The View from Bologna

The Istanbul Syndrome

The Istanbul Syndrome, as it's being called in the newpapers here, refers to Wednesday night's defeat of A.C.Milan by Liverpool in the UEFA Champions' league final. Leading in the first half by 3 goals to nil, a certain complacency set in, and the team of superstars ended up losing on penalty kicks.

While his football team may have unwittingly coined the phrase, with an economy officially in recession, coalition partners who openly talk of the need for new leadership before next year's elections, and a string of regional electoral defeats*, one can be sure that over the next year Istanbul will be one of the few syndromes that Silvio Berlusconi won't be accused of suffering from.

On the other hand, his (until now) presumed opponent for next year's elections, Romano Prodi, may very well be experiencing the political equivalent of that sinking feeling when you lose a 3-0 advantage. The main left wing parties have spent torturous months discussing how to present themselves in next year's election - attempting to unite centre-left and left wing parties. Policies, and egos, have been discussed, and to many it seemed as if progress was being made - look no further than their regional election victories.

That was until last week when Francesco Rutelli, leader of the Margherita party, declared that his party would not be running under the united banner of the Ulivo, but rather on their own.

Presuming that the election is a close run thing, and the Margharita hold their core vote, it would place them in a good position to be power brokers to either the centre left, or perhaps (whisper it)the centre right. Rutelli has had a number of run ins with his supposed political allies, over Iraq and the upcoming referendum on assisted procreation to name but two of the issues.

Without the Margharitas in a united-left-list for the election it's unlikely that Prodi's prospects would be credible. It has all the makings of an own goal...

*The centre right government celebrated their recent regional election victory in Catania in a manner that seemed to suggest they'd forgotten losing 14 out of 16 regions only a couple of weeks previously. Perhaps it's this poor grasp of mathematics that has had them lead Italy further and further in recession?

Cinema, the deforming mirror - Gabriele Salvatores and Quo Vadis Baby?

It's with not inconsiderable excitement that this Monkey looks forward to the latest film from Oscar winning Italian director Gabriele Salvatores. His adaptation of Grazia Verasani's crime novel Quo Vadis Baby?, set and filmed in Bologna will get its Italian release this Friday.

Coinciding, there's a nice interview in last week's Il Venerdi di Repubblica. In it he talks about a number of topics, including why he chose a noir like Quo Vadis Baby?, his choices for the cast etc.

In the absence of a Three Monkeys Online Salvatore interview (we're working on it), let's whet your appetite with a quote from the aforementioned interview:

Cinema must never become simply a mirror in which the audience sees itself, recognises itself and is thus satisfied. It should be rather a deforming mirror, that allows you to look behind reality. The problem is that Cinema, more and more, uses a flat narration, typically televisual or of television [...] Pasolini almost forty years ago said that there wouldn't be, in the future, more than pornography or tv. That the tv would eventually form our way of living, constructing stories on demand to convince the audience that existence is serial. The dictatorship of TV was, according to him, the new fascism, the new demagogy.

We'll save any views Mr Salvatores may have on Italian TV under Mr Berlusconi, hopefully, for a Three Monkeys Online interview.

What part of no don't you understand? The Church, the State, and the referendum on assisted procreation

Last year a controversial law was introduced by the centre-right ruling majority in Italy, to govern the conditions under which assisted procreation may take place.

The requirement for legislation governing this area was not in itself controversial. Most recognised that there existed a 'far-west' situation, where ethics and medical standards were dubious to say the least. It has been in Italy previously that Severino Antinori famously both helped women in their 50s and 60s to conceive through in vitro fertilisation, and also advocated the use of cloning technology to help infertile couples.

The one thing that virtually everyone agrees on now is that the law 40/2004 is a mess. Full of contradictions and dangerous implications for both Mother and Embryo.

What should be done about it, though, remains the subject of a fierce debate. The Radical party have managed to push forward a referendum whereby Italians will get to vote on four of the most contentious elements of the law:

1. Limits on clinical research and experimentation on Embryos
2. Limits on the restrictions to access
3. Establishing the legal status of the embryo
4. Ban on Heterologous Fertilisation
[1]

It's not the aim of this entry to discuss fully the particular articles - though there will be further talk about the issues in Three Monkeys Online in due course.

No, what interests us in this entry, is the position that Church and State have taken in relation to this referendum, and the advice that is being given to voters.

It's a complex issue, and not one that has easy answers - unless that is you happen to be the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference, head of the Bishops, Cardinal Ruini. On the 11th of March he made the Church's position clear. The law 40/2004 should be kept as it is, and so good Catholics should abstain from voting on the issue...

Wait. Surely there's a typographical mistake. Surely you mean vote no (i.e vote to retain the law as is)? Well, you might think that. The Church, though, along with various members of the ruling majority, have decided strategically that the best way to defeat the referendum is to persuade people not to vote. As referendums traditionally have a low turn out, and to be valid require 50%+1 or more of the voting public, the more people who stay away from voting means the less chance there is of achieving a legal quorum. As Ruini said, "many abstain in any case, [keep in mind that the referendum is held on a june weekend], so there's already a quota of abstentions to which we'll be added".

Before the righteous start bombarding this monkey with e-mails, let it be said that Ruini's stance is also a principled stance. His argument goes that the issues being voted on are too complex to be discussed and decided by a democratic vote, and should be settled by Parliament. Strange that the Church might be opposed to democratic choice, but legitimate in its own twisted way.

The argument that the Parliament is the place where complex issues such as these should be decided sounds inviting, until you consider that these geniuses created this contradictory law in the first place (against the advice of numerous medical experts, it should be added).

The Government's understanding of the complexities of the issue are highlighted by many of the contradictions in the shambolic law they created. Let's take one brief example. Under 40/2004, once an embryo has been artificially created it can not undergo any tests for genetic diseases before implantation. Reasonable you might think (particularly if you follow the Church's catechism), to protect the right to life of embryos. After all, a mother to be who learns that her child will definitely have a debilitating congential disease may choose not to go ahead with the implantation, and thus the embryo would be destroyed. The catch here is that in Italy there is abortion on demand. So, the law as it is, forces women in such cases to implant the embryo, develop a pregnancy, and then if they so wish, choose an abortion. Hardly a convincing argument for the primacy of the politician in framing complex laws.

To keep the law though in the hands solely of the parliamentarians is useful in a country where there is a strong tradition of catholic based party politics. Ex-president Francesco Cossiga said he would be abstaining from voting. When asked why, he explained it was because he was a catholic[3], and thus, by inference, that when the Bishops spoke he would follow suit, or renounce his democratic rights (depending upon your viewpoint).


To jump back to where we started: these are complex issues, concerning the dignity of life, scientific research, morals and ethics. As a society we need to look at these questions face on, and debate the issues.

Or we can just go to the beach and bask in the sun, and the warm glow of certainty that the powers that be know best...


[1] Ministero dell'Interno
[2] "molti si astengono in ogni caso e dunque c’è già una quota di astenuti alla quale ci si va a sommare"
[3] Interview in the first edition of News

Zapatistas challenge Inter Milan to a game

Years ago, sitting in a chaotic restaurant in Ho Chi Minh city (how's that for showing off!), our Vietnamese hosts on learning that I was Irish beamed and gave me an international greeting - "Roy Keane - Irish - Yes". In the days before Keane's childish Saipan tantrum, this was a novel and welcome greeting. Better that you be recognised for the on-field achievements of Keane than for the explosive abilities of the IRA.

Aside from saving me that potential embarassment, it was a potent reminder that football, soccer, calcio, call it what you will, is a global sport/industry.

Watching the Italian serie A, one might wonder why? This year, as is the case most years, the championship rested between the two richest teams Juventus and AC Milan. The competition is plagued by dodgy refereeing decisions, scandals, and the suspicion that perhaps it's more than just nimble feet and fantasia that count.

Currently third ranking team, Internazionale Milan, have been offered an intriguing challenge that has brightened up a dull season. Issued through intermediaries from the Lacondan Jungle of Chiapas, Mexico, Subcommandante Marcos, leader of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, has challenged Roberto Mancini's team to a game in Chiapas.

The text of the challenge reads as follows:
"I write to you to formally invite you to a game of football between your team and the representative team of the EZLN at a date, place and time to be decided. Because of the affection that we hold for you, we're prepared to not overwhelm you with goals [...]. I hope that you accept this proposal, and that you don't rush to sell the transmission rights because the exclusive belongs to the zapatista intergalactic system (the only television that one reads). You'll have to bring the ball, because all of ours are punctured. Awaiting your response we will train on penalty kicks (we have to go past full time, to give the maximum enjoyment to our supporters) and prepare a great celebration for our first goal"[1].

The reason for choosing Inter? It may well be because of the club's footballing prowess. Also weighing in is the support given by the club to Chiapas. Argentinian Javier Zanetti, the team captain, convinced the club to donate cash, an ambulance, and his own black and blue shirt to the villagers of Zinacantán in April, after their village was reportedly destroyed by the Mexican military.

Zanetti included a note: "We believe in a better world, in an unglobalised world, enriched by the cultural differences and customs of all the people. This is why we want to support you in this struggle to maintain your roots and fight for your ideals" [2].

How can a giant football team with superstar players oppose globalisation? Is it realistic to expect expensive players like Vieri, Zanetti, and Adriano to turn out against a balaclaved EZLN eleven? What is Zapatista intergalactic TV all about? All questions to which this blog has no answers. Inter Chairman, Massimo Moratti (an oil baron) is reputedly giving consideration to the challenge.

One thing is for sure - judging by the media obsession with football, were the match to go ahead it would rekindle discussion and interest in the Zapatistas. Last year was the tenth anniversary of the start of their rebellion.

Links:

The Zapatistas in Cyberspace

Inter Milan - Official Site

Defining and refining conflicts of interest. What 11 years in politics has done to Silvio Berlusconi's business empire.

Last year was the 10th anniversary of the founding of Silvio Berlusconi's political party Forza Italia.

The party was founded at a time when the established political order appeared to be crumbling, due to corruption charges left, right and centre (in every sense).

A report in today's newspapers show that the wealth of Berlusconi's family has tripled in the 11 years since he graciously entered politics to save the country [we've been reading his autobiography!]

When he entered politics his family's wealth was calculated at 161.9million Euro. Now it's an estimated 983.8million Euro.

The voters who had hoped that Berlusconi's business acumen would be put to good use running the country have yet to see any return on their political investment.

Some cruel souls have pointed to various measures undertaken by the Berlusconi government, ranging from the Gasparri Broadcasting Bill, through to changes in the legal penalties for false accounting (they were reduced under the Berlusconi government), that may have benefited to this spectacular growth of Berlusconi's business empire.

How is it that Berlusconi's business sense hasn't turned around the financial decline of the Italian economy? Listening to his government they'd have you believe that it's all due to September 11th 2001, despite the fact that other European countries have bounced back from the global downturn. A different reading, such as that of David Lane (Business and Finance correspondent for The Economist) call in to question Berlusconi's mythical business sense. Lane suggests instead that "he’s someone who relies on wheeling and deeling and friendships When he has to compete in the market, he can’t do it".

Viva la Mama! Berlusconi Bis - a government shaken, not stirred.

April was a turbid time in Italy, with two focal points of leadership coming to an end.

This column, when not taking a shifty break (as may have been noted by its absence for almost a fortnight), was focused primarily on the power changes going on in the Holy See. At the same time, though, Berlusconi's government fell, or dissolved (it's hard to pick an appropriate term for it) - after various coalition partners, primarily the UDC, got the jitters following disastrous regional election results for the centre-right government.

Immediately post-election defeat, Berlusconi took the unprecedented step of appearing on Ballarò, a political talk show on RAI 3, probably the most openly hostile of the three State channels. The ratings shot through the roof, highlighting once more one of the interesting paradoxes of the Berlusconi media 'monopoly'. For a man who owns three out of seven nationwide channels, and has a certain control of three of the others, he doesn't appear that much on TV, and when he does, people flock to it. Coming hot on the heels of an electoral defeat, though, his appearance may have boosted ratings for RAI 3, but it did little for the morale of his coalition.

And so, many left-leaning commentators licked their lips with anticipation for the end of Berlusconismo. And yet, as tenaciously as the newly transplanted follicles cling to his long gone hairline, Silvio Berlusconi has held on to power. He dissolved the government, and proceeded promptly to reform it, with ... the same coalition partners.

Dazzling us with the esoteric, his new choice of ministers has left most puzzling as to what parties have lost out, and who have won. While UDC leader Marco Follini, blamed by many for the whole crisis by removing his support from the government, was out (seemingly to concentrate on leading his party), his party actually gained in terms of ministers. Notable new appointments include the ex-finance minister Giulio Tremonti (Forza Italia), who was ousted from his position last year seemingly under pressure from coalition partners Alleanza Nazionale. Tremonti now holds 50% of the post deputy prime-minister. The other half being held by Gianfranco Fini, leader of Alleanza Nazionale, who also holds the post of Minister for Foreign Affairs. Prizes for his party as well, when the outgoing president of the Lazio region, Francesco Storace, who dramatically lost his position to the centre-left, was appointed Minister for Health. Perhaps not a prize for him, as it signalled the necessity to give up smoking (to give support to Italy's newly introduced smoking ban). In essence, the government remained much the same, along party lines.

Confused? Not half as much as the government's new programme seems to be.

With much fanfare the new government announced its key points for the final year of government: the relaunch of the economy (which has been the rallying cry of this government so long that it inspires the same confidence engendered by an anonymous technical support voice suggesting that one re-boot), defence of the family, and the development of the South.

As one wag put it, basing your politics on the above points is like basing them on a platform of 'viva la mamma!'. It's hard to disagree with, but at the same time without specifics* the electorate have every right to be sceptical.

At the same time, while the government supposedly turns its eye towards the south, one party who certainly didn't lose out was the Lega Nord, who kept their Minister for Reform, Calderoli, effectively copper-fastening their federalist view - which by its very nature, as far as an outsider can see, is directly opposed to excessive governmental interference in the regions, like the south. One of the headlines from La Padania, the newspaper associated with the Lega screamed: "Mai più “casse” per il Mezzogiorno" - or "Never again the "funds" for the south" (admittedly screamed is my emphasis - based on listening to representatives from the lega on their frequent media appearances).

None of this really matters though. A schizophrenic government can govern and be successful in elections, no matter how unpopular, as long as their opposition looks worse, as would seem to be the case in the UK currently.

The next year will be a battle of wills between the parties, not necessarily on specifics, but rather for the 'viva la mamma' vote, or the lesser of two evils.

And this monkey for one is not keen to predict any outcomes. Those follicles may look fragile, but they're the best that money can buy, and they've taken root.

* The first suggestion of a specific was the returned Tremonti's outlandish plan to sell off beaches to fund development of tourism in the south.