Italy hail berlusconi

[first register]

All hail Berlusconi, the emperor – but where will his power end?

Prime minister's stranglehold on Italy has made him the most popular leader since Mussolini, raising fears over democracy
John Hooper in Rome
guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 May 2009 21.20 BST
Article history

When, earlier this week– in her latest, excruciatingly public quarrel with her husband – Silvio Berlusconi's wife, Veronica Lario, referred to him as an "emperor", she was doing more than just sniping at his conceit. She was echoing what is fast becoming the dominant theme in Italian politics – the rightwing media tycoon's burgeoning power and fears he is drifting into using it in undemocratic ways.

Such concerns are scarcely new. But next week, when the 72-year-old Berlusconi marks the first anniversary of his return to office, he will be celebrating an accumulation of influence and popularity no other leader of Italy has enjoyed since the fall of its fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini.

Few would quibble with the judgment of Massimo Giannini, the author of a recently published book on Berlusconi that, in the last 12 months, Berlusconi has "definitively recaptured Italy". Italy's ebullient, perma-tanned prime minister has an outright majority in parliament and a unified party behind him. His poll ratings are enough to bring tears of frustration to the eyes of other recession-battered leaders. And his grip on the Italian media is stronger than ever.

Of the seven main national television channels, three are answerable to him as the principal shareholder and another three, run by Italy's public broadcasting service, RAI, are indirectly answerable to him as prime minister. In the latest Freedom House report on the international media, Italy was downgraded from "free" to "partly free", putting it on a par with countries such as Albania and Ukraine.

Lario is not alone in fretting over where all this could lead. Gianfranco Fini, one of two deputy prime ministers in Berlusconi's last government, from 2001 to 2006, warned earlier this year of the dangers of "Caesar-ism".

Three separate processes have been at work over the past 12 months.

One is the homogenisation of Berlusconi's government. It no longer has to depend for its survival on a party of mutinous rightwing Christian Democrats, who walked out of Berlusconi's coalition before the last election. In March, the two biggest remaining groups – Berlusconi's Forza Italia party and the National Alliance, which grew out of Italy's neo-fascist movement – merged to form the so-called Freedom People. In a country used to governments lasting months, or even weeks, the present one is universally expected to see out its full five-year term.

A second factor has been the retreat of opposition in all forms. Faced with the prospect of Berlusconi leading the country until 2013 (by which time he will have governed Italy for 11 of the previous 19 years), it is as if many of his critics had resigned themselves to his ascendancy.

One after another, centres of resistance to his influence on society – in the universities, the unions and politics – have imploded. When, in 2003, Berlusconi first tried to pass a law securing himself immunity from prosecution, there was uproar and it was later revoked by Italy's highest court. Last year, his new justice minister tabled a modified version and pushed it quickly through parliament and on to the statute book against a background of little more than token indignation.

Leftwing students staged noisy protests last year against cuts in the education budget. But in November's elections for student representatives at Italy's biggest university, La Sapienza in Rome, three of the five seats in the senate went to candidates backed by government parties.

Several formerly leftwing intellectuals have declared a newfound admiration for Berlusconi. The writer Alessandro Baricco astonished a TV interviewer by calling the PM "someone who has great fascination for the future" and a "mental openness capable of imagining projects that surprise us every time".

The trade unions, whose general strike 14 years ago helped to bring down Berlusconi's first government, are split. Last December's "general strike", in protest at the government's response to the global economic crisis, was backed by only one of three main trade union federations and was generally judged a flop.

More conspicuous than anything, though, has been the collapse of Italy's parliamentary opposition. Its leader, Walter Veltroni, was discredited when his plan to collaborate with Berlusconi on a programme of reforms in the national interest was torpedoed by the victorious incoming prime minister. After a disastrous showing in a regional ballot on Sardinia in February, in which his Democratic party won just 24% of the vote, he resigned.

All of that points to a third factor at work since last May – the growth in Berlusconi's popularity. "I'm at 75.1%", he declared yesterday. "The polls I know about say Obama is at 59%. So mine is an outright record." The survey he cited was conveniently unpublished. But even the most recent published poll, prepared for the centre-left newspaper La Repubblica, gave him an approval rating of 56%.

Some of the billionaire TV proprietor's critics see it is the unavoidable consequence of his power to influence what Italians think.

"Berlusconi's television channels have moved not just votes, but the entire nation," the film director Nanni Moretti argued recently. "The majority of people, and not just those on the right, now consider it normal that one man should have a monopoly of TV, be a politician and even head of the government. That is his triumph."

For Pierluigi Battista, deputy editor of the Corriere della Sera newspaper, Berlusconi's media influence has become an excuse for the Italian left's own shortcomings.

"I'm reminded of what Brecht said: 'If the people are against us, we shall change the people'. When the left won [in 2006], all this rhetoric about Berlusconi and his media power mysteriously stopped," said Battista. "Now, for the first time, we have a government that can move swiftly – not because it is made up of people who are more intelligent but because they have more support and can thus pursue their aims with greater determination."

Certainly, an important reason for its popularity has been its response to voters' concerns about law and order. Polls reveal an abnormally high level of fear among today's Italians – fear of crime, fear of immigrants and fear of the consequences of globalisation.

Although key aspects of its programme have been ruled unacceptable by the European commission in Brussels, the government has implemented a law-and-order crackdown, elements of which go far beyond what is considered acceptable in other parts of Europe. Roma camps up and down the country have been demolished and the Gypsies have been fingerprinted (a plan to fingerprint their children was dropped following protests).

Parliament is poised to approve a law to legalise vigilante patrols and extend to six months the period during which asylum seekers could be held in special "identification and expulsion centres". It also contained a provision encouraging doctors and nurses to report suspected illegal immigrants to the police, but that was dropped after protests. The way to tackle illegal immigration, the interior minister, Roberto Maroni, recently declared, was to be "nasty".

No one has disappeared in mysterious circumstances since Berlusconi returned to power. None of his critics has been jailed or exiled. He has not closed a newspaper or TV station. He has not threatened parliament. But he has created a new party in which he has untrammelled powers.

At its founding conference last month, he was acclaimed, not elected by the delegates. Berlusconi has repeatedly mocked and defied the judiciary. He has twice referred to certain judges as a "cancer" and, in January, his cabinet approved a decree that would have overturned a decision of Italy's highest court had not the president, Giorgio Napolitano, refused to sign it.

In the name of efficient government, Berlusconi has frequently used procedural measures to curb parliamentary debate.

Pier Ferdinando Casini, who preceded Fini as speaker of the lower house, has complained of the "systematic representation of parliament as a bunch of loafers, a useless entity."

Most worryingly of all for his critics, Berlusconi has made it clear he intends to reform the constitution to create a directly elected president with much broader powers. On more than one occasion, he has said he sees no reason to get opposition backing for the changes. It has long been reported that Berlusconi hopes to stand for the presidency after stepping down as prime minister.

Battista believes the concerns surrounding Berlusconi's ambitions are misplaced. He says the US and France both have presidential systems, yet neither country's democratic credentials are questioned.

"It is Italy's past that creates this spectre," he says. Its disastrous experience of fascist dictatorship led to the introduction of electoral and constitutional arrangements intended to ensure that power was fragmented.

La Repubblica's Massimo Giannini argues that Italy "is too disenchanted to fall under a true 'regime' in which the fundamental liberties are trampled". In any case, it belongs to a European Union "in which relapses into the abyss of 20th century tyranny would not be permitted".

Nevertheless, the country that Berlusconi governs is fast becoming one marked by "the absence of autonomous powers that balance the overweening power of the executive," Giannini said.

Italy, he believes, risks joining the ranks of what the international relations guru, Fareed Zakaria, has dubbed "illiberal democracies".

It is unquestionably true that several of the international statesman with whom Berlusconi has established a special rapport govern countries that could qualify as such. One is Russia's Vladimir Putin. Another is the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In October, after a visit to central Asia, Italy's prime minister added to the list a less well-known name. He told a meeting of the Italian national retailers association that they should "all go to Kazakhstan on holiday" because "there's a gentleman there who is my friend. Not by coincidence, [he] has 91% of the vote and has done extraordinary things".

The man he was referring to was Kazakhstan's president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has been accused of, among other things, rigging elections, intimidating opponents, concentrating power in the hands of his family and altering the constitution to ensure he remains in office, which he has done for the last 19 years.

Questo articolo è fantastico.

[luckyluke5]

l'articolo è uscito sul guardian, vero? e di chi è il guardian?

[first register]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...vio-berlusconi

Si è del guardian. Non so chi è il proprietario del giornale, ma non sarebbe male leggere qualche articolo simile anche in Italia.

[luckyluke5]

Originariamente inviato da first register

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...vio-berlusconi

Si è del guardian. Non so chi è il proprietario del giornale, ma non sarebbe male leggere qualche articolo simile anche in Italia.

il problema è che il guardian, se non erro, e me ne scuso se dovesse essere così, è di murdoch, che non è altro che un berlusconi al cubo

[il Caccia]

Originariamente inviato da first register

In the latest Freedom House report on the international media, Italy was downgraded from "free" to "partly free", putting it on a par with countries such as Albania and Ukraine.

solo io penso che questa cosa sia gravissima? che sia berlusconi o mio nonno a provocarla poco mi frega, possibile che nessuno possa fare niente per impedire questo attacco al diritto all'informazione abbastanza equa??

[D.O.S.]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

il problema è che il guardian, se non erro, e me ne scuso se dovesse essere così, è di murdoch, che non è altro che un berlusconi al cubo

il Guardian appartiene al Guardian Media Group ed è LABURISTA , basta solo questo per giustificare l'attenzione verso silviuccio .

ma non mi risulta che questo gruppo appartenga a Murdoch , che può anche essere grande il triplo del berlusca come impero editoriale ma NON E' SCESO IN POLITICA .
e questo la dice tutta sulla solidità economica di tale impero .

[Xile]

Originariamente inviato da il Caccia

solo io penso che questa cosa sia gravissima? che sia berlusconi o mio nonno a provocarla poco mi frega, possibile che nessuno possa fare niente per impedire questo attacco al diritto all'informazione abbastanza equa??

No, la pensa la maggior parte di quelli che usano internet con il cervello, peccato che siano la minoranza in sto paese.

[MadJackal]

Originariamente inviato da D.O.S.

il Guardian appartiene al Guardian Media Group ed è LABURISTA , basta solo questo per giustificare l'attenzione verso silviuccio .

ma non mi risulta che questo gruppo appartenga a Murdoch , che può anche essere grande il triplo del berlusca come impero editoriale ma NON E' SCESO IN POLITICA .
e questo la dice tutta sulla solidità economica di tale impero .

Zac.

[luckyluke5]

Originariamente inviato da D.O.S.

il Guardian appartiene al Guardian Media Group ed è LABURISTA , basta solo questo per giustificare l'attenzione verso silviuccio .

ma non mi risulta che questo gruppo appartenga a Murdoch , che può anche essere grande il triplo del berlusca come impero editoriale ma NON E' SCESO IN POLITICA .
e questo la dice tutta sulla solidità economica di tale impero .

anche agnelli non è mai sceso in politica direttamente, se non come senatore a vita, ma non si può dire che non influisse

[gigio2005]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

il problema è che il guardian, se non erro, e me ne scuso se dovesse essere così, è di murdoch, che non è altro che un berlusconi al cubo

da una semplice ricerca su wiki:

The Scott Trust is a British non-profit organization which owns Guardian Media Group and thus The Guardian, The Observer and Auto Trader as well as various local newspapers, Smooth FM (formerly Jazz FM) and other radio stations, and various other media businesses in the UK.

[edit] History
The Trust was established in 1936 by John Scott, owner of the Manchester Guardian (as it then was) and the Manchester Evening News. After the deaths in quick succession of his father C. P. Scott and brother Edward, and consequent death duties, John Scott wished to prevent future death duties forcing the closure or sale of the newspapers, and to protect the liberal editorial line of the Guardian from interference by future proprietors.

The Trust was dissolved and reformed in 1948, as it was thought that the Trust, under the terms of the original Trust Deed, had become liable to tax due to changes in the law. At this time John Scott also gave up his exclusive right to appoint trustees; the trustees would henceforth appoint new members themselves. Five months after the signing of the new Trust Deed, John Scott died. After three years of legal argument, the Inland Revenue gave up its claim for death duty.

The eight initial trustees of the 1948 Trust were all connected with the Manchester Guardian and Evening News, Ltd., and included four of C. P. Scott's grandsons as well as the then editor of the M.G., A. P. Wadsworth. It has become normal practice for a Guardian journalist to be a member of the trust, though he or she is not considered to be a "representative" of the staff, as this may result in a conflict of interests.


[edit] The Trust today
The Trust is responsible for appointing the editor of The Guardian (and those of the group's other main newspapers) but apart from enjoining them to continue the paper's editorial policy on "the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore", has a policy of not interfering in their decisions. This arrangement tends to give editors a long tenure, and it is probably for this reason that internal appointments have been preferred. GMG's acquisition of The Observer, however, was followed by a quick succession of editors, amid reports of intrigue and accusations of interference.

In 1992, the Trust identified its central objective as being the following:

To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Trust sees its main functions as being the following:

To secure the Trust's own continuity by renewing its membership and by dealing with threats to its existence;
To monitor the organisation, financial management and overall strategy of the Group, holding the board accountable for its performance;
To appoint and 'in extreme circumstances' to dismiss the editors of The Guardian, the Manchester Evening News and The Observer,
To act as a 'court of appeal' in the event of any dispute between the editorial and managerial sides of the operation.
Besides the GMG businesses, the Scott Trust has a charitable wing, the Guardian Foundation, and operates the Newsroom, an archive and education centre near the Guardian's offices in the Clerkenwell area of London.

The current chair of the Trust is Liz Forgan, a former Director of Programmes at Channel 4 and Managing Director of BBC Radio. She was appointed in November 2003 to fill the vacancy left by the death of Hugo Young. Other trustees include the current Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Larry Elliott, Will Hutton, Anne Lapping, Paul Myners, Geraldine Proudler, Sir Derek Higgs, and one member of the Scott family.

Forgan is the sixth chair of the trust; her predecessors were John Scott (1936-48), A. P. Wadsworth (1948-56), Richard Scott (1956-84), Alistair Hetherington (1984-89), and Hugo Young (1990-2003).

[gigio2005]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

anche agnelli non è mai sceso in politica direttamente, se non come senatore a vita, ma non si può dire che non influisse

non ho capito agnelli come abbia influito sulla vita degli italiani

[D.O.S.]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

anche agnelli non è mai sceso in politica direttamente, se non come senatore a vita, ma non si può dire che non influisse

Agnelli non ha mai fondato un partito
Agnelli non è mai stato PdC
Agnelli è stato senatore dal 1991 al 2003
Agnelli era un senatore a vita , quindi estraneo ai giochi politici del parlamento , faceva il cavolo che gli pareva e non aveva una maggioranza da difendere .

non capisco come puoi fare un paragone con un vero politico .

[Xile]

Originariamente inviato da D.O.S.

Agnelli non ha mai fondato un partito
Agnelli non è mai stato PdC
Agnelli è stato senatore dal 1991 al 2003
Agnelli era un senatore a vita , quindi estraneo ai giochi politici del parlamento , faceva il cavolo che gli pareva e non aveva una maggioranza da difendere .

non capisco come puoi fare un paragone con un vero politico .

Aveva il potere di decidere il distino di migliaia di operai, quante volte avrà fatto il giochetto: "O mi dai i soldi dello stato altrimenti licenzio tutti"?! La FIAT è stato un gran bel carrozzone fino a che è arrivato Marchione che ha portato FIAT a comprarsi Chrysler ed è essere una società ambita con cui fare alleanze.

[MadJackal]

Comunque a quanto pare il Guardian non è di murdoch

[luckyluke5]

Originariamente inviato da D.O.S.

Agnelli non ha mai fondato un partito
Agnelli non è mai stato PdC
Agnelli è stato senatore dal 1991 al 2003
Agnelli era un senatore a vita , quindi estraneo ai giochi politici del parlamento , faceva il cavolo che gli pareva e non aveva una maggioranza da difendere .

non capisco come puoi fare un paragone con un vero politico .

molti credono che siano influenti solo i politici in vista, con cariche pubbliche

purtroppo, non è proprio così

[jan]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

il problema è che il guardian, se non erro, e me ne scuso se dovesse essere così, è di murdoch, che non è altro che un berlusconi al cubo

non mi risulta che murdoch sia presidente di alcuna nazione o confederazione di stati

[Marco!]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

il problema è che il guardian, se non erro, e me ne scuso se dovesse essere così, è di murdoch, che non è altro che un berlusconi al cubo

murdoch è presidente di quale nazione?

[gigio2005]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

molti credono che siano influenti solo i politici in vista, con cariche pubbliche

purtroppo, non è proprio così

la nuova frontiera del:

"eh non riesco piu' a difendere berlusconi devo inventarmi dei poteri occulti che siano peggio di lui"




tornando al pragmatismo:

a) abbiamo appurato che murdoch non e' il proprietario del guardian....ma non abbiamo letto nessun tuo commento al riguardo...vabe'

b) agnelli era tra gli imprenditori piu' importanti d'italia...ok....cio' e' male?

[FabioGreggio]

Originariamente inviato da luckyluke5

il problema è che il guardian, se non erro, e me ne scuso se dovesse essere così, è di murdoch, che non è altro che un berlusconi al cubo

Il problema è che articoli del genere sono usciti su Newsweek, The Economist, Le Monde, Figaro, Aleman Z., Diario, El Pais ecc.

Continuate a fere le bucce in modo capillare ad ogni critica internazionale.
Servirà a capire meglio quanto profondo è il processo di bananizzazione del Paese.

fg

[entanglement]

Originariamente inviato da gigio2005

non ho capito agnelli come abbia influito sulla vita degli italiani

per esempio facendosi pagare dallo stato i debiti della fiat, quando faceva macchine di merda che nessuno comprava. e si parla di TANTI soldi

per esempio facendo svalutare la lira sulla carta per rendere l'alfa conveniente rispetto alle audi