Media coverage of the Italian elections on Feb. 24 and 25 occasionally slipped into a complacent reaffirmation of old clichés. As the new parliament convened for the first time in early March, much of the political analysis offered superficial explanations for the outcome, accusing the Italians of being irrational voters and of avoiding reality. Yet the election results should instead be seen as an inherently rational demand on the part of the population for change in the political class and in the party system.
“An imperfect political culture” – The New York Times
The nature and structure of Italian civil society has undoubtedly affected the outcome of the parliamentary elections. According to Stefano Sacchi, professor at the University of Milan, citizens react primarily to “economic and personal variables,” often putting private interests above moral and civic considerations. This “imperfection” of Italy’s civic tradition explains why Mario Monti’s centrist coalition attracted only around 10 percent of the electorate despite Italians’ high regard for him. During his technocratic rule, Monti implemented harsh austerity measures like much of the EU, including tax hikes that affected Italians’ lifelong savings. Opposition to Monti formed based on personal financial decisions. Similarly, Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right coalition garnered one third of the vote despite Berlusconi’s multiple convictions. Sacchi argues that Italy “shows greater toleration of immoral and corruptive behaviors on the part of politicians than other countries,” setting aside moral considerations when faced with real individual concerns. Nevertheless, painting the Italian political culture with such broad strokes masks a more nuanced truth. As professor Lorenzo De Sio at Libera Università di Studi Sociali told the HPR, only a portion of the Italian electorate is characterized by this attitude whereby economic and personal variables trump civic values. The center-left coalition, he added, has appealed almost exclusively to the more active and participatory portion of civil society; their victory underscores the fact that a significant part of the population supports a more robust civic culture. In fact, Italy performs better than many other countries on some indicators of civic participation: the 75 percent turnout in the last elections is much higher than that in other advanced democracies.
“Send in the clowns” – The Economist
International observers have also critiqued the Italians for the support they showed for both the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the center-right coalition, centered on the Popolo della Libertà party. To refer to their leaders, Beppe Grillo and Silvio Berlusconi respectively, as clowns, as The Economist did, overlooks the significance of the votes they obtained. “Grillo and Berlusconi are not clowns but rather [represent] political entrepreneurship,” Gianfranco Pasquino, professor at Johns Hopkins University stated in an interview with the HPR.
The 25 percent of votes garnered by the Five Star Movement should instead be viewed as protest against the current system rather than the symptom of an illusion that the charismatic Grillo can solve Italy’s problems. As De Sio noted, Grillo accomplished what no party has ever managed to do since 1945: “he cut across the traditional political and democratic alignments,” earning support from both the right and the left. In this sense, Grillo has shaken the foundations of an old tradition of party affiliation that has kept the country stuck in dead ideological considerations.
As for Berlusconi, while he is undeniably an expert at the game of political campaigns, Italians did not “send in the clown.” First, Berlusconi lost over six million votes compared to 2008, a sign of failure rather than success. Secondly, electoral studies have shown that a significant portion of the 30 percent who voted center-right did so in spite of Berlusconi and not because of him. Oreste Massari, professor at La Sapienza University in Rome, pointed out to the HPR that a portion of the population “is afraid of the left.” The center-left’s lackluster campaign, coupled with these sentiments, ultimately accounted for the electoral showing of the center-right.
Italians did not send in any clowns. They rather used the arguably low-quality political class available to them to express very rational concerns. Referring to the critiques of foreign media, Sacchi responded, “it is easy to point fingers from the outside, but living it is another story.”
The Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back
The economic crisis and the resulting austerity measures became the tipping point for discontent with a long-malfunctioning political establishment. According to De Sio, as long as the economy remained strong, Italians disregarded the heavy influence of interest groups on their representatives.
Therefore, the success of the M5S and the relative failure of the Democratic Party reflect a loss of legitimacy of the political class. According to Massari, Italy’s satisfaction rate towards political parties is as low as five percent, because Italians have had enough of the waste and inefficiency in a political class that has more benefits than any other in the Western world, so much as to be sometimes defined as a nomenklatura. The increase in taxation by Monti was particularly frustrating in the face of the government’s misuse of public finances.
The elections also showed that Italians are asking for political parties to reform and become more accountable. Massari aptly noted that in Italy, “political parties change their names, but not their leaders,” in the face of difficulty. Thus, the elections could be considered a positive turning point: “politics and politicians cannot be distant from citizens,” he said. “[Politics] need not be a world on its own; it needs to become more democratic.” The recent selection of anti-mafia magistrate Pietro Grasso to the senate presidency and of spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Laura Boldrini to the deputy chamber presidency on March 16 is very promising.
However, many first-time legislators who gained a seat in the new parliament do not have sufficient political experience to properly govern. According to Massari, the shift from professional politicians to the M5S outsiders, many of whom have never previously been involved in politics, is “too big a jump.”
In Pasquino’s words, the election results are just the latest episode of a “20 year ongoing political struggle.” Massari defines Italy’s political style as a plutocracy of the political elite. The core of the problem, for Pasquino, is that political parties “have never had incentives to reform themselves.” Perhaps the most recent election cycle has changed the game.
Beyond the Ballot
Many observers received the result of the elections with much alarm because of the threat of ungovernability. What makes the Italian case so alarming is the electoral law, which does not guarantee a clear majority in the Senate and distorts the results for the lower house; indeed, it is commonly referred to as porcellum, or rubbish. The problem with the election, therefore, is not just how the Italians voted, but also the institutional conditions that constrained outcomes.
Whether the message sent by the Italian population will bring about a genuine reform of the political establishment is too soon to say. Observers like Sacchi are skeptical about the impact of the vote. The professor said that Italians are keen advocates of a radical change of politics, but they are very unsure as how exactly this change can be implemented. What is clear, however, is that citizens are more strongly demanding a greater say in their affairs, and elected representatives can no longer ignore it. “The cry of alarm,” said Massari, “has finally penetrated the parliamentary walls.”
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.