Posted on 05/14/2005 9:55:12 AM PDT by Lessismore
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's coalition is gradually crumbling as each local election result deals it a further blow. It now seems unlikely that Italian voters will grant Berlusconi another mandate in the May 2006 general elections, even if his government were to reach them without being toppled.
Berlusconi's coalition, the Casa delle Liberta (house of liberties), suffered another defeat in the latest local elections. Results from the May 8-9 vote showed support for Berlusconi had decreased drastically on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, where the media tycoon owns several lavish villas. The coalition also was defeated in mayoral ballots in the far northern regions of Trentino and Valle d'Aosta. These losses added to the embarrassing defeat in the April 3-4 local elections, when Berlusconi's coalition lost all but two of the 13 regions up for grabs.
After the April elections, despite complaints from his allies and opposition, Berlusconi resigned and reshuffled his Cabinet in a tactical bid to strengthen his fractious coalition. The reshuffle came under fire immediately for being practically a photocopy of the previous executive.
Berlusconi's government, the longest lasting in the history of the Italian republic, has suffered from a sluggish economy and from its own mistakes--a high dose of arrogant favoritism for its members, the unpopular deployment of Italian troops to Iraq and undue concessions to the small, but demanding, separatist Northern League Party, which demands more autonomy for the rich northern Italian regions.
Inflation coupled with recession has produced a sharp decrease in the purchasing power of Italians, especially those in the middle class. Their discontent has been magnified by the national statistics institute's inflation estimates, which amount to about half the inflation seen by private institutes and consumer associations.
Laws aimed at boosting the prime minister's private business and sheltering him from judgment in court proceedings also have sparked criticism of Berlusconi's center-right coalition. The la Repubblica daily has asserted that since his triumphant entry into politics in 1994, Berlusconi's assets have tripled in value. Several laws passed by the governing majority, including a fiscal pardon, have allowed Berlusconi's Fininvest company to save paying hundreds of millions of euros in taxes.
In addition, regulations clearly aimed at sheltering Berlusconi and his partners from trial have tarnished his reputation, making him unpopular with voters. Such regulations include the curbing of punishment for crimes such as fraudulent accounting, shortening the statute of limitations and weakening the judicial power of magistrates, whom Berlusconi has tagged "communist red robes."
Berlusconi's decision to deploy about 3,000 Italian troops in Iraq also was a political blunder, considering the moderate level of Italian economic interest in Iraq and the highly unfavorable public opinion at home.
Last, undue concessions to the small Northern League, which caused the fall of Berlusconi's 1994 government, have cooled enthusiasm for the center-right coalition in the poorer and less developed southern part of the peninsula. The Northern League hinted they might withdraw their support for the government if federalist reform of the Constitution is not approved, thus causing a clash between members of the coalition--Berlusconi's Forza Italia Party, the nationalist, formerly fascist Alleanza Nazionale Party and the Christian-Democrat UDC Party.
The April defeat caused turmoil within the coalition, so much so that both Alleanza Nazionale and UDC demanded a complete turnaround in policy. However, once again, the Northern League's threat to leave the coalition prevented Berlusconi from making such a change.
It seems highly unlikely that Berlusconi will run in the upcoming May 2006 elections with the same team and political structure in place now. He has hinted he might prefer to succeed Carlo Azeglio Ciampi as president and find a less compromised figure for the post of prime minister.
Even then, Ciampi's mandate expires after the May 2006 elections and his successor will be elected by a new parliament, which will probably be dominated by Romano Prodi's center-left coalition.
These Europeans sound exactly like Americans.
Perhaps whining, blaming others and such, might be human nature.
Or are we less inclined to whine and blame others and it really is just a European phenomenon? Perhaps idiocy is merely European in nature? :o)
Yeah its called democracy, we do it too.
Ya think? :o)
I have daily business contact with people all over Europe, and I don't find them to be particularly different from Americans. I would like to have advice and assistance in thinking of ways to talk to Europeans in order to encourage them to be more proactive and self-reliant in their lives; that is one of the primary reasons I have started reading and posting on Free Republic. We need to communicate our message to those who are in places where change is necessary.
Talking does nothing.
EXAMPLE is best.
SHOW them how you live. Be such a positive role model.
Revel in appreciation at being American and GRATEFUL to European roots where we, basically, learned our way of life, values, ethics, religion, art, music, culture, language, etc. Italy DID have TWO Renaissances. English IS a dialect of German.
Learn a FEW key phrases in their language and use them when you can.
Treat them and their culture with as much respect as we want them to respect us and our culture.
When they complain about their societal problems, AVOID the urge to agree with them. Sigh heavily and admit that we all have similar problems.
What do you think?
Holding up your nose at them, lecturing them about their faults, criticizing their way of lif/government and rubbing their noses in our prosperity is better? :o)
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply - your ideas are very good and I will implement them. I already speak French, Spanish, Italian and German, and it is because of this that I am looking for ways to describe my feelings that I can have translated in my head before the conversations start - I still have trouble speaking some languages "on the fly". I don't want to lecture anybody, but I would like to find ways to be encouraging to them in pursuit of a more self-reliant system of government.
The Parliamentary form of government sure sets up unstable situations. Italy is the worst but Israel and others have frequent turnovers in government too, instead of trying to work it out until the next election.
Probably because OTHER systems do work for other people. Ours isn't necessarily superior. It works for us and we know no other way. Other countries have been using other systems and they work just as well. Hey, I know this may seem like heresy to you, but a king will work too, only, that is, if he's a, um, benign despot. Lol. Please don't slam me back on this. I wouldn't trade our system for any other.
The key is to have democratic free elections for those coalitions and parliaments. If the people freely CHOOSE their government, then it IS their choice. One can ask no more of them. It DOESN'T have to be a clone of our system to be good, worthy, useful and representative.
You didn't hear a word I said. You really didn't.
Individuals can't change systems of governments, at least not at your level. Try to get that concept firmely entrenched in your brain. Really try hard.
And, to be honest, it's rather an arrogant attitude for one individual to try, through another individual, to change their entire system of government. It IS lecturing, criticizing and elitism. There is no other way to describe it.
If someone were conversing with YOU and very nicely telling you that the system of government we have is nice, but THEIRS is really better, then you would probably become defensive. You would find it arrogant, abrasive and downright rude of him to think that HE would believe that OUR government system needed ANY alteration.
You would also have to admit that YOU, as an individual, are, in no way in the universe, going to be able to change our system of government. In fact, the idea is ludicrous.
The reverse is equally true.
Even George Bush, who IS in that position as an individual, assiduously avoids lecturing Vladimir Putin on how his system of government should be.
You are very nice and polite but you really didn't hear a word I said. After all your nice words you STILL said: "I don't want to lecture anybody, but I would like to find ways to be encouraging to them in pursuit of a more self-reliant system of government."
You sound EXACTLY like a proselytizing Mormon, intent on converting even though you KNOW that your, um, "missionary" work will be unwanted and DEEPLY resented.
My opinion? You will forge ahead with your plan of insulting foreigners, only you will fool yourself into thinking that you are being constructive and helpful. Your ENTIRE idea is arrogant, insulting and extremely elitist.
Unfortunately, you don't see that at all and that says a lot about your personality and character. Perhaps it is only youth and inexperience.
Sad to say, you won't have A CLUE as to why they will so deeply resent you.
I hear what you are saying.
What seems unstable to you may actually be good for THEM. Shaking things up isn't always bad. Most important, their government shenanigans don't seem to affect the daily lives of anyone.
Germany's coalition government system works fine too, and they've had to go through the upheaval and expense of reunifying with Germans who lived 50 years under the destructiveness of communism.
Italy has had TWO Renaissances and has produced some of the finest, well, everything, this planet has ever seen. It's the most visited, tourist-wise, country in the world. Their upheaval type of government seems to work for them. It certainly doesn't ever seem to interrupt the flow of daily Italian life.
The British parliamentary system, of course, is rock solid. The only thing I find weird is the House of Lords. Who needs it?
As I've gotten older, I've become less critical of these coalition governments. I see how well they really do work but am glad not to have to be under that system.
I also have gotten very frustrated with OUR two-party system. They seem to be less and less TWO-PARTIES and more like ONE party smack in the middle, with all the power and money (Read that as TAXES).
Their fringes on either side, are like angry, spoiled children, screaming for change from their centrist parents.
Sigh. I've become such a cynic.
Yes we could gain a lot from coalitions and the emergence of 3rd parties that don't just diminish the chances of parties to win but instead enhance them. It's interesting that the Progressive party came in 2nd in 1912, and possibly something could have come of that if not for W.W.I.?
IOW, just agree that the emperor's new clothes are beautiful.
While I can basically agree with some of what you wrote, if you reread your post the phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" should immediately come to mind.
thank you for your advice.
While I can basically agree with some of what you wrote, if you reread your post the phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" should immediately come to mind.
Why so it should.
I was actually kind of defending the "others'" right to have a, er, different form of government without our holding up our comprehensive noses at them for it. At worst we should only HOLD our noses and deal with what THEY freely, democratically choose. (Grin and bear it, so to speak.)
Could be.
Third parties were USUALLY absorbed by one of the two major parties, as part of their "plank."
Hi, I wrote the article being discussed and I am Italian (and live in Rome).
I think that every nation has a form of government which reflects it's history (take the UK, for instance, with it's parliamentary monarchy).
Italy has a very tortuous and intricate history of invasions, divisions, unification and highly sectorial ideological struggles. It's political system reflects such history in a physiological way and it is profoundly wrong to assume that one system may be better than another: the system that works for the States may not work for Italy and vice-versa.
For example: Italy has tried to shift to a bi-polar system by meddling with it's electoral laws, the result was an imperfect bipolarism where the two governing coalitions are made up of parties with completely different orientations, therefore achieving more stability and less governance.
In my opinion Italy should backtrack to a proportional electoral system which reflects it's background, therefore going back to short-living government which actually get things done rather than long-living ones that just sit there and steal our money.
Alessandro Righi
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.