The View from Bologna

Shock Politics - Italian Style

Former caretaker Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, who with an open mind has served in administrations headed by both Silvio Berlusconi and Romano Prodi - supposedly ideologically worlds apart - has issued an ultimatum to current Prime Minister Romano Prodi. In an open letter to the premier, published in the Corriere della Sera, Dini outlines seven points which Prodi must sign up to in order to have the support of the new political grouping the liberaldemocratici.

Taking a leaf, perhaps, from Naomi Klein's well received Shock Politics, Dini has decided to take advantage of the natural disaster that is Romano Prodi's multi-party coalition with its miniscule senate majority in order to have some radical reforms passed that include a major reduction of the public sector. Fair enough, Klein's book talks about profiting from major natural disasters like tsunamis, earthquakes, and floods. In Italy the disaster is man-made, thanks to an electoral law custom made to produce a government at the mercy of tiny political stakeholders.

Dini, for example, was elected as part of the Margarita party - the second largest party in the coalition until its recent merger with the DS party to form the Partito Democratico. Spotting an opening for serious economic reforms, Dini recently decided to set up his own new party and to declare that his allegiance to the electoral programme upon which he was elected is now null and void. Prodi has the option of either taking on board his new seven point programme, or facing a vote of no-confidence which he is likely to lose in the Senate.

Now there's a certain amount of sense, perhaps, in Dini's seven point programme. The Italian public sector is huge and run on a feudal basis rather than with the needs of the citizen in mind, and so could certainly do with pruning - though Dini as an economist probably has the dreaded 'privatisation' word in mind, despite the fact that the Thatcherite revolution has long-since proven itself to be far from the panacea it was cracked up to be.

The problem, though, is that it wasn't what Dini was elected for. In the current Italian electoral system political parties recieve the vote, and decide the candidates who are elected. Dini, thus, was elected on a platform already agreed by all coalition partners, and one which had none of his seven ultimata included.

The points, though, are probably welcomed by both Prodi and Berlusconi - given that both veer towards 'liberal' politics*. The problem is that neither they, nor Dini, are prepared to put these radical policies to the electorate. Instead they are implemented in the midst of government crises - shock politics style.

We await, with slightly less than baited breath, Prodi's full consideration of the points. Will his government fall in January? Will it make two hoots of a difference whether it does or doesn't?

*liberal of course meaning free-market economics where it suits, but no free market when it comes to movement of labour - both Prodi and Berlusconi being agreed that immigration is a 'problem'.

An Italian Socrates? Bruno Contrada and the mafia

Over the Christmas period, coincidentally when the newspapers were not published'grazia', or early release, for his client, on humanitarian grounds. Contrada is an ageing and apparently ill man.

The former police chief of Palermo, and later leading light in SISDE - one of Italy's secret services, is currently serving a ten year sentence for collusion with the Mafia.

Contrada was transferred from prison on Friday to undergo tests in a civilian hospital, but yesterday announced that he was not looking for the 'grazia' and wished to return to prison. His lawyer, setting up a paragon with Plato's description of Socrates, said: "Despite everything Contrada continues to be a man of law and of the state. It's remarkable, he has an amazing dignity, culture and intelligence".

Coverage of Contrada's clemency case has focussed primarily on his health, rather than the charges for which he was convicted. This man of 'law and the state' was long suspected of collusion by anti-mafia investigators working in Palermo. In 1992 Contrada was arrested and charged with three specific incidents where it was alleged that he had tipped off the mafia about police raids - including one where Mafia boss Toto Riina escaped capture (Co-incidentally, Riina was finally captured by the police in January of 1993). Giovanni Falcone, according to his colleague Ignazio De Francisci, suspected Contrada of involvement in a failed assasination attempt on his life².

It should be remembered that during the period when Contrada was accused of collusion, the mafia went ahead not only with its mundane ordinary business of extortion, drug dealing, prostitution, and assasination, but also indulged itself with a full on war against the state, with political assasinations and car bombings against famous targets like the Uffizi gallery in Firenze which killed civilians.

Rita Borsellino, the sister of the assasinated anti-mafia judge Paolo Borsellino, has expressed her dismay at the seeming rush to release Contrado, as have numerous associations set up by the victims of mafia violence. Borsellino has been accused by the family of Contrada of reacting in an inhuman way to this case of human suffering.

In an interview with La Repubblica, Contrada's wife spoke of her husband as an innocent man who deserves to be released to die at home, though for the record Contrada was found guilty of collusion with the mafia after appeal, and his medical condition (primarily diabetes) can be treated in Hospital just as well as at home. On the same pages Attilio Bolzoni, who interviewed Contrada on a number of occasions, quoted Contrada - the innocent - as having said "Someone want's to make it seem as if I was the only wone in Italy to have made a pact with the mafia"³.

Mrs Contrada has appealed to the President to not let her husband suffer the final indignity of dying in Prison.

Rita Borsellino's measured response puts the issue perfectly in context: "Bruno Contrada was a servant of the state that betrayed it and for this was condemned to ten years in prison. There are servants of the state, like my brother, that knowingly sacrificed their lives and did not die in their beds"⁴.

The last word on the matter should come at some stage in January from President Napolitano, who decides whether a case merits a 'grazia' or not. It'll be an interesting signal in that other war against terror, one way or the other...

1 "Nonostante tutto Contrada continua ad essere un uomo di Legge e di Stato. E' davvero impressionante, ha una dignità favolosa, ne apprezzo la cultura e l'intelligenza" - Contrada/legale E' come Socrate - Alice Notizie
2 Excellent Cadavers - Alexander Stille [Pg 285]
3 "Qualcuno vuol far credere che a fare patti con la mafia in Italia sia stato solo io..." - Voci, accuse e condanne, l'onore perduto del 'dottore' - La Repubblica [27/12/07]
4 "Guardi, Bruno Contrada era un servitore dello Stato che ha tradito e per questo e' stato condannato a dieci anni di carcere. Ci sono servitori dello stato come mio fratello, che hanno consapevolmente sacrificato la loro vita e che nei loro lett non sono morti" - Rita Borsellino - La Repubblica [27/12/07]

Divorce Italian Style

Without much fanfare an Italian Senate commission on Justice matters has recommended a measure be brought before parliament allowing for a reduction in minimum period required to obtain a divorce. The recommendation calls for the reduction from 3 years to 1 year (or perhaps 6 months, where there are no children involved).

While the measure was voted for without objection by the members of the commission, members of the Catholic centrist party the UDC have come out strongly against the measure, despite the fact that many amongst their ranks are twice married, including 'family values' man and party leader Pier Ferdinando Casini.

President of the UDC deputies, Luca Volontè, pulls no punches as to what this legislation will mean:
"The government, in a state of madness doesn't just not help millions of families that face economic difficulties, but actually favours their separation. Modernity, for these people, isn't progress, but a return to Sodom and Ghomorra"^[1]

A return to the times of Sodom and Ghomorra? Maybe not the best of times then for his party leader, Pier Ferdinando Casini, to recomend a return to Nuclear energy in Italy...

[1] "La maggioranza, ormai in pieno stato di follia - conclude Volontè - non solo non aiuta le milioni di famiglie che versano in difficoltà economiche, ma anzi ne favorisce lo sfascio. La modernità, per questi signori, non è il progresso, ma un ritorno a Sodoma e Gomorra". Divorzio/Volonte - Virgillio

The energy of the future - hot air

In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster in 1987 the Italian public voted, in a referendum, to halt the country's nuclear program.

In the last 2-3 years various leading politicians, from both the left and right, have supported the overturning of this referendum as Italy faces spiralling energy costs.

Yesterday, for example, our favourite post-fascist Gianfranco Fini, alongside Pier Ferdinando Casini (the remarried 'family values' leader of catholic party UDC) gave convincing arguments for the return to the 'energy of the future'. Fini remarked, "At the time of the referendum I voted from fear. Now it's time to liberate ourselves from the hegemony of fear that blocks the road to development'^[1]

Did I say convincing? Well, listening on the news to a piece that could well have been written by ENEL's press office, the arguments were made that Nuclear power is cleaner and safer than twenty years ago, and that Italy is in desparate need of its own energy sources as imported oil and gas prices soar. This monkey was thus convinced, for two seconds, that it's well time to start bombarding neutrons up and down the Italian peninsula to produce energy 'too cheap to meter'*

But then that conservative 'anti-progress' voice inside me started wondering about the arguments against nuclear energy. While journalists involved in the preparation of the item seemed at a loss to any anti-nuclear arguments, I managed through minutes of painstaking research to drag up a couple:

1) Nuclear waste. Nuclear reactors produce waste, and while there have been, perhaps, improvements in this area over twenty years there still remains the question of what we do with waste materials that are highly radioactive and which will remain a danger to human health for hundreds/thousands of years.
2) Nuclear proliferation. We're all worried about the risks posed by the Iranians developing a Nuclear energy programme, which might also facilitate a weapons development programme - so why should an Italian development programme be safe?
3) Risk of serious accident. Have the risks of serious accidents decreased over the twenty years since Chernobyl? Perhaps structurally, but given Italy's abysmal record in enforcing safety-practices in the workplace (More than 1,200 people died in the workplace last year alone in Italy - there's a specific term given for such deaths - Morti Bianche or White Deaths) one should have serious doubts about safety practices in any structure. On top of problems related to human error, lack of stringent safety procedures, there is also the risk of terrorism. We're constantly told (in particular by Fini and Casini's parties) that we live under the constant threat of terrorist attacks.
4) Not least of the arguments against Nuclear power is the cost. Nuclear power stations cost huge amounts to build and maintain, and many critics argue could not exist without huge Government subventions. Given one of Italy's chief problems remains corruption, the channeling of public funds for private profit, any re-commencement of the nuclear power program would need to be cost-efficient and transparent to be justifiable in the face of rising oil and gas prices.

Fini and Casini are to be congratulated for re-opening the debate on nuclear fuels, if - and only if - it is a debate.

[1] NUCLEARE: ASSE FINI-CASINI, BANCO PROVA NUOVO CENTRODESTRA ANSA (20-12-2007)

As the actress said to the senator

Intercepted telephone calls between the leader of the opposition, Silvio Berlusconi, and the head of the state broadcasting company RAI's fiction department have been blasted across the front pages of the newspapers, as a scandal blows itself up.

The reason? Well, it appears that Silvio, a budding TV entrepreneur, has taken the opportunity to suggest a number of budding actresses for work in RAI. Where's the harm in that? A TV executive recommending the talents of certain actresses is a world away, for example, from a politico bringing pressure to bear to win a role for a starlet.

Perhaps it's a scandal because the intercepted telephone calls suggest that a role in a hammy period-piece drama is the price needed to bringing down Prodi's government. Berlusconi in a lengthy and illuminating conversation with RAI's (ex)drama department head Agostino Saccà, seems to have asked for two actresses to be given roles as a favour. Then, like a Bond baddie he proceeded to outline the reason for his interest in this paltry favour, despite the fact that Saccà's obsequious acceptance of the request required
no explanation. Let's take it from when the conversation turned starlet way:

Berlusconi: I'll explain to you what this is about
Saccà: but no, Presidente you don't have to explain anything
Berlusconi: no, I'll explain to you: I'm trying to
Saccà: Presidente, you're the most civil person, the most correct...
Berlusconi: Well then ... it's a question of ...(indecipherable)...
Saccà: But this name is my problem
Berlusconi: I'm trying ... to get a majority in the senate...
Saccà: Understood
Berlusconi: And this Evelina Manna could be... It was requested by someone... with whom I'm negotiating^[1]

Now it's hard to blame Silvio in the above. After all, if you're mission is to save Italy from the communists, and you can help a talented actress get a part at the same time...

What is problematic is the electoral law that his majority parliament passed, which ensured the elections of April 2006 produced a risibile majority that could be bought and sold for parts in a two-bit fiction.

Still, at least we've learned two important lessons from the episode:
First, the price of Italian democracy (get it while you can, it's going cheap), and secondly why the chronically bad Rai drama department exists!

[1]
Excerpt from the transcript published by Corriere della Sera.
B: ti spiego che cos'è questa qui ..
S: ma no, Presidente non mi deve spiegare niente ..
B: no, te lo spiego: io stò cercando di avere ...
S: Presedente, lei è la persona più civile, più corretta..
B: allora ... è questione di .. (parola incomprensibile, le voci si accavallano) ....
S: ma questo nome è un problema mio ...
B: io stò cercando ... di aver la maggioranza in Senato ...
S: capito tutto ...
B: eh .. questa Evelina Manna può essere .. perchè mi è stata richiesta da qualcuno ... con cui sto trattando

Historic is the official line

Did you feel the paradigm shift yesterday? Did your knees tremble as the Italian delegation at the United Nations smiled humbly watching their painstaking work on the abolition of the death penalty turn into a completely non-binding resolution voted for by 109 countries,54 against, and 29 abstentions.

The evening news here ran with it as the main headline, devoting a large chunk of its coverage to an interview with Foreign Minister Massimo D'Allema. Historic, and a triumph for Italian diplomacy was the verdict of TG1's journalists. Historic and a triumph for Italian diplomacy was the verdict of the Foreign Minister. A Historic signal, according to President Napolitano.

Strange then how, given that it's an international issue, this historic moment has been so completely missed outside of Italy. Glance through the front pages of the Suddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde, the Irish Times, El Mundo, and the Guardian all seem to have been caught napping in relation to this resolution yesterday.

Napping, or exercising good editorial judgement in the face of an admirable but completely pointless diplomatic exercise the results of which were always going to be fudgey at best.

Given that initiative was primarily an Italian one, it's only right that significant coverage should have been given. Astounding is the fact that the coverage was entirely devoid of criticism. They swallowed the 'historic' moment hook, line & sinker.

My new year's resolution is to stop watching TG1 and to switch to Teletubbies instead.

Foxy Knoxy makes Italian journos avant garde

Italian journalism, much maligned by this monkey, has in fact revealed itself to be at the front of the pack pioneering a new form of journalism, one that has quickly come to terms with the changing nature of news, recounting events through the prism of 'hyper-reality' and 'super-fiction' (discussed further by Mark Lawson).

An example - the notorious murder of an English student in Perugia. The journalists at RAI 1 don't put a foot wrong when developing this 'story'. First we're given the lurid details, and a number of hypotheses (most conveniently centring around an African bar owner - subsequently to be released). Google, myspace and facebook are all searched for photos, quotes and comments. Next comes the vital step of character development. In the first day or two of the 'story' the victim and suspects are all refered to by name and surname. As the 'story' develops the surnames gradually dissapear. This helps the 'audience' invest in the narrative - as the jargon goes. Then we can have supplementary talk shows where everyone can chime in with their opinion as to whether or not Foxy Knoxy did it, or was it the butler in the green room?

Sociologists, structuralists, and inveterate post-modernists can get to grips with the Perugia case to tell us about the changing nature of reality - how the youth of today 'construct' themselves in a society increasingly based on the spectacle.

There's a more mundane argument to be followed though. The evening news runs for 30 minutes, and choices have to be made as to what to include and exclude. The development of the Perugia case has been done as skilfully as the best of television drama, outlining the characters, and motives with an eye for detail that would make any novelist proud. That takes serious time, though. Something has to be dropped as a result.

In particular, two ongoing cases have recieved negligable coverage - both involve judicial investigations into political corruption. Both have seen their investigating magistrates transferred from the case after debatable disciplinary hearings.

In the first case, Luigi De Magistris was transfered from the 'Why Not' case after spending four years investigating abuse of European funds and illegal party funding in Calabria. Amongst those under investigation by De Magistris was Justice minister Clemente Mastella. De Magistris was transfered from the case, after but officialy not as a result of a request from Mastella.

In the second case, Clementina Forleo was taken off the case investigating political involvment in Unipol banking scandal. Forleo, in interviews with the press refered to pressure exerted on the CSM (the governing body of the magistrature) to open a disciplinary hearing against her in order to delegitimate her case - a case that could be embarassing to the two dominant parties in Italian politics Ds and Forza Italia (Ds currently in government, while Forza Italia is Berlusconi's party). The CSM promptly opened a disciplinary hearing against Forleo for her remarks about political pressure, and the same body has now ruled that no political pressure was exerted on them to open a case against Forleo - hence she is duly disciplined and removed from the case.

In the evening news there's no investigation as to whether the disciplinary charges against these two magistrates are valid; no background information about who has made the decisions (and whether they have party-political affiliations, for example); no background information about the investigations which have effectively been hampered as a result.

The narrative skills so ably demonstrated by the t.v news journalists in the Peruggia case (and similar cases - there's at least one a month) - that went to the level of revealing that Foxy Knoxy and her Italian boyfriend Rafaele had bought sexy underwear two days after the murder! - would be well employed in investigating the De Magistris and Forleo cases, after all political corruption is something that affects millions of people in this country directly.

But in this brave new world of news reporting as drama the characters involved are presumably not interesting enough, and there's a distinct lack of sex or bloodshed.

Electoral reform and greenhouse gas

As the Bali talks begin, British newspaper the Guardian asked various 'thinkers' to propose key breakthroughs that could be made globally/locally to combat the threat of climate change.

One of the less predictable ideas came from musician and activist Brian Eno, who proposed electoral reform (presumably in the UK) as an important step towards combatting climate change. His argument being that for many a vote for green parties seems like a vote wasted when the main competition is between two large parties.

Funny that electoral reform should be mentioned, given that it's the hot topic in Italy at the moment, at a time when two new political parties look set to dominate the next election when it eventually happens.

The new 'Partito Democratico' led by Walter Veltroni (the old 'new face of politics') is pushing vigorously to reach an agreement with opposition parties on a new electoral system which will supposedly give Italy a stable political system.

Silvio Berlusconi in a surprise move (that has been planned for months) disbanded his Forza Italia party the other week - only to reconstitute it, while working towards the right wing version of Veltroni's party. He too is convinced that electoral reform is necessary before the elections.

Does this herald a victory for Mother Earth? Fat chance - Veltroni and Berlusconi are working towards an electoral reform that will benefit, strangely, their two parties. The idea being to have some system that awards an automatic majority to the winning coalition, and raises the minimum quota for any given party to take up seats in parliament. The many small parties that have an disproportionately large voice in Italian politics look set to be silenced - at least until they gravitate into the two major parties.

Now this, in itself, is perhaps not a bad thing. The frankly outrageous behaviour of various small parties in the current government needs to be curbed urgently.

In the context of global warming, though, will the dominance of Veltroni and his right-wing counterpart (presumably Berlusconi - though, despite appearances, it should be remembered that Silvio is in his mid 70s) be good news in the battle to contain climate change?

A couple of years ago, while attending an energy conference in Rimini, this monkey heard Jeremy Legget, the ceo of SolarCentury describe how the yorkshire town of Woking had developed an extensive solar power network which provided a significant part of the energy needs for the town (even allowing for the sale of energy to the national grid). Berlusconi and Veltroni seem agreed that the best answer to Italy's energy crisis and global warming is the development of Nuclear power in the country - despite the fact that, according to a report published in january of this year Italy's levels of renewable energy generated fell well below European target levels and had in fact fallen rather than risen.

Two steps forward...