Brave New World Revisited

posted by Geoff Andrews at Saturday, January 28, 2012

25 January

One of the consequences of living through uncertain economic times is that on the back of ‘crises’, ‘recession’ and ‘downturns’, big projects, quick fixes and new world orders are not far behind. This is another moment which has produced more pessimistic prognoses for the future and it comes as a timely reminder that it is now 80 years since the publication of Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World, an extraordinarily rich work which combined satire with sharp social critique.

Huxley, one of the leading public intellectuals of the last century, was a member of the Bloomsbury Group and a participant in some of the important intellectual debates of the 1920s and 1930s. Unlike many of his circle, however, he was profoundly influenced by first-hand accounts of poverty and prostitution in the East End of London, the plight of Durham miners and life in the Black Country at the height of the depression. Like George Orwell in The Road To Wigan Pier and J.B.Priestley’s English Journey, these visits gave him an insight for his writing. He shared with many others of his generation contempt for the defunct political class and the class divided nature of British society, while aware of the tumultuous events on the horizon in Europe with the rise of fascism. At the same time, he had been horrified at the decadence of the late 1920s, captured in Evelyn Waugh’s Vile Bodies, and – more than most of his contemporary novelists – was profoundly influenced by Fordism, following his visits to the USA.

It is crucial to understand the importance of Fordism in Brave New World. On the one hand, there is the strongly satirical depiction of a society that believes in unlimited progress guided by science and planning that also appears in Chaplin’s Modern Times (remember the Fellows Feeding Machine?). On the other hand, Huxley thinks through the wider disastrous cultural implications of Fordism. The problem, according to Huxley in an article entitled Art and the Obvious, was that this commercial mass culture was made ‘for the people but not – and this is the modern tragedy - by the people’. Therefore beyond what he called the ‘philosophy of industrialism’, in Brave New World Fordism was given the status of a new religion in its ability to answer all social questions.

This is made clear by the importance of science, including a far-sighted prediction of the application of reproductive technology, (the novel’s first chapter describes the role of The Fertilising Room and the arrival of ‘decanted babies’) in transforming society and driving production, prosperity and pleasure. The abolition of the family is made possible by science and widespread recreational sex, but the main goal of these changes is to increase consumption. In Brave New World ‘under-consumption’ is a crime against society, while the novel’s central slogan ‘ending is better than mending’ reflects the obsession with relentless materialism. Outlawing those things which do not aid consumption (and therefore pleasure) carries a different implication from Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four vision of a Party-led oligarchy; yet both continue to carry strong messages for the future.

Huxley’s vision was not constrained by the immediacies of his time and his global consumerist vision resonates with our own era, notably what some see as the complacent shift towards a standardised lifestyle culture with its own significant consequences for intellectual freedom, civil rights and diversity. Moreover the threats, as he accurately predicted in 1932, are not only from the totalitarianism of regimes opposed to the main principles of liberal democracy, (and we might now add forms of religious fundamentalism), but have their roots in the current conditions, even in ‘progressive’ attempts to make our lives better, faster, more pleasurable, more efficient and more equitable. As with Huxley’s observations of the 1930s, the growing disparity of wealth, now increasingly evident in the current economic crisis, co-exists with promises of abundance, expressed not only through economic opportunities, but through the assimilation of the cultures of work and leisure.

How might Huxley’s Brave New World be re-imagined today? For Huxley, the main drivers of the new society were a mixture of left wing utopians and self-interested hedonists, reflected in his own mix of historical characters derived from the combined names of some of the leading thinkers of the day – among them Bernard Marx, Polly Trotsky and Benito Hoover. Today, he might envisage the Labour Party being replaced by The Anti-Elitism Movement, as a champion of utopian values at a time when the hegemony of a supermarket- driven world of consumerism carries all before it.

Where might Huxley place today’s Brave New World? Perhaps a contemporary alternative to the ‘Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre’, that ‘squat grey building of only three stories’, with which we opens his novel, might be a management training course in a new town, one which brings to mind that delicate mixture of puritanism and planning. Adopting his satirical take on the grandiose schemes, futurist architecture and consumer paradise, he might well place it somewhere like Milton Keynes, with its street grids, concrete cows and shopping malls. Each morning at Milton Keynes Central (MKC), a new batch of ‘colleagues’ would arrive from one of the Tesco Towns, named after the nation’s most profitable supermarket and based in one of 20 regions. On arrival at MKC, they would be taken to their first Workload Planning Improvements Committee meeting, whose mission is summed up by the phrase: ‘You know you’ve got the time’, and where each new colleague is introduced to two line managers; one for mornings and one for afternoons.

After collecting their complimentary flasks of ‘Skinny Latte extra hot’ (universally known as a ‘lar-tay in the inclusive popular vernacular of MKC), the next stage of the new colleagues’ induction is to attend a keynote powerpoint lecture. This is given by the Professor of Ordinary Culture (the alternative to Huxley’s Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning) and entitled ‘The Most Important Event of the Twentieth Century’, namely the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, widely recognised as the moment when the leaders of the emerging world told us that culture belonged to everyone, and Shakespeare was of no greater literary merit than Agatha Christie. The lecture traditionally ends with colleagues breaking up into small groups, and chanting: ‘The People’s Princess! ‘The People’s Princess!’

At lunchtime, when the senior line-managers, dressed in their now traditional gear of baggy cardigans or lycra bicycle shorts, (grey suits having long been consigned to history) eat their Wraps in the Managers Mall, the new colleagues will be offered a selection of YouTube- led Bitesize Briefings. Typically, these might include ‘Blue Skies Thinking for Middle Managers’, or ‘A Heads-Up for Decision-Makers’, particularly helpful for those seeking a line-management career.
The final session of the day, ‘Thank You For Sharing This With Me’, has its origins in Golden Time, the last session of the old primary schools of the previous epoch, when new colleagues can introduce new ideas, or objects, such as new time-saving inventions. This is with the proviso of course that such ideas Take Things Forward, to use the motto of the new era. In the evening, for those whose Tesco Towns are far away, the usual forms of entertainment are available, including the multiplex Cinemas of Virtue, where colleagues can see consecutive episodes of The Apprentice, or a visit to see a performance of The Dons, the only surviving football team since association football was abolished for being overly competitive.

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley reminded us not only of the dangers and fears of the future but of the fragility of intellectual and cultural freedom. His satire was harsh but resonated as a warning that a darker future may well be on the horizon, even one derived from the best intentions. Its influence has long survived his own death, (on the same day as the assassination of visionary US President John F Kennedy), and continues to alert us to the complacency of our current predicament.

Silvio Berlusconi's Legacy

posted by Geoff Andrews at Thursday, December 15, 2011

Open Democracy 14 December

He has gone, but he’s not out. The atmosphere of Silvio Berlusconi's departure from the post of prime minister on 12 November 2011 may have been characteristically undignified, as his route from his Palazzo Grazioli residence in Rome to the presidential palace echoed to onlookers' jeers of "buffoon" and "shame". Yet if something of a "circus" continued to surround Berlusconi even in the last moments of his office, it is important to note that his exit was not the result of an actual political defeat.

The key factors in Berlusconi's departure were his failure to get sufficient parliamentary support for his handling of Italy's escalating debt crisis, growing discontent among his coalition partners, and external pressure from European Union leaders reinforced by intelligent statesmanship from Italy's president, Giorgio Napolitano. The official opposition had nothing to do with his exit, and it is notable that the "celebrations" were muted by Italian standards - even though millions of Italians had long awaited the moment.

The ambiguity extends to the unelected technocratic government of Mario Monti that has replaced Berlusconi's cabinet. Italians have broadly welcomed a new government of (largely) 60-something non-politicians; it includes a diplomat in charge of foreign affairs, a lawyer running the interior ministry, and an army general running defence (Monti himself is finance minister as well as prime minister). So far, however, there is little indication of what political settlement may follow when the the government ends its term of office in 2013.

The shadow over it is, above all, the profound effect of Berlusconismo on Italian society, politics and culture. Berlusconi himself remains a strong figure, who may yet decide that the best way of avoiding prosecution in the several legal cases he is involved in is to kick-start another phase of his political career. After all, he has dominated Italian politics for nearly twenty years; even when not in office, he has seemed to be in power; he has seen off all his centre-left opponents in this period (with the exception of Romano Prodi); and he continues to wield immense media power.

Moreover, Berlusconi chose well the timing of his resignation - in that he has managed to absolve himself of responsibility for imminent and inevitably unpopular pension cuts, public-service restraints and (above all) tax rises. Indeed, even in office he was able to remove himself from the normal constraints of accountability demanded by public office - a faculty that the journalist Beppe Severgnini (speaking to an audience of Italianists and media specialists at the Reuters Institute of Journalism in Oxford on 29 November) relates to Berlusconi's "pathological desire to be loved". This helps explain both why he rarely gave interviews to journalists, who might ask awkward and controversial questions, and his overwhelming sense of bitterness at the crowds outside the Palazzo Grazioli.

A defining feature of Berlusconismo, Severgnini argues (echoing here something Umberto Eco identified many years ago) is the leader's embrace of "neo-journalism" and "neo-TV" - so-called "infotainment". This is the world of reality TV and gameshows which both pushed serious journalism to the margin of the schedules (if it was lucky) and, more sinisterly, identified it as being "for the elites". Berlusconi built his success on an ability to conceive the ("true") electorate as an audience which disregarded or had contempt for the "other" 5 million or so Italians - those who read newspapers, read more than three books a year, and watch late-night politics programmes.

"Without understanding Berlusconi you won’t understand Italians", claims Severgnini. Some argue that this harsh assessment overestimates the extent to which Berlusconi won over the bulk of Italians and underestimates his dark manipulation of Italy’s enduring political crisis; others, such as Paolo Mancini, extend it by asking whether he offers a new model of "lifestyle politics" for the 21st century, involving a new relationship between leaders and led.

Maurizio Viroli's prescient analysis, The Liberty of Servants: Berlusconi's Italy, suggests that the relationship between Berlusconi and his close allies (or "courtiers") is a servile one, dependent upon patronage and favours. This was starkly apparent in the no-confidence vote of mid-October 2011 which precipitated the final outcome. "Without me, none of you have a future", Berlusconi is reported to have told those preparing to desert him. His ability to buy their support had been crucial to his survival, and until his final day he was sending out warnings to potential "traitors".

Maurizio Viroli contends that Berlusconi’s main legacy is to have moved Italy away from some of the conventions of constitutional representative democracy, substituting a "corrupted liberalism" that is openly contemptuous of freedom through the law and equality before the law.

In this perspective, Berlusconismo turns the authority of the people granted to him at election time into a weapon against the "interference" of judges and the attentions of a critical media; it is also a mechanism for the leader to put himself above the law through legislation on parliamentary privilege and a deferral of serious corruption charges as long as he could stay in office. But against this "corrupted liberalism", Viroli argues that Italy’s political class has failed to uphold the Italian constitution, embedded as it is in the principles of civic republicanism, and to hold Berlusconi to account over the conflict of interests between his massive media ownership and political office.

Italy's political opposition too, throughout Berlusconi's time as prime minister, has attempted to do deals with him on his own terms. These include Massimo D’Alema’s ill-fated compromise over bicameral reform in 1998, which ended as soon as the issue of conflict of interests was mentioned. This "appeasement" (as Viroli rightly calls it) represents a lack of moral courage that Berlusconi continually exploited.

The moral weakness of the political class and the opposition is key to the explanation of why Italy is now run by technocrats. In the circumstances the assumption of responsibility by an unelected government backed by the European Union and the IMF may have been the only way of defeating Berlusconi. But it leaves an unresolved political crisis in which Berlusconi's removal exposes Italy's extraordinarily overpaid clique - untouchable in their blue cars, effectively appointed by apparatchiks through an absurd party-list system in which all political parties collude - to new scrutiny.

After Berlusconi, there are still too few few reasons to be optimistic. It may not be long before Berlusconi, aided by his anointed successor Angelino Alfano, weighs in to attack the authority of Italy’s technocrats. Some political realignment is certain, but the infirmity of Italy’s centre-left - with the relatively new Democratic Party already looking tired and defeated - means the form it is more likely to take is either a populist, anti-immigrant, anti-euro rightwing government or an ungainly Vatican-supported centrist alliance.

In "super Mario" Monti, Italy now has a leader very different in style to the one who has dominated the last two decades. The contrast between the technocrat and the postmodern populist is vast in principle, but a situation of serious economic crisis and democratic deficit narrows the former's opportunity to make it clear in practice.

Beyond both, there is another Italy - an Italy that is "not Berlusconi", but is also very critical of the political class as a whole and is foremost in many civil-society movements. It includes many everyday Italians and members of the lost generation that has been leaving Italy in large numbers. This "other" Italy has many voices. But they are still struggling to be heard.

Monti's Honeymoon is over

posted by Geoff Andrews at Sunday, December 04, 2011

Sunday 4 December

The almost universal sigh of relief – ‘celebration’ is not the right word – felt by Italy’s European allies at the departure of Silvio Berlusconi and his replacement with Mario Monti as Italian Prime Minister has now passed. Monti’s honeymoon is over and he has now set out his first reforms to tackle the real economic problems. This estimated 24 billion euro programme has to address not only rising debt, but ways of stimulating growth in what remains a very difficult moment. Following the cabinet meeting on Sunday, he has announced some radical-sounding plans, including cuts in the privileges of Italy’s regional politicians, stepping up a commitment to deal with tax evasion, new taxes on capital transactions and property, (and some luxury goods) and major pension reform. More radical measures, notably labour reform, bigger income tax hikes and VAT rises will follow.

The cabinet announcement was delivered in a quite different sombre language in contrast to the showmanship of recent years, and this might explain some widespread early optimism. He has caught some of the mood of the early ‘post-Berlusconi’ era. He sounds much more like a statesman than Berlusconi, who constantly praised the virtues of a salesman, and the contrast between a populist and a technocrat could not be stronger. There is a feeling of a new beginning, with some tough times ahead. A TV address to fellow Italians on Sunday evening has even been compared to one of Churchill’s war-time wireless broadcasts to the nation at its greatest time of need. One cabinet minister even broke down when explaining the need for sacrifice to make pension reforms work. Monti himself is clearly very keen to avoid Italy being seen as responsible for further crisis in the Eurozone. The urgency is clear.

He also seems to have picked up some clever moves from Giorgio Napolitano, President of the Republic, who has played a pivotal role in this transition period. Monti has refused to take a salary either as PM or Economy Minister (he holds both positions), while he has made his intentions clear by getting stuck into the vast privileges of the country’s politicians. The extraordinary privileges of Italy’s political class have been held up as the worst possible example to the nation and, of course, it was the failure of this elite to carry through structural and democratic reforms which contributed so much to the current predicament.

It won’t be this easy though. Italy has had many false dawns in recent years. We should remember the circumstances which brought Monti to power; a combination of nimble footwork by Giorgio Napolitano, and external pressure from European allies. The official opposition had nothing to do with Berlusconi’s resignation, and the latter does not believe he made mistakes or deserves his current plight. On the other hand Berlusconi has managed to remove himself from making unpopular decisions, while indicating he will pull the plug if Monti’s reforms do not appeal. He still retains a parliamentary majority and remains a populist threat.

In moving ahead with his priorities to reform pensions, to raise taxes, cut public sector salaries and to persuade companies to re-invest capital, he has stressed the need for a long-term strategy for more transparency and structural reform – something Italy desperately needs. Yet, as the reforms take effect, the political ramifications of these changes will gradually become apparent. Along the way, there will be unpopular measures, conflicts with a range of politicians, social movement activists and union leaders, social tensions and much uncertainty.

Monti has critics on the right, with the Northern League leader Umberto Bossi, already making clear his opposition to taxes, pension reforms and the power of the EU. He also faces hostility from the left, notably in the trade unions, who are sure to oppose labour reforms which have been postponed for a later stage. Wages, jobs and pension reform will still be an issue for the CGIL, Italy’s largest union confederation. The occupy movement will also step up its campaign. There is an acute sense of alienation amongst a lost generation of young people in Italy, which in the short-term at least is set to increase. Monti knows he will find it difficult to carry some of these measures, despite an intense series of meetings and assurances. He has pledged to put his faith in Europe if he cannot agree a strong enough austerity package at home. This warning from an unelected technocrat to put more faith in the EU (and IMF) will hardly increase confidence at home if things get tense.

Monti has made stirring pledges and appeals in the preparation of today’s announcement, asking people to make sacrifices for the common good of the nation. He also seems to have been politically astute in avoiding some of the worst scenarios for those on the right as well as the left, though this may lead some to suggest that it will only later that we get the ‘full Monti’ of higher taxes (including VAT) and labour reforms. He knows all eyes are on Italy, and the way the country reacts over the next couple days in the run up to the next Euro summit will be vital.

The Last Days of the Emperor – Berlusconi Plays His Last Card

posted by Geoff Andrews at Saturday, November 05, 2011

5 November

At times during the G20 summit in Cannes, Silvio Berlusconi looked the most relaxed of all the world leaders, smiling and joking and mingling with his counterparts, seemingly undeterred by the crisis escalating around him. At previous gatherings, his flamboyant attempts to deflect attention from problems at home have resulted in inappropriate comments about female political leaders, keeping Angela Merkel waiting, and comparing a German Social Democrat MP to a Nazi Commandant. Yet, this G20 summit illustrated the growing isolation of the beleaguered Italian premier . Even at home, some of his trusted allies are deserting him.

Watching the decline of Berlusconi’s government feels like witnessing the last days of an emperor. It has been said that the Roman Emperor Nero 'fiddled while Rome burned' and some might say the same of Berlusconi. As the crisis has intensified, he has become more entrenched and determined to hold on to power, while all the time more deluded in his statements, as in his claim that the Italian economy was fine because the restaurants were full. In the days ahead we can expect rancour and counter-attacks from those still around him, as he attempts to cling on to power. Italy’s economic future, meanwhile, is more in jeopardy by the hour.

His Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti, who has been at odds with his leader over fiscal reform for months, refused to be committed when asked if Italy needed a new government to carry through the reforms that have been agreed in consultation with EU allies and now to be monitored by the IMF. Even loyal allies, who have depended on Berlusconi’s patronage for years, released a statement calling for a new leader. Given previous crises, Berlusconi’s response that they will come back on board cannot be dismissed, but his long-term survival hopes are now remote

Of course, as we have seen many times in countless confidence votes and government crises, the ‘malcontents’ among his allies can be bought one way or another and thus far have not been able to sustain any significant challenge. Even Gianfranco Fini, his former number two, was not able to defeat Berlusconi over a crucial confidence last December. For all Umberto Bossi’s loud rhetoric and hyperbole, he has so far held back from withdrawing support for the government, as he did to bring down the first Berlusconi government in 1994.

However, this time it is different. This is because the main challenge has come not from Italy’s timid opposition or servile courtesans, but from external allies. Moreover, whereas in the past his international criticism has had little effect on his domestic standing to an electorate less bothered by his trials and sex scandals than their immediate economic needs, this occasion is likely to be decisive. Two weeks ago the gentle smirk and sneer from the ‘Merkozy’ had more impact than several years of opposition. Now, the prospect of being monitored by the IMF will be a constraint too far for Berlusconi.

His public statement that he had refused an IMF loan was a desperate last attempt to convince his own people that he remained in control, that he was not ceding sovereignty and that he was in tune with international opinion. In fact these were hollow words, given that the European Central Bank has been bankrolling Italy since August. However, the contrast between his words and those of Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, is hugely significant. According to Lagarde, it was the ‘lack of credibility’ in Italy’s proposed austerity measures for tackling its rising debt levels that was the problem. Berlusconi’s attempt to present the IMF loan as routine company audit was typical of his ‘salesman’ rather than ‘statesmanlike’ solution. The rapid fall of the Italian markets to the news of the IMF monitoring decision suggest that the ‘ lack of credibility’ will not be addressed until his departure.

As we will see over the coming days, IMF quarterly monitoring represents a commitment to fiscal reform that goes beyond not only his government but also that of the official opposition. It remains to be seen whether Italy’s political class as a whole is up to dealing with the severity of the current situation and the possibility of a national unity government, possibly led by ex-European Commissioner Mario Monti, is still the likeliest outcome. For Berlusconi however, attention will soon switch to his exit strategy, which is likely to prove another story in itself.

Silvio Berlusconi's Failure of Leadership is a Disaster for Europe

posted by Geoff Andrews at Wednesday, October 26, 2011

26 October

As EU leaders wait anxiously for confirmation that the Italian government has come up with a coherent fiscal reform package to ease the Eurozone crisis, Silvio Berlusconi, facing his biggest battle, has agreed to step down early. He was given an ultimatum to bring concrete evidence of these reforms to today’s meeting and this seems to be the cost of his political failures. Without the assurances,, the ability of the EU to help Italy out of its rising public debt will be severely jeopardised.

The EU’s demands follow Angela Merkel’s and Nicolas Sarkozy’s clear rebuke of the Italian Premier and his government’s failure to present a coherent reform agenda at the weekend – a drama which caused much anger in Rome. While this may have precipitated the current uncertainty – Berlusconi’s anger was matched by some opposition leaders, in a pathetic display of provincialism given their own ineptitude - the political crisis in Italy did not start here.

True, Berlusconi felt peeved and others talked of ‘humiliation’ as the ‘Merkozy’ exchanged knowing and ironic glances when asked about the progress of his government’s reform proposals. However, the crisis is long running, and derived from the stalemate created by Berlusconi’s determination to preserve his own massive interests in the wake of on-going court cases and the absence of a viable political alternative.

It is more than that however. Berlusconi’s manner of ruling defies the conventions of liberal democratic values. As Maurizio Viroli has argued in his new book The Liberty of Servants, Berlusconi has transformed the traditional relationship between leaders and led. His allies could have brought him down many times – and as recently as the latest confidence vote a fortnight ago. Yet, they depend on him for favours and status, while Berlusconi has shown an inclination to placate his critics with last minute rewards and promotions. This is how is government is organised. ‘Without me, none of you have a future’, he is reported to have told his allies (‘courtiers’ Viroli calls them) in parliament before the confidence vote.

Cabinet decisions, including the patched up deal between Berlusconi and Bossi on pension reform, which may yet allow the government to stagger on to the next crisis, are not decided by collective responsibility, but by deals and favours. Berlusconi always justifies his actions by drawing on his mandate at the polls, but without due regard to the constitutional framework of checks and balances and transparency set out in the Italian constitution. He changes his tactics frequently and has never felt hindered by constitutional niceties. We should not assume, therefore, that his departure is imminent.

It has been left to the EU, and to President Giorgio Napolitano, to demand he fulfils his obligations. This constraint is something new for Berlusconi and is plainly beyond the imagination or capability of the official opposition. That he is plainly not up to this task has been a tragedy for Italy and will mean more angst for his European allies over the coming days and weeks.

Italy Needs a Statesman Not a Salesman

posted by Geoff Andrews at Friday, August 26, 2011

MSN 25 August


The sharp fall in Italian markets over recent weeks has plunged Italy into a severe economic crisis, with the alarming prospect of the third largest economy in the Eurozone asking for a bailout. Emergency meetings between Italian government officials and EU officials were followed by the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to buy Italian government bonds and thereby reduce borrowing costs, as long as the Italian government introduced radical austerity measures. While offering some immediate relief for the Italian economy, it has so far failed to bring any stability, with the Milan stock exchange and FIAT suffering major losses in recent days.

The austerity measures include cuts to regional government, public sector employee salary benefits and a ‘solidarity’ tax for employees earning in access of 90,000 euros. These have already been hotly debated within the cabinet and parliament, with Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi having to retreat heavily on previous commitments to reducing taxes, at the cost of much discontent from the Northern League, his main coalition ally. In fact many of these proposals recommend the precise opposite to the key tenets of ‘Berlusconismo’; the populist programme of low taxes and quick fixes which brought him to power in the first place.

However, more worrying for Italy’s long-term recovery has been the continual political crisis at the heart of the Italian government. Indeed, it is the Berlusconi leadership which remains Italy’s biggest cause for concern. In his keynote speech to the Italian parliament on 3 August, postponed until after the markets closed and intended to calm fears about rapidly escalating debt, Berlusconi refused to accept that the Italian economy was in serious crisis or that there was any doubt that it would recover. The economy, he announced to general incredulity, ‘is solid’. As a result he failed to advocate any long-term reform package or viable economic strategy. Instead, he fell back on his populist stance as a successful businessman who understood the needs of the Italian economy.

In fact, not only did Berlusconi’s speech do little to raise market confidence over Italy’s spiralling debt problem, it has prolonged Italy’s political stalemate. It is this long-running political crisis which casts most doubt on Italy’s prospects for urgent reform. As the respected Corriere della Sera columnist Massimo Franco has put it recently: Italy is ‘in a climate of stable instability’, and there is little indication of breaking out of the impasse while Berlusconi remains in power.

While its economic woes have to be understood in the context of a wider Eurozone predicament, the lack of political reform, absence of economic strategy and internal cabinet divisions offer little hope for long-term change while Mr Berlusconi remains in power. It is revealing that despite the Italian government’s earlier austerity package and subsequent announcements that it would aim to balance its budget by 2013, it has taken external pressure in the form of the European Union rather than a national strategy formulated by the Italian government to raise optimism of a revival of Italy’s economy. As many commentators have argued, Europe needs strong and decisive leadership at this time. Berlusconi, however, is clearly not up to the task.

As the country most vulnerable to the Greece scenario, Italy desperately needs some statesmanlike intervention. It has been held back by internal political conflicts, notably those between Berlusconi and his Treasury Minister Giulio Tremonti over the former’s earlier proposal of tax cuts, and pressure from the regionalist Northern League for devolution, including fiscal federalism and the movement of government ministries to the North.

Instead, what we are witnessing in Berlusconi’s leadership is less that of a statesman and more the machinations of a salesman. Engulfed in allegations of corruption and sex scandals, a large part of his political energy is now devoted to protecting his interests, through hastily prepared parliamentary immunity legislation or attacks on the prosecuting magistrates. Though he has already nominated Angelino Alfano, his former justice minister, (and the originator of the Alfano Law in 2008 which gave parliamentary immunity to the top four positions in government before it was declared ‘unconstitutional’), as his successor, he has already ruled out early elections and insists he will not change course. His main focus seems to be developing an exit strategy on his terms which limits his chances of further prosecution. It is now abundantly clear that Italy’s political and economic stability has been compromised because of the private and public predicaments of Silvio Berlusconi.

The likelihood of Italy finally introducing some liberalisation measures owes little to any initiative on Berlusconi’s part. His governments have had a long time to formulate a strategy to deal with rising debt, but instead they have reacted belatedly to market pressures. The crisis is also a reflection of the ineptness of Italy’s opposition and, after all that it has happened, the unwillingness or inability of his government allies to act against him, while Mr Berlusconi has dismissed the possibility of being replaced by a ‘technocratic’ government made up of cross-party or independent figures such as Mario Monti, the former European Commissioner. If he is allowed to carry on for much longer then Italy’s economic future is bleak indeed.

Grassroots Reporting Can Replace Murdoch Media

posted by Geoff Andrews at Tuesday, August 02, 2011

published on MSN 27 July


The last few weeks have seen an extraordinary change in the relationship between Rupert Murdoch, the political class and British public opinion. For years, Labour and Conservative leaders have courted and dined the media mogul, with an unspoken acceptance that his support and that of his papers was crucial for any election victory.

The ‘Hackgate’ scandal has changed all that. The parliamentary interrogation of Rupert and James Murdoch, and Rebekah Brooks was dramatic confirmation that the tables have turned. The most ‘humble’ day of Rupert Murdoch’s life, when he had to answer to a parliamentary committee for the behaviour and practices of his staff, has given renewed vigour to parliamentarians and all those who have felt that the Murdoch empire had become too powerful.


As is now becoming clear, Hackgate cannot be confined to the actions of a few News of the World journalists and Metropolitan police officers. Rather it has erupted into a profound crisis in the relationship between the media and politicians, another example of the fractured and decaying nature of British public life.

While it may be too early to write the obituary of the spin doctor, the secretive and arrogant styles of media and political elites has taken a sharp jolt, and will never be quite the same again. For the last two decades or so British politics has been driven by spin and croneyism, with the most decisive political relationship increasingly that between the party’s communications directors and the press.

This showed contempt for the public and resulted in the marginalisation of other political voices. In the aftermath of Hackgate, Tory backbenchers have complained that while they only had limited access to the PM, Rebekah Brooks and colleagues were welcomed at all times; similar stories are recounted from the Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell era of New Labour dominance.


However, out of a crisis new opportunities often emerge. At the same time as the powerful media corporations are forced to justify their methods, the rise of social media like Facebook and Twitter has challenged power elites from below. This has been crucial in the Arab Spring, both in reporting the events to a wider audience (in some cases before the mainstream media arrived) as well as galvanising the actions of protesters. Facebook was also crucial in the defeat of Silvio Berlusconi in a significant regional election in Milan, while blogging continues to give space to citizen journalists.


We cannot assume that a combination of these two developments will necessarily lead to a long-term shift to greater transparency and democracy in the role of the media. For example, Rupert Murdoch still has massive media interests in the US and Silvio Berlusconi’s Mediaset empire is yet to receive the kind of scrutiny we have witnessed over the last fortnight in the UK. However, nobody could have predicted the speed with which the Murdochs were called to account. Much will depend on which of our politicians and political movements grasp the new opportunities. The Hackgate scandal continues to uncover new revelations almost on a daily basis and is also shifting the balance of power in British politics, with a rejuvenated Ed Miliband looking to profit and David Cameron’s leadership now in doubt. This suggests that an open and transparent media remains crucial to democratic debate. There is the chance now that we will not only see a more responsible media but the development of more inquisitive and grassroots reporting.