The re-election of Giorgio Napolitano on 20 April for a second seven-year term is an extraordinary event. Unprecedented in the Republic of Italy, not least because of a silent Constitution that neither prohibits nor specifically authorizes re-election (see Part II, Titolo II, art. 83-91). Most uncommon for a man of 88, one year older than the Queen of England and only junior - among Heads of State worldwide - to Robert Mugabe and Shimon Peres, and over six years older than the Italian male life expectancy at birth. Especially after so many previous, consistent and stern denials of such a prospect, labeled by himself as "ridiculous". And accepting the post on the condition - not to be found in the Constitution, and requested only after re-election - that Parliament grants him effective Carte Blanche in the formation of the next Government.
Admittedly any President can be better than
no President, and financial markets (both the stock exchange and the market for
government bonds) rejoiced at the news and the very prospect of a new
government rather than none. Whether initial market optimism was
justified or groundless still remains to be seen. For many Napolitano has
been and is a Man of Providence, selfless and generous in the service of the
country, an impartial custodian of the Constitution. But many others see him
and his re-election at best as a mixed blessing, at worst as an unmitigated
disaster.
On the one hand, Napolitano has the merits of
being committed both to national unity and to Italy's European integration.
On the other hand, his understanding of such commitments is questionable. For him, national unity is the avoidance of
conflicts at any cost, and in particular the appeasement of Silvio Berlusconi,
with the speedy presidential countersigning of ad personam laws
favourable to him and his companies though subsequently declared
unconstitutional, the postponement of a confidence vote in December 2010 that
allowed Berlusconi time to illegally purchase additional parliamentary support,
and the President's undue exhortations to magistrates to postpone Berlusconi's
appearances in court and his sentencing in four open cases in the run up to the
last elections. While Napolitano's interpretation of Italy's interests in
Europe is the total acquiescence to the obligations of EU and EMU, including
the so-called Growth and Stability Pact that Romano Prodi at least had the
courage to call "stupid", and the associated European austerity
measures.
(In passing we might also mention Napolitano's political, outrageous use of pardon in the case of CIA agent Joseph Romano, convicted for Abu Omar's "military rendition" and torture, while pardon had been specifically restricted by the Constitutional Court to cases of compassion; his demand that phone tappings of four conversations of his with former Minister Mancino should be destroyed - as they were on the day of his re-election - regardless of their possible relevance to the investigation of State negotiations with the Mafia; and his continuous strong support for Italian military involvement in "peace-keeping" missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Lebanon).
(In passing we might also mention Napolitano's political, outrageous use of pardon in the case of CIA agent Joseph Romano, convicted for Abu Omar's "military rendition" and torture, while pardon had been specifically restricted by the Constitutional Court to cases of compassion; his demand that phone tappings of four conversations of his with former Minister Mancino should be destroyed - as they were on the day of his re-election - regardless of their possible relevance to the investigation of State negotiations with the Mafia; and his continuous strong support for Italian military involvement in "peace-keeping" missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Lebanon).
What is worse, in the name of such
questionable interpretations of well-meaning commitments Giorgio Napolitano has
been perfectly willing to sacrifice democracy and the very same Constitution
which he has sworn to observe and to which he has always vigorously
paid lip-service. An authoritarian streak, typical of a glorious old
Communist in the tradition of Togliatti and Amendola, used to sacrifice everything,
including his own party, in the name of a cause, has led him to transform Italy
into a semi-presidential republic. (For a lucid assessment of
Napolitano's first seven years, see Thomas Mackinson, Il Fatto Quotidiano, 18 aprile 2013.
Back in November 2011, when Berlusconi
resigned the Premiership, Giorgio Napolitano could have dissolved Parliament
and called new elections: Berlusconi would have been steamrolled and buried
forever. Instead of which Napolitano appointed Mario Monti as life
senator and pieced together a so-called "technocratic"
government under Monti's leadership, backed by a Grand Coalition of PdL,
UDC and PD, that squeezed economic life out of the country and led GDP further
down a recessionary path. Napolitano's pretext for a technocratic government
(of which as recently as 2010 he had denied the very concept) was the fear that
Italian debt might become unsustainable. The fear, that is, that the spread
between interest on Italian debt renewal and that on German Bunds - that under
Berlusconi had escalated to over 500 points (i.e. 5%) on ten year bonds - might
rise further during the electoral campaign and after the election if Parliament
had been dissolved.
Monti's austerity policies, predictably,
instead of reducing the Debt/GDP ratio raised it to 127% by the time of the recent
elections, poised to rise over 130%; though initially they had a small net
favourable effect on the spread due to financial markets taking note of a
renewed Italian commitment to repay debt. But the spread fell
significantly only in the summer of 2012, not thanks to Monti but as a result
of Mario Draghi's resolve to do "all that it takes" to save the euro,
and of his Outright Monetary Purchases approaching an ECB role as Lender of
Last Resort. If Napolitano had called an election in November 2011, it
would have been won hands down by the PD, and markets would have rejoiced just
as they did immediately after the elections of 24-25 February 2013 when they
believed early exit polls wrongly giving victory to the PD. But that was a
cruel delusion, the Italian electorate split three ways into three parts
defying governability.
The PD coalition, whose campaign ruled out an
alliance with PdL, gained by a whisker an artificial majority in the lower
Chamber (thanks to the majority premium of an indecent electoral law passed by
Berlusconi) but only a useless relative majority in the Senate, and was unable
to form a government even with the support of Monti's coalition that had barely
cleared the 10% threshold for entering the lower Chamber. The PdL coalition gained
almost a third of the vote in both Chambers, was open to an alliance with PD
but ruled out a technical government. Beppe
Grillo's 5Star Movement (the largest single party if we exclude Italian voters
abroad) obtained almost another third but ruled out participation in any government, not least with Bersani's
PD.
Pierluigi Bersani, the un-charismatic leader
of the PD, tainted by 15 months complicity with Monti's recessionary policies
(like the PdL, which at least had provoked Monti's fall before the end of
the legislature), handicapped by a lack-lustre electoral campaign without
either a programme or alternative policies, had always excluded most vigorously
the continuation of a Grand Coalition that included Berlusconi.
Napolitano gave him an "exploratory" mandate, conditional on his
obtaining a clear majority on paper before allowing him to seek a confidence
vote in both Chambers, and quickly withdrew it with dubious constitutionality,
in spite of the precedents of unconditional mandates. The M5S
followed a deplorable , indeed unforgivable, and self-defeating un-cooperative
strategy, refusing to support a government led by Bersani, who in truth had
offered only a vague programme of 8 points imitating some M5S policies, without
offering them ministerial posts or negotiations about the choice of the
Premier.
Napolitano should have allowed Bersani to seek a confidence vote, which he had a fighting chance to obtain; even if he had lost, at least his government would have taken the place of Monti's government, that Napolitano undemocratically left in charge in spite of Monti's spectacular electoral defeat. Napolitano should then have explored an alternative, or resigned at once long before his tenure's expiry in mid-May, so as to speed up his replacement by a new President who could then proceed to dissolve Parliament and call new elections or seek to construct a new government on the strength of such a threat.
Napolitano should have allowed Bersani to seek a confidence vote, which he had a fighting chance to obtain; even if he had lost, at least his government would have taken the place of Monti's government, that Napolitano undemocratically left in charge in spite of Monti's spectacular electoral defeat. Napolitano should then have explored an alternative, or resigned at once long before his tenure's expiry in mid-May, so as to speed up his replacement by a new President who could then proceed to dissolve Parliament and call new elections or seek to construct a new government on the strength of such a threat.
Instead of which Giorgio Napolitano
temporised, wasted time and pre-judged the subsequent course of events, by
appointing an improvised "Commission of Ten Wise Men", with the
ambiguous role as "facilitators", totally outside Constitutional
procedures, with the task of producing a draft programme for the new
government. The so-called Wise Men were indeed all men in their middle to old
age, exclusively from the parties that would be included in the a potential
Grand Coalition. A most peculiar procedure, in the absence of a candidate
Premier, however pre-judging the subsequent appointment of a Premier who would
then be effectively bound to endorse a Grand Coalition to accompany that
particular programme.
What is worse, many of the ten
appointees, tipped as potential Ministers in the future government, as it
actually happened to four of them - another extra-constitutional feature - were
rather controversial, notable not so much for their wisdom as much as their
representation of party kakistocracy (i.e. power of the worst, to coin an
expression). See Marco Travaglio at Servizio Pubblico of 4 April.
- Filippo
Bubbico (PD) former President of the Basilicata region, had been indicted four
times and was still subject to one indictment for abuse of office, the author
of a hare-brained, expensive and failed scheme to promote employment in his
region by subsidising silk worms cultivation (sic).
- Giancarlo Giorgetti, a Lega MP close to
Bossi who then switched to Maroni's support, well connected in banking circles
(Fioroni and Fazio), notorious for having taken a €100,000 bribe delivered
directly by Fioroni at Montecitorio, though he returned it the same day
recommending a donation to a sport association instead; his wife indicted for fraud
against the state.
- Enrico Giovannini, President of the
Statistical Office, undoubtedly a competent statistician but never speaking on
policy issues; he had been asked by Monti to conduct an investigation on the
costs of politics and the salary differentials between Italian MPs (the highest
paid in Europe) and MPs in the rest of Europe,
but after six months research in the end had declined alleging the
difficulties of the task.
- Mario Mauro, a close associate of the
unspeakable ex-President of Lombardy Roberto Formigoni, had switched to Monti
at the last minute.
- Enzo
Moavero Milanesi, a EU official,
Minister for European Affairs in Monti's government.
- Valerio
Onida, ex-President of the Constitutional Court, was on record both for backing
Napolitano in his quarrel against the Palermo magistrates investigating the
negotiations between mafia and the State, about phone tappings involving former
Minister Mancino; and as arguing that the 1957 Law named after Sturzo, often invoked
to allege Berlusconi's ineligibility to Parliament, did not apply on the
Jesuitical argument that Berlusconi was neither the direct holder of a state
concession of TV channels nor the manager of the company that was granted the
concessions - glossing over the fact that Berlusconi was indeed a major
shareholder in that company, in a clear conflict of interest with the State.
- Giovanni Petruzzelli, an associate of
Senate ex-President Schifani, was President of the Anti-Trust Authority without
being able to claim a specific competence, consultant and co-author of Totò Cuffaro,
former President of Sicily currently serving a 7 year
sentence for aiding the Mafia.
- Gaetano Quagliariello, distinguished for his
multiple moves from Radicals to the UDC, to PDL (as deputy head of the group),
to Monti's group and back to the PDL, was the author and proposer of many of
the initiatives introduced - and endorsed by Napolitano - to favour Berlusconi
and his companies.
- Salvatore Rossi, a Bank of Italy high
official close to the centre-left.
- Last but not least, Luciano Violante (PD),
a sycophant ex-magistrate who in 1998
had proposed an amnesty for Berlusconi and in 2003 (immortalised by youtube on
the web, http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=RHPRel7mpUM&) actually reminded an ungrateful Berlusconi in Parliament that the PD had guaranteed
in 1994 not to interfere with his TV channels, and had set aside the pursuit of
legislation on conflict of interest; he actually boasted that Mediaset turnover
had increased 25-fold under their government.
In conclusion, not a bunch of Wise Men but -
with a couple of exceptions - a gallery of partisan and biassed villains, at
least in the eyes of many respectable observers.
When, after over 50 days of total inaction,
parlamentarians and regional electors began the process of electing a new
President, Pierluigi Bersani - no doubt under the influence of Napolitano -
made a spectacular U-Turn from his "No alliance with Berlusconi in
government" that had been the main line of his electoral campaign and his
early exploration of forming a government, to opening to the Grand Coalition
with Berlusconi through the proposal of a candidate agreeable to the PdL, Franco
Marini, a respected Catholic trade unionist and former President of the Senate.
Such an abrupt switch, to a diametrically opposite policy, predictably was not
acceptable to a sufficient number of PD electors to miss the two third majority
(required in the first three ballots) so that the candidate was sunk even with
the support of most of the PdL.
At this point Bersani made a third spectacular
U-Turn and proposed Romano Prodi, corresponding to what Berlusconi called a
"declaration of war". Bersani behaved as a kingmaker, rather
than as a democratic leader, in proposing both Marini and Prodi, for neither
was subjected to a vote together with other contestants or on his own; Prodi
was approved by a dubious and opaque "acclamation" at a meeting of PD
electors, instead of being subjected to a ballot, whether open or secret.
So Prodi, the PD founding father and truly independent candidate, also failed to be elected even by the simple majority required
at that stage, missing as many as 101 votes that could have been commanded by
the PD.
All the time the M5S had put forward the
candidature of Stefano Rodotà, a distinguished professor of Civil Law, who had
served for two legislatures as an MP elected as an independent in the Communist
Party, former president of PDS - an earlier incarnation of the PD - an
ex-President of the Privacy Authority and a civil rights champion: an offer
Bersani could not refuse, but did refuse to his eternal shame. Just like the
M5S refused to vote for Prodi, also to Beppe Grillo's eternal shame.
This is when Napolitano was asked - again,
after repeated earlier refusals - to stand for re-election. On Bersani's part
this was a third U-Turn, from Prodi's independent candidature to Napolitano's
strong advocacy of the stitch-up between PD and PdL - or inciucio, in
Neapolitan dialect. This is a derogatory term that Napolitano now asks to be
banned in his version of political correctness and newspeak; equally banned are
expressions playing down the importance of the new government as a "the President's
government" or "limited purpose" or "low intensity",
or "service government". The designation of the new Premier,
Enrico Letta, until the previous week Bersani's deputy and equally
opposed to a Grand Coalition with PdL, made Berlusconi blissfully happy,
laughing all the way to the bank (and to the Tribunal), not least because
Enrico Letta is the nephew of Gianni Letta, a major advisor and a Minister of
his (which makes the present "governo di servizio" a "governo di
servi, zio..." in a cartoon in Il Fatto Quotidiano).
The government sworn in on 27 April could
have been worse. Angelino Alfano as a deputy Premier and Minister of the
Interior was a big price to pay, but at least the old party caryatids on both
sides (including Berlusconi) were out - for the time being. Ministerial
average age of 54 years is 11 years lower than in Monti's government; there are
only 21 Ministers of which one third are women, including the first black
Minister ever in Italian government. Their vote of confidence - aided by a
shooting incident in front of the government palace, Palazzo Chigi, immediately used unjustly
to demonize M5S - was taken for granted, but its durability is not: the proof
of the new pudding will be in the governing.
A Grand Coalition is being presented as a
novelty but is nothing more nor less than the replication of the Monti
government, with some involvement of politicians that Monti had sought and
failed to obtain. It is hard to imagine that Letta might do much more than
Monti, apart for the partial reversal of some of his austerity measures:
already the two sides are quarrelling about the suspension versus the
reimbursement of IMU, and it is not at all clear what government expenditures
will have to be cut to make room for lower taxes.
The centre left PD-SEL alliance is definitively
broken; the PD itself has been cracked by Bersani's repeated U-Turns and the final
betrayal of PD electoral commitments. Bersani has been scrapped at last; Matteo
Renzi has been side-lined and - having always supported an alliance with
Berlusconi - will not be able to re-unite the party. The millions who voted for
the PD on the basis of its commitment not to ally with the PdL have been
betrayed, yet paradoxically those MPs who would not give their confidence vote
to Enrico Letta are the ones who have been threatened with expulsion, instead of the other way
round. In the end, only one out of 293 PD members of parliament abstained: a "Bulgarian-style"
party discipline that would have deserved a better cause.
Neither Napolitano nor Letta,
but Berlusconi is the only true and absolute winner of Italy's latest elections. All he needs now is to be appointed as life
senator by a benevolent Napolitano, and to walk into the posts of either
Premier or President at the next round, especially if a French-style direct
election of the President was introduced beforehand. Gaetano Quagliariello's
appointment as Minister for Institutional Reform, and Berlusconi's bid to a
candidature as President of the Committee for Reforms, if successful, might pave the way
to such a formalisation of the extra-constitutional presidentialism ushered by
Napolitano. Nothing much can be done about everything else, as a fait accompli, but at least this final
corruption of the Italian Constitution can and should be resisted, in order not
to have Berlusconi for ever.
22 comments:
If you think Bersani has been inconsistent over the Broad Coalition, see Stefano Fassina's acrobatics http://tv.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2013/04/30/pd-blob-delle-contraddizioni-di-stefano-fassina/230412/
Sure, it is not just Bersani, the whole Party is "indeciso a tutto".
Una precisa descrizione degli ultimi tristissimi eventi, dopo i quali, come ulteriore danno collaterale, il Pd non può più essere considerato un partito di possibile alternativa politica. A meno di radicali cambiamenti che al momento vedo non solo poco probabili, ma semmai in una direzione che nulla avrebbe a che fare con un partito progressista (Renzi). Chi mai potrebbe ancora votare un partito di cui fanno parte 101 parlamentari (di identità ignota) il cui comportamento ha mostrato che hanno fini diversi dalla linea ufficialmente dichiarata dal partito? Fini, per di più, su cui pende il fortissimo dubbio di "intelligenza" con l'avversario?
I share your pessimism, unfortunately. Renzi has a great future behind him and none in front of him. If he had won the Primaries he might have deterred Berlusconi from standing or/and would have won the elections. Now he is only a failed Enrico Letta who can no longer represent a credible alternative. Bye bye Matteo.
As you say, it could be worse, with Ministers like Brunetta, Carfagna, Fassina, Santanche', and so on. Count your blessings!
Wait until you see the under-secretaries of state, Don, before you count blessings or curses...
According to the latest OECD report on Italy "It is impossible for the time being to significantly reduce the overall level of taxation".
And OECD forecasts a GDP fall of 1.5% in 2013, instead of their earlier (last November) forecast of 1% fall.
Berlusconi is already threatening to "pull the plug" on the government unless IMU is abolished and reimbursed. How is Letta going to deliver?
Enrico Letta is pursuing apparently contradictory targets: maintenance of tight fiscal targets, relaxing austerity and promoting growth.
There is no sign of Germany or the EU granting Italy more time or more latitude in its fiscal targets, or stepping in with additional investment. Therefore Letta is highly vulnerable to Berlusconi's ultimatum.
Will today's ECB interest rate reduction by 0.25% help to promote growth in Europe?
A faint, hardly perceptible signal of goodwill, in the circumstances: down from an already minimal 0.75% to 0.50%, it is not going to be transmitted into a lower cost of borrowing for Italian firms and households.
In theory it should have acted as a stimulus through a euro de-valuation, in practice the euro immediately strengthened from $1.3150 to 1.32.
Not surprising, markets had over-discounted the implications of an interest rate cut...
Are you saying that Napolitano violated the Italian Constitution, or that he acted un-democratically, or what?
Napolitano certainly stretched and over-stretched the Constitution, at the very least his actions were extra-constitutional. Constitutional lawyers will have to argue whether or not he has violated the Constitution. I am not a constitutional lawyer and it is not for me to say.
What I am saying is that a formal constitutional change in the direction of a presidential republic, possibly complete with the direct election of the President, is undesirable, much as it would please Berlusconi. And that, whatever the constitutionality or otherwise of Napolitano's behaviour, his action was utterly un-democratic.
What did we vote for, just to move from one inciucio to the next, both on his initiative?
Well, Don, I had told you to wait before you count your blessings, until you got the full Cabinet.
Now you have a heavy weight of 40 vice-ministers and under-secretaries, divided up carefully among the parties in the best tradition (the so-called Manuale Cencelli), ranging fron Biancofiore to Fassina, one sixth of which had failed to get elected at the last elections.
Still feeling blessed?
Anybody thinking that my analisis of recent Italian affairs is a bit outre', should compare it with:
"Italy has been under occupation since the ECB effectively toppled the elected government in the coup d'etat of November 2011 – with the active collusion of President Napolitano, a former Stalinist who later transferred his ideological mania to the EU Project."
This is the Daily Telegraph - Evans-Pritchard, no less. He's no fan of the eurozone and the effects it generates but he hasn't minced his words here.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100024392/italy-should-use-its-gold-reserves-to-force-a-change-in-emu-policy/
Berlusconi has given Enrico Letta an ultimatum: either the abolition and reimbursement of the property tax IMU on the first house or the government falls. Letta would, but there is no financial cover for such measures.
But Berlusconi had pledged his own personal wealth up to €4bn to guarantee that the government would abolish and reimburse IMU if he governed. Now he does, and there is no cover, it is time for him to honour his guarantee. Cough up or shut up, Silvio.
Good point, San, but you should know by now that Mr B is prone to making promises that he never keeps, and claims the opposite.
I agree with what you write but you are much too soft on Napolitano.
Why does he try to a appease Berlusconi? There seems to be a pact whereby immunity in B’s trials is being swapped for the “insabbiamento” of PD nomenklatura responsibilities in the Monte dei Paschi di Siena scandal. Stefano Rodota’ had both supported B’s inelegibility and requested a serious enquiry into the MPS and therefore was regarded as unacceptable on both counts.
The PD has taken an authoritarian road at the time of Primary elections of the leadership and of candidates. In Rome the lists of voters have been cleansed of all those who did not support the candidates nominated by the Central Committee (I cannot bring myself to call it La Direzione).
What you say about Rodota' is a fact, and the pact you mention has been suggested, but I have no evidence to that effect. As the late Giulio Andreotti used to say, a penmsar male si fa peccato ma spesso ci si prende.
And yes, the PD primaries were a joke,
Don, do you know the Soviet story about the optimist and the pessimist? It could not possibly be worse - says the optimist. Yes, it could be - says the pessimist.
In the light of the appointment of Commissions Presidents, I can say that my pessimism at Ministerial appointments in the Letta government was thoroughly justified.
Your narrative of Napolitano’s tales is fascinating but it fails to account for the main reason of his free lines of action other than the concrete lack of explicit constraints to the Presidente della Repubblica’s actions in the Italian Constitution. This reason is to be found behind that brilliant brain of Mr Bersani who, backed by his smart advisors, orchestrated such unbelievable course of unfortunate events for his Party and the Country as a whole.
First, Napolitano‘s strategy for Mr Monti’s government was also, and above all, the result of the PD refusal to going to elections immediately because of its political avidity for staying in power: at that time, as you yourself stressed, the Democratic Party would had won without difficulty but then would have found itself also in the necessity of imposing unpopular measures to restore financial confidence. This would have led to mortgaging PD’s future stay in power.
Second, immediately after the last disastrous electoral outcomes, Mr Bersani should have resigned by the leadership of his Party. Having ignored this fantastic opportunity and assigned only, and admittedly unconventional, a conditional mandate by Napolitano, he had ahead only two alternatives. The first one was that of refusing the mandate on the basis of his (unconventional) conditionality, resigning as PD’s leader and urging for a new leader able to obtain better results (maybe an unconditional mandate?). The second option was that of accepting the conditional mandate and finding an agreement with M5S, implying M5S leading the coalition and PD giving them unconditional support when in line with the PD political programme. As we know, Mr. Bersani has insisted instead on his foolish strategy, for reasons that - far from the wellness of Italy - are to be ascribed to the pure avidity for power mentioned above. He has insisted on his strategy, making a series of unforgivable and unbelievable errors who had no other way out than coming back to Napolitano begging for his indulgence.
After the stupid film shot under the direction of M5S (they put on tv streaming just what they want to make known outside, i.e. their meetings have never been revealed to others), Renzi said that the alternatives were two: one was to come back to the electorate and the other one was an agreement with Mr Berlusconi. Very sadly, he was right. And in fact, after the hard work of Mr Bersani, new elections for the Democratic Party will have been destructive: his non sense strategy, added to the lack of new decent election rules, could only have led to enormous loss of electoral votes for the Democratic Party. What remained then? A disgusting agreement with Mr Berlusconi. Even with all my proverbial pessimism, I could never have imagined such a shameful spectacle provided by the Democratic Party, a spectacle shot by that talented Director named Pierluigi Bersani. What unhappy end for a country and a Party who have had the opportunity to change.
Best,
Alice from Wonderland
Thanks Alice. You said it: foolish, disgraceful, shameful. And hopeless and doomed, I would add.
Post a Comment