Sunday, October 14, 2012

“Nanny knows best” – “Il Duce ha sempre ragione”. A question from England



Stereotypes die hard; and yet they often have more than a grain of truth.

An English journalist called the other day to seek support for a piece he was writing, arguing that Italians still had a yearning for a strong man in power and that Monti was just a modern day Mussolini, an unelected leader, this time without the black shirt and the extended jaw.

Thirty five years after Basil Fawlty told us “don’t mention the war” and then goosestepped past his German guest with his right arm raised, there is still an English temptation to see wannabe fascists in every trattoria. There are even some on the Italian right who have the nerve to make the connection.

But Mario Monti does not bring on that temptation.

In both style and substance, he as at the antipodes of anything fascist. Mussolini and his emulators were full of bombast and empty, albeit aggressive rhetoric. Fascism was for show; the fancy uniforms, the rallies, the plywood façades built by Cinecittà set builders to impress Hitler on his state visit. Its slogans set the tone: “Il Duce ha sempre ragione” (Mussolini is always right) or the fundamental “Credere! Obbedire! Combattere!” (Believe! Obey! fight!). In substance, thankfully at least for the French, the British, the Greeks and the Yugoslavs, there was much less. Soldiers were sent to high Alps and the Russian winter with cardboard boots, munitions were substandard due to corruption and military planning flawed because men were promoted for fascist loyalty rather than military skills. Mussolini himself, far from being the firm decider, wavered at crucial moments.

In institutional terms, however malfunctioning, Italy today is profoundly democratic which it certainly was not in 1922 when Mussolini came to power. Even more important, Italy is part of the EU which acts as a brake on dictatorial trends.

So even if Monti did harbour Mussolini-like dreams, he would have difficulty putting them into practice. But in any case he doesn’t as we know from his time as prime minister and before. In style, the main criticism is that he too drab (or put politely, “sober”). In substance, he has limited aims, only partially achieved and has certainly not overstepped his mandate. He showed his respect for the rules when he was European Commissioner and his ability to play them in order to achieve his ends and he is doing the same now.

“Ah, but…” my journalist friend says, “the Italians like him and prefer an unelected strong man to weak and corrupt politicians”. It is true that opinion polls still give Monti high ratings despite his having made most Italians suffer, much higher than party leaders. But that is not fascism.

There actually is a consistent minority of Italians who still have an admiration for Mussolini and that number is probably growing as the living memory of fascism fades. There are dangers of a populist right in Italy as in other parts of Europe (but less precisely because of the fascist experience), but Monti is not part of it. Basil Fawlty can sleep easily in whatever retirement home he has moved to.

But… and there is a big but, there is indeed an accepted tendency in Italy to rely on outsiders to clean up local political messes. Institutionally, the Ministry of the Interior can send a senior functionary to take over a local administration (city or region) if the elected representatives are incapable of governing. If they cannot form a local government, this is done voluntarily; if, as in the case of Reggio Calabria last week, the council is shown to be under mafia control, it is done by order of the Minister. The term is commissariamento. The “commissioner” has a mandate limited in time and often in scope too. At the end of the mandate, the administration goes back to the politicians.

In business, a receiver can be sent in to clean up; in politics, it is rarer but in Italy, the practice has a long pedigree. In the middle ages, when local factions could not agree on how to run a town, they accepted an outsider of proven honesty (and who had no connections to local families) to run the place, a podestà straniero (“podestà” usually translated as “chief magistrate”, “straniero” is “outsider” rather than the more usually “foreign”). Monti has used the term to describe himself; he is an outsider in political terms and his mandate has a date stamp on it.


The ancient Roman Republic too, had an institution which gave supreme power to a single man in an emergency, the dictator whose mandate was for a year. Fabius Maximus (left), the Cunctator or delayer, was dictator when he defeated Hannibal. More than 2,000 years later, Garibaldi appointed himself dictator in Naples as the temporary ruler. It was only in the 20th century that the word took on its negative connotations.

So there is an Italian tendency to call in a grown-up to clean up the mess; it is closer to the very English “nanny knows best” rather than the peremptory “Mussolini is always right”. But a caricature of Monti as nanny (or perhaps in Italy, “la mamma”) does not make as good a headline as Monti in a black shirt.

2 comments:

AV said...

Ever since Monti was appointed last November (yes, it's almost a year now!) many politicians and commentators come to the point that "he is not elected", to remark a
presumed "anomaly" of the current political situation.

These seem to forget that according to the Italian laws the head of the administration is not -and has never been- elected. Monti was put in office exactly like all his predecessors have been: by appointment of the President, and subject to the approval of the parliament.

True, starting in the mid ninties, most parties started to make the issue of who would be the candidate they would propose for the position part of their campaing. And, true, the current electoral law allows the parties to declare in advance a coalition agreement with a name of the person they will suggest to be appointed.

But the substance of the process remains that as long as a parliament is in its mandate, the President can (or, better, musts) seek for any person to possibly lead a new government that will find approval in the chambers.

The definition of Monti's cabinet as "technical" as opposed to "politic" is totaly subjective, and anybody can fill this with any understandig of what that means.

Among the many aspects for which the current administration should be appreciated, there is certainly the subtle -yet substantial- affirmation that the government is somethingh different from the parliament, and that each institution holds its own, different responsibilities.

There is nothing wrong, or exceptional in a government in which the head and the officiers are not selected in the ranks of parties, or among the members of the chambers, and maybe it is positive for us all to remember how effective an administration can be when the parties are kept apart.

AV said...

Ever since Monti was appointed last November (yes, it's almost a year now!) many politicians and commentators come to the point that "he is not elected", to remark a
presumed "anomaly" of the current political situation.

These seem to forget that according to the Italian laws the head of the administration is not -and has never been- elected. Monti was put in office exactly like all his predecessors have been: by appointment of the President, and subject to the approval of the parliament.

True, starting in the mid ninties, most parties started to make the issue of who would be the candidate they would propose for the position part of their campaing. And, true, the current electoral law allows the parties to declare in advance a coalition agreement with a name of the person they will suggest to be appointed.

But the substance of the process remains that as long as a parliament is in its mandate, if and whenever a government has lost its support, the President shall seek for any person to possibly lead a new government that will find approval in the chambers. This is exactly what happened with Monti, and in many other circumstances in the past.

The definition of Monti's cabinet as "technical" as opposed to "politic" is totaly subjective, and anybody can fill this with any understandig of what that means. The idea that a government appointed without a public electoral endorsement is somehow less "legitimate" is only reflecting the convitions of parties that the would have a sort of "right" to privately negotiate and assigne positions in the administration (which is exactly what they want to do, and have done again and again).

Among the many aspects for which the current administration should be appreciated, there is certainly the subtle -yet substantial- affirmation that the government is somethingh different from the parliament, and that each institution holds its own, different responsibilities.

There is nothing wrong, or exceptional in a government in which the head and the officiers are not selected in the ranks of parties, or among the members of the chambers, and maybe it is positive for us all to remember how effective an administration can be when the parties are kept apart.

Andrea Vannucci