Silvio Berlusconi performed the mother of all u-turns this week. He grossly over-estimated his hold on Italian politics and took too much for granted regarding where the loyalty of his troops lies. ‘Berlusconi’ should find its place in the Oxford Dictionary to define unashamed hypocritical u-turns.
The election in February returned a result which made Italy only governable if the parties of the centre-right and centre-left formed a German-style grand coalition. With the Democratic Party (DP) leader Bersani committing himself not to join any coalition with Berlusconi’s party, the country seemed basically ungovernable. The DP failed to secure a majority in the Senate, even if the independent senators and the moderate centre parties gave their support. Without the support of Berlusconi’s party, no stable government could be formed. Berlusconi, whom many had considered finished when he was forced to resign and make space for Monti’s technical government, unexpectedly held the veto on the formation of government.
It had to be the skill and moral authority of outgoing President Napolitano to force party leaders Berlusconi and Bersani to move aside and appoint Letta as Prime Minister. Letta comes from the DP on the left but had family members well-known and commanding the confidence of Berlusconi. This helped secure a fragile coalition that needed Napolitano to offer himself for re-election as Italy’s President, despite his age. Napolitano was considered the only voice that could bring stability to a very volatile political environment, where the only deterrent against chaos that would lead to fresh elections was the fear that the electorate would chastise the traditional party and vote in protest to elect comedians and extremists.
Prime Minister Letta was doing a good job against all odds. Last week he was in New York using his attendance at the UN Meeting to promote Italy’s credentials for foreign investment. But Berlusconi wanted to show who was really in charge.
With a final judgement of being guilty of fraud and tax evasion, Berlusconi was facing the real prospect of being booted out of the Senate and stripped of the civil right to vote and contest elections. In a clear demonstration that for Berlusconi, private interest comes before the sovereign safeguards, he pulled the plug on the Letta government and ordered ‘his ministers’ to resign from Cabinet and his delegates to resign from parliament.
It was a shocking move, as no one ever thought that Berlusconi would dare to create enough political chaos to render the country ungovernable merely to protect his own skin. And he went even further by making several public outbursts accusing Napolitano and Letta of forming part of some grand devious scheme to push him out of politics.
It would not be a bad thing at all if there to be controls to ensure that owners of capital and resources do not use their wealth and connections to gain political power to protect their patrimony, rather than the general good of the country. But in Berlusconi’s case he was found guilty by several layers of the Italian court system, after all possible appeals had failed. It is convenient for Berlusconi to protest about the political partiality of the judiciary but arguing that the Italian court system is – from top to bottom – a front for left-wing politics is an insult to the intelligence.
From a gallant kamikaze on Sunday, Berlusconi was tamed into an unashamed waverer by Wednesday when the Italians could not believe their eyes on seeing Berlusconi voting confidence in a government that he brought down in the first place.
Numbers were the source of Berlusconi’s mega shift. When a sizeable portion of his troops, including the five ministers that were forced to resign from cabinet, made it clear that they will put the country’s interest before Berlusconi’s and, if necessary, break away to form a new moderate centre-right party, Berlusconi was disarmed.
A similar fate awaits the GOP (Grand Old Party – Republican Party) in the US. Its fundamentalism against Obama’s health care initiative to make it accessible to the lower strata of society, coupled with its dislike of Obama personally, is forcing the GOP to jeopardise the country’s interests and reputation to satisfy its obsessions.
Making continuing funding for government operations conditional on removing funding for Obama’s health care signature legislation has forced the US government onto life support. Threatening not to raise the debt ceiling, normally a purely administrative measure to make it possible to fund budgets already approved, could force total government shutdown, including the shutdown of essential services and possibly even defaulting on America’s debt, reducing the US to the leagues of Argentina, Greece, Jamaica and Bolivia.
As public opinion turns against the GOP in disgust at its abuse of democratic power, moderate elements within the party will, like Berlusconi, read the numbers and force the leadership to side-line the Tea Party extreme elements to bring America back to normal civilisation.
And what does Simon have to do in all of this? Dr Busuttil’s walk-out of parliament this week purely because a Speaker’s ruling did not go as he wanted is a small example of the my-way-or-the-highway attitude of Berlusconi and the GOP.
But in the PN’s case, Simon Busuttil does not even have the political levers to force his points. Forcing a showdown is not the way to advance in modern politics. He can, of course, disagree with the Speaker’s ruling; he can protest and argue against it; but walking out of parliament is childish and counter-productive.
Dr Busuttil would do himself and his party a great favour were he to be more concrete and factual in his criticism. He is entitled to express his suspicions, but suspicions are not proof. Assertions do not make facts. He has every right to disagree with decisions taken by appointed executives, including the Commissioner of Police, but extending this to assertions of interference by the Prime Minister needs proof, not mere suspicions.
Busuttil should not imitate Berlusconi or the GOP’s style of leadership. Rather than showdowns to assert his authority on the Party, he would be well advised to work quietly to build and strengthen the Party’s weakened internal structures before starting to play gallery games.
www.alfred-mifsud.blogspot.com