, just an observation of the very limited time frame which would obstruct any attempt from any one), and the reason for this lack of improvement will be that the leftist, technocratic approach is stifling economic growth, and that only the right-wing free market approach had any hope of saving Italy in the first place. Italians will love him for this, and forget the "bunga-bunga" and forget the trials of corruption, all because his personal conviction on the matter and his charisma will inject a hollow hope into the system. That will be enough for him to get the vote he needs, and also enough to potentially damage Italy beyond repair. Time to Fix It Again Tony.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.
RSS Feed
Or join the Academy Facebook Page to stay up to date on everything Academy.