Not following the rules is fine as long as you succeed but when an operation fails, especially a military operation where lives are at stake, then there is inevitably a double blame – for the failure of the operation and for going against the rules.
Clearly the attempt to save Lamolinara and McManus, the Italian and British engineers held hostage in northern Nigeria was botched in military terms. If it is confirmed that there was a seven hour gun battle between the hostage takers and the rescuers, there was little chance of the hostages coming out alive; it now seems in any case that they were shot just as the rescue began. If the operation had succeeded, then we can guess that there might have been some Italian grumbling at not being informed about what was being planned but it would have been covered by the rescue of the hostages. But the Italian government was only informed when the operation had already begun, another breach of the rules.
Instead, with the two men dead, there is a serious row between the two countries. It is inconceivable that there were not close contacts between the Farnesina and the Foreign Office in the 9 months since they were kidnapped. If there were not, then both sides are at fault. But it is possible, even likely, that the two countries’ intelligence services and special forces were not cooperating fully.
First of all, spooks are wary of sharing information with anyone, even close allies and special forces are equally hesitant to mount combined operations where a high degree of trust and coordination are needed. There have been hostagetaking episodes in both Iraq and Afghanistan where the Italian secret services and special forces have been accused of ransoming hostages or cutting some sort of deal with local warlords. True or not, the allegations could well have dissuaded the British intelligence and special forces from being open with their Italian counterparts, especially in the Nigerian context where local factions already make secret operations difficult.
The political distance is less easy to explain. Cameron’s statement was notable in ignoring any Italian relevance. “We have been working with the Nigerian authorities…” since the men were taken. Not with the Italian and Nigerian authorities. The decision to mount the operation was again taken “with the Nigerian authorities”, not with the Italian and Nigerian authorities. As far as Cameron and Hague were concerned, it was as if the Italian government was irrelevant to the fate of an Italian citizen. This is what most Italian commentators are actually saying. President Napolitano said that the lack of cooperation was “inexplicable”. Unfortunately, it is is all to understandable.
It is true that Britain has much closer links with Nigeria than Italy, links which are political, police and military based a little on former colonial links but above all on contemporary cooperation on organised crime and terrorism prevention and commercial and human ties between the countries.
Britain and France still consider west Africa as their responsibility and their military interventions in Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire over the last decade have been successful as well as legal and appreciated. None of this, though, justifies ignoring a European partner and ally.
This slight comes on top of being ignored by the Indian authorities who have arrested the two Italian marines for allegedly killing two fishermen. The marines were anti-pirate guards on an Italian ship. Italy maintains that the ship was in international waters when the incident took place (and maintain that no one was injured) while the Indians put the ship in territorial waters. In any case, the marines are in Indian custody, a snub at the very least.
Two slaps in the face in a week. They underline two points, I think. The first is Italy’s longterm weakness in foreign affairs; its status and prestige have always been much less than its size and wealth should warrant. There are many reasons for “punching below its weight”; Berlusconi’s antics recently, the Prodi governments’ structural weaknesses and before that, Italy’s ambiguity, what Sergio Romano called “the anxiety to participate and the desire to avoid the rule of participation.” The newfound confidence created by Monti and Napolitano over the last four months are not enough to change that perception.
The other point is that once again, the hope of having common European foreign policy measures are as far from being realised as ever. It is true that Catherine Ashton has promised to intervene in the Indian case but there has hardly been a loud and clear European reaction and there is not likely to be one.
This is a very slightly modified translation of Lo sgarbo di Cameron
and there's more on Radio Onda d'Urto NIGERIA: FINISCE TRAGICAMENTE IL BLITZ ANGLO-NIGERIANO PER LIBERARE OSTAGGIO BRITANNICO E ITALIANO
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Painful Memory, Healing Memory.
Last week a remarkable man was in Italy; he was here to tell his own story and mission on the Day of Memory, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz on 27 January 1945. His name is Michael Lapsley (pictured during his talk at the American University of Rome); he is an Anglican priest who went to South Africa in 1973 from New Zealand and very soon took an active role in the anti-apartheid movement, so much so that he was exiled first to Lesotho and then to Zimbabwe. In 1990, after Nelson Mandela had been released from prison, he was the victim of a letterbomb which destroyed both hands, an eye and the hearing in an ear. Since then, he has worked to use memory to heal past wounds: “knowledge and acknowledge” is the key phrase of his mission. First of all there must be the knowledge of what happened in the past and then for any form of healing, there has to be acknowledgement of the tort committed by the perpetrator. This is true for nations and communities as it is for individuals.
He took part in South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and later founded the Institute for Healing Memories “We believe that when personal stories are heard and acknowledged, individuals feel healed and empowered”.
After listening to Fr. Michael, the following day, I witnessed a ceremony in which a tragic episode in World War II became part of a memory which was being healed; the story was being told and the suffering acknowledged. On 28 January 1944, US Airforce planes bombed a train and a bridge just north of Orvieto in Umbria. There were more than a thousand allied POWs on the train and between two and three hundred died. In the general picture of the war, it was a minor incident and was not even part of a battle where death can be justified by heroism or the overall aims. It was a case of friendly fire and so certainly not to be emphasised and glorified by the Allies. So the efforts to create the monument were very much part of establishing knowledge of the event and acknowledging responsibilities and the sufferings of survivors or relations.
The ceremony was the result of hard work by local historians in Orvieto and a British veteran of the Italian campaign, Harry Shindler (pictured in the centre during the ceremony) who has spent the last decade uncovering some of the minutiæ. Shindler spends a lot of time looking for single victims of the war but never loses sight of the reasons why he and millions of other allied soldiers were fighting more than 60 years ago.
As for the Day of Memory itself, it has become very much part of the Italian calendar with speeches by the President to schoolchildren invited to his palace, the Quirinale, as well as thousands of other initiatives. My local cinema showed “Sarah’s Key” for schoolkids in the afternoon. At first they were loud and giggly but soon shut up and followed the film enthralled.
A few days before the speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, Gianfranco Fini announced a university network “to know and not to forget” saying “without memory, dangerous passages open up”.
Fini is the most striking example in Italy of the principle of “knowledge and acknowledge”. He is a man of the right with his political roots in the neo-Fascist MSI who precisely because of that has done more than anyone else to force the right to acknowledge the crimes of Mussolini and Fascism.
He is correct too, to urge us not to lower our guard. On 27 January, there was a Holocaust negationist conference in Como. More insidious in a way was the case of Mario Vattani, the Italian consul in Osaka who has a long history of extreme right wing militancy. He was recalled after a video was posted with him singing in a fascist rock band with lyrics “in five years I’ll hoist the black flag”. Vattani is facing disciplinary proceedings within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Minister, Giulio Terzi has said that fascism is incompatible with the state – fair enough but Vattani has been a diplomat for 20 years and has never made a secret of his activities. The place where he was filmed is Casa Pound, a very popular extreme right wing organisation, seen by some as “Fascism lite” but in practice a semi respectable front for genuine extremists. Memory here seems to be more a forgettery.
Another recent case of domestic fascism (and forgetting) was the Turinese schoolteacher, Renato Pallavidini, who told the world on his Facebook page that “I could carry out a massacre in a synagogue” repeated on YouTube.
With all of us, unfortunately, there is a tendency to remember the torts commited against us and forget the ones that we have committed. There was a an uproar in Italy recently when the International Court of Justice at the Hague declared that today’s German state was not liable for civil damages awarded by an Italian court for Nazi massacres. Italians, not surprisingly, were angry that somehow Nazi were being declared not responsible for the reprisal killing of civilians (not quite what the court found). Today’s German government has indeed accepted responsibility for the massacres (and for example, made special efforts for the reconstruction of Onna near L’Aquila after the 2009 earthquake because of a Nazi reprisal there in 1944).
No one denies the Nazi massacres but “acknowledgement” is not only about civil liability, and there are many torts to be remembered and forgotten.
In Italy (and only Italy), this week also sees the “Day of Memory” for the victims of the foibe (those Italians and Yugoslav sympathisers killed by Yugoslav troops in 1943 and 1945) and the Istrian refugees insituted in 2004. The number of victims is still disputed. The commemoration brings together left and right wing Italians but makes no mention of the Yugoslavs killed or interned before and during the war.
We are right enough to remember both the Nazi horrors and apartheid but that is not enough; to really heal, we have to open our minds to everything that happened and put ourselves collectively and nationally on the psychoanalyst’s couch… and that is not easy.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Changing international geometry. Monti in the US.
The invitation to the top table has always been a measure of prestige for leaders of Italian governments. Yesterday, Mario Monti met President Obama, less than three months after becoming prime minister, showing his weight in Washington. It was a guaranteed success; before he left the US ambassador explicitly endorsed Monti. In an interview in Corriere della Sera, David Thorne left no doubts “I think Italy has become the USA’s most trustworthy ally in Europe”.
The following day the president himself gave Monti fulsome support and praise in an interview with Maurizio Molinari in La Stampa “Under Monti’s leadership, Italy is taking impressive steps to modernise its economy and reduce its deficit”. He repeated that praise in person when they finally met and even upset his schedule by extending the meeting. The Monti triumph was crowned by a Time (international edition) cover story entitled “Can this man save Europe?” implicitly answering the question with an article inside entitled “Why Mario Monti is the most important man in Europe”.
Monti’s American trip is very visible evidence of Italy’s changed status. Over the last two months, it has become very clear that there are three leaders in the euro zone, not two. Monti is able to talk with authority to the EU and government leaders, (in English, French and German which is always an advantage), an authority which comes from his personal reputation and his skills as an economist. As prime minister and economics minister, he is a powerful presence in both the Council of Ministers and ECOFIN. He is not Merkel’s poodle (or dachshund or whatever canine metaphor is appropriate). He is very much his own man. This is why Obama was so welcoming. The United States fear an European meltdown almost as much as the Europeans.
On one score, at least, Monti has already shown his mettle – the markets act on that intangible variable confidence, almost as much as they act on hard numbers and Monti has re-established enough of it for the moment.
In the international geopolitical arena, Monti’s Italy is indeed a useful ally for the United States – there is little change from before in that a close alliance with the US has been one of the fundamental pillars of Italian foreign policy since World War II. In Syria, Italy has a definitely minor supporting role; Italy’s dependence on Russian gas hardly gives it leverage on Russia but Berlusconi’s close personal ties with Putin would not have changed the Russian stance or its support for Assad.
In Libya, Italy is back to playing a serious role, gas supplies have begun again which is a relief given this week’s cold snap and reduced Russian supplies. Last month Monti was in Tripoli mending fences. Renewed close commercial and political relations with Libya are also in the broader interests of both the US and EU.
The American success and the re-establishment of an authoritative Italian presence in Brussels obviously give Monti a bounce back home. As it is, he has to navigate between a European (mainly German) Scylla and a domestic Charibdis. He has already shown that he is part of the European directoire, able to talk on equal terms with Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron. He now has American support. Together, they mean that he can face the Italian parliament and convince them that he is the right man to successfully defend Italian interests abroad.
His mere presence in the European summit changed the geometry of power – instead of having a two way tension between France and Germany, there is now a triangle for the euro and a quadrilateral with Britain for the wider issues. The new power dynamics mean that the chances of reaching some sort of closer fiscal union to protect the euro and the EU itself are much higher now than they were a couple of months ago whatever happens in Greece this coming week.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Snow and Strawberries
Giordano Bruno’s cowl is covered in snow and yesterday there were only two stalls open on the market in Campo de’ Fiori. All the nearby newsagents were closed and naturally, my Saturday treat of a paper copy of the Economist and IHT did not happen.
Rome is covered in snow and along with the white stuff, there is a heavy covering of polemics; the streets are silent but there is the strident sound of bucks being passed. For those of us lucky enough to be at home, warm and with a full fridge and storecupboard and with nothing pressing to force us outside we can enjoy the once in a generation view of ancient and ecclesiastic monuments in alpine garb.
We had had a week’s warning that snow and cold weather were coming and on Friday morning I thought I would be very clever and do some chores in the country, buy fruit and vegetables, wine and supermarket shopping. And be back home before the snow arrived in late afternoon… the rain began at about midday but all was fine until we reached a short but steep hill. The rain turned to sleet and then snow and after a climb of 50 metres it was clear that a car with summer tyres was not going to make it. We retreated and did the shopping. One of the stops was at a newish greengrocer, a Moroccan (I think) who sells fruit which is as good as or better than the supermarket, most of it for either €1.00 or €0.50 per kilo, whatever it is, and at times when most other shops are closed. He is one tiny example of the effects of immigrant enterprise.
He offered me some strawberries on top the usual; I turned up my nose at the idea of strawberries in February “They taste of nothing”. “Try one” he said, offering me a succulent berry which even in the cold gave off a delicious perfume. The taste matched the smell and I bought half a dozen punnets.
The journey home was fraught; 50 km in four hours, much of it stopped while those in front tried to negotiate gentle inclines inappropriately shod. And then trying to do it myself, sliding everywhere and hoping not to careen into a similarly out of control neighbour. We were very lucky – many were not. Some spent 8 or 12 hours in trains or traffic jams. One train was stopped for a full 24 hours. Heavy lorries have been stopped on many motorways (a Bulgarian driver interviewed explained that in his country the roads worked perfectly down to -30° C. and ended with a dismissive “Italiya katastrof!”).
Not quite fair – it would be absurd to equip Rome for crises which happen every 27 years (the last serious snow was in 1987) and any city administration would be rightly accused of corruption if they kept snowploughs and chains for this type of emergency. We don’t live in Bulgaria… or St. Petersburg or Toronto.
But the level of lack of preparation was staggering. There was no salt or sand, or rather there was but no one knew where it was or how to apply it and when to apply it. So far it has not been very cold in town, only a little below freezing at night, so a little salt would have gone a long way.
Instead the mayor blamed the weather forecast. Like me he thought it would come later in the afternoon and that there would be less of it. But I was risking my car and my comfort for myself, he was risking the whole city. Classes were cancelled at all schools… but the schools were left open, increasing traffic and the difficulties when the snow did come.
It was a pathetic performance made worse by sniping between the mayor and the civil protection authority each blaming the other for not being prepared. No one said that it was “the wrong kind of snow” like British Rail in 1991 but they did blame the messenger. “The forecast was for 10-15 mm or rain” said the mayor. Apparently no one in the Campidoglio knew that a millimetre of water becomes a centimetre of snow if the temperature drops a few degrees. For a week, the whole country had been told that we would have a cold weekend. Once again, a little bit of thought would have made a lot of difference.
It was all very Roman (but not only) and for my part as one of the lucky ones, I have had strawberries and snow, a very un-Roman combination but all the more enjoyable for that.
Rome is covered in snow and along with the white stuff, there is a heavy covering of polemics; the streets are silent but there is the strident sound of bucks being passed. For those of us lucky enough to be at home, warm and with a full fridge and storecupboard and with nothing pressing to force us outside we can enjoy the once in a generation view of ancient and ecclesiastic monuments in alpine garb.
We had had a week’s warning that snow and cold weather were coming and on Friday morning I thought I would be very clever and do some chores in the country, buy fruit and vegetables, wine and supermarket shopping. And be back home before the snow arrived in late afternoon… the rain began at about midday but all was fine until we reached a short but steep hill. The rain turned to sleet and then snow and after a climb of 50 metres it was clear that a car with summer tyres was not going to make it. We retreated and did the shopping. One of the stops was at a newish greengrocer, a Moroccan (I think) who sells fruit which is as good as or better than the supermarket, most of it for either €1.00 or €0.50 per kilo, whatever it is, and at times when most other shops are closed. He is one tiny example of the effects of immigrant enterprise.
He offered me some strawberries on top the usual; I turned up my nose at the idea of strawberries in February “They taste of nothing”. “Try one” he said, offering me a succulent berry which even in the cold gave off a delicious perfume. The taste matched the smell and I bought half a dozen punnets.
The journey home was fraught; 50 km in four hours, much of it stopped while those in front tried to negotiate gentle inclines inappropriately shod. And then trying to do it myself, sliding everywhere and hoping not to careen into a similarly out of control neighbour. We were very lucky – many were not. Some spent 8 or 12 hours in trains or traffic jams. One train was stopped for a full 24 hours. Heavy lorries have been stopped on many motorways (a Bulgarian driver interviewed explained that in his country the roads worked perfectly down to -30° C. and ended with a dismissive “Italiya katastrof!”).
Not quite fair – it would be absurd to equip Rome for crises which happen every 27 years (the last serious snow was in 1987) and any city administration would be rightly accused of corruption if they kept snowploughs and chains for this type of emergency. We don’t live in Bulgaria… or St. Petersburg or Toronto.
But the level of lack of preparation was staggering. There was no salt or sand, or rather there was but no one knew where it was or how to apply it and when to apply it. So far it has not been very cold in town, only a little below freezing at night, so a little salt would have gone a long way.
Instead the mayor blamed the weather forecast. Like me he thought it would come later in the afternoon and that there would be less of it. But I was risking my car and my comfort for myself, he was risking the whole city. Classes were cancelled at all schools… but the schools were left open, increasing traffic and the difficulties when the snow did come.
It was a pathetic performance made worse by sniping between the mayor and the civil protection authority each blaming the other for not being prepared. No one said that it was “the wrong kind of snow” like British Rail in 1991 but they did blame the messenger. “The forecast was for 10-15 mm or rain” said the mayor. Apparently no one in the Campidoglio knew that a millimetre of water becomes a centimetre of snow if the temperature drops a few degrees. For a week, the whole country had been told that we would have a cold weekend. Once again, a little bit of thought would have made a lot of difference.
It was all very Roman (but not only) and for my part as one of the lucky ones, I have had strawberries and snow, a very un-Roman combination but all the more enjoyable for that.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monti’s Mountains
Friday saw the long awaited and much leaked liberalisation decree. It is supposed to be the first step in the Crescitalia (“Grow Italy”) process that prime minister Mario Monti promised would follow his Salva Italia (“Save Italy”) austerity measures. He reckons that there are three obstacles to Italian economic growth: insufficient market competition, inadequate infrastructure and excessive bureaucracy. The decree was supposed to address the first two problems.
Probably the two most important elements, in my view, are the proposal to have a fast track court to deal with business disagreements and the possibility for under 35s to set up a business for €1. The glacial time scale for most Italian civil cases means that even if you win, there’s a good chance that your business will have closed in the meantime. The delay means that any damages will be paid heaven knows when which encourages bad practices. Anything that accelerates resolution can only encourage businesses to invest and act. This new measure means avoiding a wholescale reform of the justice system which would be neverending, hence the partial solution. Before having a disagreement to take to court, though, you have to actually have a business; if the €1 deal really works, it will revolutionise Italian practice; Italy will not become Hong Kong or Singapore overnight but it might at least get closer to some other Europeans.
Then there were the measures which have generated much heat both before and after they were passed. By their nature, taxi drivers are very visible and they work in cities which is where the media live so their protests get a lot of coverage. If the decree is confirmed, they will come under a new national transport authority which they are strongly against as it would cut their direct links with mayors and city councils. But even if the authority is set up, another toothless watchdog is unlikely to regulate Italy’s transport – the other authorities have a mostly ineffectual role. In any case, it is not by having another thousand cabs in Rome that Italy’s economy will magically become competitive.
Nor will having estimates from lawyers, notaries and accountants, more of them and no minimum fees, though of course the changes will help and establish the idea that the guilds and closed shops have lost their privileges. The message is more important than the substance. Ditto for chemists where there should be one for every 3,000 inhabitants.
More important for our collective pockets would be for petrol stations to buy their fuel from any distributor rather than be obliged to have one brand. As important will be breaking the monopoly of gas sale and distribution.
This week the minister of labour, Elsa Fornero, has started negotiations with employers and unions to produce a new agreement on the labour market. She has promised to conclude in a month.
The markets seem to approve of the measures and the difference between German and Italian 10 year bonds is down to around 400 points from a high of 550 (but a year ago it was 150). Even with yesterday’s report from the IMF warning that the world economy is in a “danger zone”, Milan closed a touch up and the spread did not increase.
The problem is in the future and whether Monti overcome the obstacles. These are the questions I have been asked over the last week and here are some tentative answers.
Challenges for Monti. Assuming that the measures proposed by Monti are the right ones to solve Italy’s problems and contribute to the solution of the European crisis, his main obstacles are:
• Parliamentary opposition. The decree has to be converted into law within 60 days. It is still not clear whether there will be a full debate and unlimited possibilities of amendment or if there will be a vote of confidence. Either way, despite much grumbling from the centre right and some from the centre-left, neither dare pull the house down because whoever does will be blamed for the catastrophe that follows. So it will pass, probably modified but not beyond recognition. Today there will be a motion approving the government’s overall action, a sort of supplementary vote of confidence which underlines the parties’ support.
• Social opposition and possible unrest. Role of unions and other pressure groups. Sicily was in revolt last week (the “pitchfork movement”), lorry drivers blocked motorways today and taxidrivers have been protesting for a week. They are minority movements even within the drivers associations and are very unpopular as there has been a run on both fuel and fresh produce. Paradoxically, the protests might actually increase the government’s popularity especially as the Minister of the Interior has ordered the dismantling of the roadblocks and the police are carrying it our effectively.
• Implementation. Ministries. There is perceptive and apposite remark of Bismarck’s à propos laws and implementation: “With bad laws and good civil servants, one can still govern, with bad civil servants the best laws cannot help” . This is the biggest obstacle because it is almost invisibile and will require all Monti’s skill and good will to overcome.
• Finally there are the international obstacles. None of these reforms can function without at least the cooperation and in practice the full scale support from European and international institutions: ECB, Commission, IMF, Germany. Monti needs this to implement the reforms but also to maintain the support of the majority of Italians and to keep anti-German and anti-European resentment under control. Once again, he is likely to make it, if only because it is in everyone’s interest despite chancellor Merkel hesitance. The problem might be that the pace is too slow both for the markets and Italian public opinion. But Monti has personal good credit in the European and international institutions so the prospects are good.
Does all this mean a major change in Italian society? Of course it does. The economic boom of the 1950s changed the whole of Italy radically – these changes will do the same and we’re still at the beginning. It will be a long and hard climb.
Probably the two most important elements, in my view, are the proposal to have a fast track court to deal with business disagreements and the possibility for under 35s to set up a business for €1. The glacial time scale for most Italian civil cases means that even if you win, there’s a good chance that your business will have closed in the meantime. The delay means that any damages will be paid heaven knows when which encourages bad practices. Anything that accelerates resolution can only encourage businesses to invest and act. This new measure means avoiding a wholescale reform of the justice system which would be neverending, hence the partial solution. Before having a disagreement to take to court, though, you have to actually have a business; if the €1 deal really works, it will revolutionise Italian practice; Italy will not become Hong Kong or Singapore overnight but it might at least get closer to some other Europeans.
Then there were the measures which have generated much heat both before and after they were passed. By their nature, taxi drivers are very visible and they work in cities which is where the media live so their protests get a lot of coverage. If the decree is confirmed, they will come under a new national transport authority which they are strongly against as it would cut their direct links with mayors and city councils. But even if the authority is set up, another toothless watchdog is unlikely to regulate Italy’s transport – the other authorities have a mostly ineffectual role. In any case, it is not by having another thousand cabs in Rome that Italy’s economy will magically become competitive.
Nor will having estimates from lawyers, notaries and accountants, more of them and no minimum fees, though of course the changes will help and establish the idea that the guilds and closed shops have lost their privileges. The message is more important than the substance. Ditto for chemists where there should be one for every 3,000 inhabitants.
More important for our collective pockets would be for petrol stations to buy their fuel from any distributor rather than be obliged to have one brand. As important will be breaking the monopoly of gas sale and distribution.
This week the minister of labour, Elsa Fornero, has started negotiations with employers and unions to produce a new agreement on the labour market. She has promised to conclude in a month.
The markets seem to approve of the measures and the difference between German and Italian 10 year bonds is down to around 400 points from a high of 550 (but a year ago it was 150). Even with yesterday’s report from the IMF warning that the world economy is in a “danger zone”, Milan closed a touch up and the spread did not increase.
The problem is in the future and whether Monti overcome the obstacles. These are the questions I have been asked over the last week and here are some tentative answers.
Challenges for Monti. Assuming that the measures proposed by Monti are the right ones to solve Italy’s problems and contribute to the solution of the European crisis, his main obstacles are:
• Parliamentary opposition. The decree has to be converted into law within 60 days. It is still not clear whether there will be a full debate and unlimited possibilities of amendment or if there will be a vote of confidence. Either way, despite much grumbling from the centre right and some from the centre-left, neither dare pull the house down because whoever does will be blamed for the catastrophe that follows. So it will pass, probably modified but not beyond recognition. Today there will be a motion approving the government’s overall action, a sort of supplementary vote of confidence which underlines the parties’ support.
• Social opposition and possible unrest. Role of unions and other pressure groups. Sicily was in revolt last week (the “pitchfork movement”), lorry drivers blocked motorways today and taxidrivers have been protesting for a week. They are minority movements even within the drivers associations and are very unpopular as there has been a run on both fuel and fresh produce. Paradoxically, the protests might actually increase the government’s popularity especially as the Minister of the Interior has ordered the dismantling of the roadblocks and the police are carrying it our effectively.
• Implementation. Ministries. There is perceptive and apposite remark of Bismarck’s à propos laws and implementation: “With bad laws and good civil servants, one can still govern, with bad civil servants the best laws cannot help” . This is the biggest obstacle because it is almost invisibile and will require all Monti’s skill and good will to overcome.
• Finally there are the international obstacles. None of these reforms can function without at least the cooperation and in practice the full scale support from European and international institutions: ECB, Commission, IMF, Germany. Monti needs this to implement the reforms but also to maintain the support of the majority of Italians and to keep anti-German and anti-European resentment under control. Once again, he is likely to make it, if only because it is in everyone’s interest despite chancellor Merkel hesitance. The problem might be that the pace is too slow both for the markets and Italian public opinion. But Monti has personal good credit in the European and international institutions so the prospects are good.
Does all this mean a major change in Italian society? Of course it does. The economic boom of the 1950s changed the whole of Italy radically – these changes will do the same and we’re still at the beginning. It will be a long and hard climb.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Haywire History or Criminal Streets
Italy has a problem digesting its history. At the Epiphany fair in piazza Navona there was a stall which happily sold Mussolini memorabilia alongside 1950s advertisements with leggy filmstars, with even a Hitler mug and another with a star of David – not so much historical schizophrenia as a complete lack of concern about the historical significance of the objects.
It is not just the fascist past which is difficult to come to terms with; the recent and far less brutal past is equally indigestible. Or rather, the way a society treats its past tells us more about the present than the past so it will be very interesting to see if there is any change in how the anniversary of Bettino Craxi’s death is remembered this week.
He died 12 years ago, on 19 January 2000, the most controversial politician in post-war Italy. He was by far the most important victim of the Clean Hands investigations in Milan in the early ‘90s; in 1996 he was given a definitive five and half year sentence for corruption and in 1999, four and half for illegal party financing and taking kickbacks. When he died, he had four other gaol sentences pending from the courts of first instance or appeal. Unlike many others involved in the Milan corruption scandals, Craxi did not serve even a day of his sentences as he left the country for Tunisia in 1994 just before his parliamentary immunity was revoked. He died at his home in Hammamet honoured by Tunisian and Italian authorities.
Craxi’s protegé, closest supporter and political successor is Silvio Berlusconi, no longer prime minister but still the leader of the biggest party in Parliament and even a possible prime ministerial candidate. As he begins his long and slow final act, it is a good moment to look at the man who allowed Berlusconi to get where he did and who together with Berlusconi changed Italian politics and society.
There is a Fondazione Bettino Craxi founded by his daughter, Stefania a few months after his death. This weekend they have organised a trip to Hammamet to commemorate Craxi; they also keeps his archives and organises conferences on his work where scholars and politicians praise his achievements. It also, by the way, seeks public funding through taxpayers’ contributions.
When he died, the ex-Communist prime minister, Massimo D’Alema offered the family a state funeral but they refused because the felt that he had been treated badly by the Italian state and establishment. Since then most of that establishment has come round to the family’s way of thinking. It is hardly surprising that the Berlusconi family Il Giornale remembered the tenth anniversary with gushing hagiography, The irony of a right wing paper praising a man who early in his career was actually a socialist (rather than just a Socialist Party leader) was lost on the editor.
Nor was it surprising that the then director of RAI 1’s evening news, Augusto Minzolini, declared that Craxi was a scapegoat and that there was no need to “rehabilitate” him. It is more striking, though, when a leader of the centre-left like Piero Fassino, now mayor Turin, declared “I continue to think that picturing Craxi as a criminal is a foolish and unacceptable caricature… there’s no doubt that there was a reticent and ambiguous silence towards his speech to the Chamber” . In the months leading up to Craxi’s flight, he had written articles for the Socialist party daily using the pseudonym “Ghino di Tacco”, a mediæval bandit. The speech that Fassino referred to was an admission that he had taken kickbacks at the same time as saying that all the other parties were part of the same game. True enough but is an illegal action any more acceptable because it is brazen?
There are some towns which have honoured him with a street and in Aulla, there is even a statue dedicated to the “exile and martyr”. In both Milan and Rome, there were proposals by both left and right to give him a street but there were stopped by storms to protests.
No one doubts that Craxi was an important figure in post-war Italy and that he changed his party and the country. He was an innovative thinker and an effective doer and as such is certainly worthy of respect and considerable interest on the part of historians and political analysts. His family and party colleagues may obviously pay their respects. But he was also a criminal, declared as much by a court system which is certainly flawed but which is still the accepted administrator of justice in Italy. So for senior members of the political establishment to honour him is to explicitly condemn Italian justice and condone Craxi’s actions sending the message that politicians may steal from the taxpayer and that’s fine.
Condemning Craxi and those that want to rehabilitate him is not “moralism”, it is morality, legality and also the difference between good and bad government. The issues that Craxi was an example of are still with us and the way in which he is remembered reflects heavily on the present, not just the past.
There were no Craxi mugs on sale in piazza Navona which is just as well, but the reasons were neither moral nor legal which is a pity.
It is not just the fascist past which is difficult to come to terms with; the recent and far less brutal past is equally indigestible. Or rather, the way a society treats its past tells us more about the present than the past so it will be very interesting to see if there is any change in how the anniversary of Bettino Craxi’s death is remembered this week.
He died 12 years ago, on 19 January 2000, the most controversial politician in post-war Italy. He was by far the most important victim of the Clean Hands investigations in Milan in the early ‘90s; in 1996 he was given a definitive five and half year sentence for corruption and in 1999, four and half for illegal party financing and taking kickbacks. When he died, he had four other gaol sentences pending from the courts of first instance or appeal. Unlike many others involved in the Milan corruption scandals, Craxi did not serve even a day of his sentences as he left the country for Tunisia in 1994 just before his parliamentary immunity was revoked. He died at his home in Hammamet honoured by Tunisian and Italian authorities.
Craxi’s protegé, closest supporter and political successor is Silvio Berlusconi, no longer prime minister but still the leader of the biggest party in Parliament and even a possible prime ministerial candidate. As he begins his long and slow final act, it is a good moment to look at the man who allowed Berlusconi to get where he did and who together with Berlusconi changed Italian politics and society.
There is a Fondazione Bettino Craxi founded by his daughter, Stefania a few months after his death. This weekend they have organised a trip to Hammamet to commemorate Craxi; they also keeps his archives and organises conferences on his work where scholars and politicians praise his achievements. It also, by the way, seeks public funding through taxpayers’ contributions.
When he died, the ex-Communist prime minister, Massimo D’Alema offered the family a state funeral but they refused because the felt that he had been treated badly by the Italian state and establishment. Since then most of that establishment has come round to the family’s way of thinking. It is hardly surprising that the Berlusconi family Il Giornale remembered the tenth anniversary with gushing hagiography, The irony of a right wing paper praising a man who early in his career was actually a socialist (rather than just a Socialist Party leader) was lost on the editor.
Nor was it surprising that the then director of RAI 1’s evening news, Augusto Minzolini, declared that Craxi was a scapegoat and that there was no need to “rehabilitate” him. It is more striking, though, when a leader of the centre-left like Piero Fassino, now mayor Turin, declared “I continue to think that picturing Craxi as a criminal is a foolish and unacceptable caricature… there’s no doubt that there was a reticent and ambiguous silence towards his speech to the Chamber” . In the months leading up to Craxi’s flight, he had written articles for the Socialist party daily using the pseudonym “Ghino di Tacco”, a mediæval bandit. The speech that Fassino referred to was an admission that he had taken kickbacks at the same time as saying that all the other parties were part of the same game. True enough but is an illegal action any more acceptable because it is brazen?
There are some towns which have honoured him with a street and in Aulla, there is even a statue dedicated to the “exile and martyr”. In both Milan and Rome, there were proposals by both left and right to give him a street but there were stopped by storms to protests.
No one doubts that Craxi was an important figure in post-war Italy and that he changed his party and the country. He was an innovative thinker and an effective doer and as such is certainly worthy of respect and considerable interest on the part of historians and political analysts. His family and party colleagues may obviously pay their respects. But he was also a criminal, declared as much by a court system which is certainly flawed but which is still the accepted administrator of justice in Italy. So for senior members of the political establishment to honour him is to explicitly condemn Italian justice and condone Craxi’s actions sending the message that politicians may steal from the taxpayer and that’s fine.
Condemning Craxi and those that want to rehabilitate him is not “moralism”, it is morality, legality and also the difference between good and bad government. The issues that Craxi was an example of are still with us and the way in which he is remembered reflects heavily on the present, not just the past.
There were no Craxi mugs on sale in piazza Navona which is just as well, but the reasons were neither moral nor legal which is a pity.
Monday, January 16, 2012
How to Find a Job or a House in Italy. Merit, Friends and the Free Market
“Liberalisation” is the buzzword today but it is not always clear exactly what it means.
One example: an American television journalist, Wolf Achtner, is doing something revolutionary – he is applying for the job of editor of the RAI’s flagship evening news programme, a post which is vacant at the moment. He is qualified and should be a plausible candidate so his application should not be news; what makes it extraordinary is that senior jobs in the public sector are rarely advertised on the open market and even more rarely given to qualified outsiders. Political loyalty is the first requisite for any of these jobs and if the chosen candidate happens to be good, then that is an unexpected bonus.
It’s not only high profile media jobs which are handed out for political loyalty rather than professional qualifications. A recent Eurostat survey found that more than three out of four young people (77%) look for work through friends and relations. Less than a third (31.9%) use the employment exchange, the lowest in the EU apart from Cyprus (in Germany the figure is 82.8%, EU27 56.1%). This means that it is certainly not just the public sector where loyalty often trumps merit and ability. There are more small and medium sized Italian companies than in most of the rest of Europe which is a partial explanation for the use of private connections but the downside is that merit is often irrelevant.
Of course Italy is not the only country where jobs come through connections and apparently open search procedures are a cover to legitimise an insider candidate but it is striking how even the form of a level playing field is not respected.
Public sector jobs, from ministries to universities to the magistrature, are normally awarded by competitive exams and procedures which often mask the stringpulling and clientelistic practices but either way, connections are essential.
Another ongoing story illustrates the importance of connections over more universal principles. The Minister for the Public Administration, the magistrate, Filippo Patroni Griffi is in the spotlight after having paid €177,000 in 2008 for a three bedroom flat close to the Coliseum, a property with a market value of around €800,000 today. He bought the flat from INPS, the national pension fund, when he was a sitting tenant and after having won a case against INPS to lower the price. No one suggests anything illegal, the resentment is in the knowledge that first of all one needs friends in order to become an INPS tenant (or in any other public institution) and friends in the magistrature are certainly a help in any legal action. When INPS and other public bodies sell property, the prices are far from the free market. The minister’s good fortune is paid for by the people who receive their pensions from INPS, as well as with a good measure of social resentment.
Then there are the measures which the government is preparing and and should be made public on Wednesday or Thursday and passed as a decree law on Friday. Whatever the law says in detail, it will affect a wide range of services and categories from taxi to lawyers to petrol stations and public services. Even if only half are implemented, it will mean a revolution in both the Italian economy and consumer habits, one which today’s opinion polls say that most Italians strongly favour. They think, not unreasonably, that they will save money. Who will pay is not very clear yet.
The number of taxi and pharmacy licences is likely to be increased; lawyers accountants and notaries are also likely to have to open their doors as well as giving clients estimates for the job to do. Fuel distribution is going to be eased allowing petrol stations to sell a wide variety of goods as in most other European countries and to buy their fuel from other distributors rather than be tied to a single brand. The railways too are likely to see other companies using the tracks, a reform which has already begun in a small way. Also on the public side there is a good chance that local transport service will be opened to competition along with some other services.
There are ongoing rumblings to make the labour market more flexible, possibly introducing the Danish model which makes hiring and firing relatively easy but also provides sufficient support for laid off workers.
It all sounds wonderful if you don’t belong to one of the “liberalised” fields, most of which have been threatening action. Taxi drivers are already on the warpath and have already had some dress rehearsals for what is more a lockout than a strike. Lawyers are very represented in parliament and have already said that they will boycott the ceremony of the opening of the new judicial year. There’s a transport strike planned for 27th and a seven day petrol station strike. The unions have repeatedly said they will not accept any reduction of job security.
There is a potential for serious social unrest; and yet the political parties all pay lip service to the need to liberalise, but they too are looking to their constituencies and saying “open up everything but don’t touch our supporters’ interests”.
This is the real test for Monti – his austerity budget was child’s play. Now he will have to navigate between very, very divergent interest groups with very different game plans to look after those interests, plus political parties which are increasingly disconnected from society.
His strongest weapon is the depth of the crisis which does allow procrastination. He could set the ball rolling by offering jobs in the public broadcaster to the most qualified and sell publically owned housing to the highest bidder on the open market.
One example: an American television journalist, Wolf Achtner, is doing something revolutionary – he is applying for the job of editor of the RAI’s flagship evening news programme, a post which is vacant at the moment. He is qualified and should be a plausible candidate so his application should not be news; what makes it extraordinary is that senior jobs in the public sector are rarely advertised on the open market and even more rarely given to qualified outsiders. Political loyalty is the first requisite for any of these jobs and if the chosen candidate happens to be good, then that is an unexpected bonus.
It’s not only high profile media jobs which are handed out for political loyalty rather than professional qualifications. A recent Eurostat survey found that more than three out of four young people (77%) look for work through friends and relations. Less than a third (31.9%) use the employment exchange, the lowest in the EU apart from Cyprus (in Germany the figure is 82.8%, EU27 56.1%). This means that it is certainly not just the public sector where loyalty often trumps merit and ability. There are more small and medium sized Italian companies than in most of the rest of Europe which is a partial explanation for the use of private connections but the downside is that merit is often irrelevant.
Of course Italy is not the only country where jobs come through connections and apparently open search procedures are a cover to legitimise an insider candidate but it is striking how even the form of a level playing field is not respected.
Public sector jobs, from ministries to universities to the magistrature, are normally awarded by competitive exams and procedures which often mask the stringpulling and clientelistic practices but either way, connections are essential.
Another ongoing story illustrates the importance of connections over more universal principles. The Minister for the Public Administration, the magistrate, Filippo Patroni Griffi is in the spotlight after having paid €177,000 in 2008 for a three bedroom flat close to the Coliseum, a property with a market value of around €800,000 today. He bought the flat from INPS, the national pension fund, when he was a sitting tenant and after having won a case against INPS to lower the price. No one suggests anything illegal, the resentment is in the knowledge that first of all one needs friends in order to become an INPS tenant (or in any other public institution) and friends in the magistrature are certainly a help in any legal action. When INPS and other public bodies sell property, the prices are far from the free market. The minister’s good fortune is paid for by the people who receive their pensions from INPS, as well as with a good measure of social resentment.
Then there are the measures which the government is preparing and and should be made public on Wednesday or Thursday and passed as a decree law on Friday. Whatever the law says in detail, it will affect a wide range of services and categories from taxi to lawyers to petrol stations and public services. Even if only half are implemented, it will mean a revolution in both the Italian economy and consumer habits, one which today’s opinion polls say that most Italians strongly favour. They think, not unreasonably, that they will save money. Who will pay is not very clear yet.
The number of taxi and pharmacy licences is likely to be increased; lawyers accountants and notaries are also likely to have to open their doors as well as giving clients estimates for the job to do. Fuel distribution is going to be eased allowing petrol stations to sell a wide variety of goods as in most other European countries and to buy their fuel from other distributors rather than be tied to a single brand. The railways too are likely to see other companies using the tracks, a reform which has already begun in a small way. Also on the public side there is a good chance that local transport service will be opened to competition along with some other services.
There are ongoing rumblings to make the labour market more flexible, possibly introducing the Danish model which makes hiring and firing relatively easy but also provides sufficient support for laid off workers.
It all sounds wonderful if you don’t belong to one of the “liberalised” fields, most of which have been threatening action. Taxi drivers are already on the warpath and have already had some dress rehearsals for what is more a lockout than a strike. Lawyers are very represented in parliament and have already said that they will boycott the ceremony of the opening of the new judicial year. There’s a transport strike planned for 27th and a seven day petrol station strike. The unions have repeatedly said they will not accept any reduction of job security.
There is a potential for serious social unrest; and yet the political parties all pay lip service to the need to liberalise, but they too are looking to their constituencies and saying “open up everything but don’t touch our supporters’ interests”.
This is the real test for Monti – his austerity budget was child’s play. Now he will have to navigate between very, very divergent interest groups with very different game plans to look after those interests, plus political parties which are increasingly disconnected from society.
His strongest weapon is the depth of the crisis which does allow procrastination. He could set the ball rolling by offering jobs in the public broadcaster to the most qualified and sell publically owned housing to the highest bidder on the open market.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Ratings and the Lexicographer’s Quandary
Those who compose dictionaries tell us that they just reflect the reality of the language and do not impose it – they are descriptive not normative; they argue that they do not tell us how to use a word, we use it and they record our use. In practice, we know that is not true; when we disagree on the meaning of a word, we rush to the OED or Websters to resolve the question and Scrabble players must decide which is to be the judge before they start.
Ratings agencies have the same equivocal function only the stakes are a mite higher than in Scrabble.
Whenever a country is downgraded, like now, the markets and the country’s authorities go into overdrive to justify their own policies and downplay the move as if the agencies’ opinions were somehow the absolute truth. But it is worthwhile to go back to the source to see what the agencies’ ratings actually claim. This is Standard & Poor’s account of what ratings mean:
Ratings should not be viewed as assurances of credit quality or exact measures of the likelihood of default. Rather, ratings denote a relative level of credit risk that reflects a rating agency’s carefully considered and analytically informed opinion as to the creditworthiness of an issuer or the credit quality of a particular debt issue.
This is the sort of obfuscation worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby or the much more direct Italian “qui lo dico e qui lo nego”. Like the lexicographers, they say that they do not impose a value; theirs is only a considered opinion. Except of course, the markets act and react on changes in ratings. Standard & Poor’s downgrading of most of the euro zone sovereign debt yesterday will certainly have effects on the cost of servicing those countries’ debts after the timid signs of recovery over the last few days. We will see on Monday when the markets reopen.
On Thursday and Friday, the difference between Italian and German bonds stayed below the psychologically sensitive figure of 500 points. Italian three-year bonds sold well and at lower interest rates than before. And Milan seemed to be regaining some of the ground it had lost. The Monti medicine, austerity now and promises of growth, seemed to be working.
Ratings agencies have another quality in common with dictionaries at least when they are being descriptive rather than prescriptive – they reflect changes that have already taken place; S & P gave a warning that they might downgrade Italy and the others early in December. And so they did, without taking into account latest developments. This might just mean that on Monday the markets will stay relatively calm.
S&P’s hammerblow arrived at almost exactly the same time yesterday evening as the huge Italian cruise liner “Costa Concordia” went aground and then keeled over. It would be tempting to use the ship as a metaphor for the Italian economy: grand, immobile, half-sunk, a wrecked fun palace with some casualties (thankfully relatively few) and thousands shivering in the winter night. Even the ship’s name has ironic resonance in a country known for discord.
The disaster is indeed a blow to Italian pride but it is not even a distorted reflection of the reality. S&P’s call for more growth is a valid one (but hardly original). The downgrade will certainly act as a prod to Monti and an instrument he can use to persuade unwilling sectors of the Italian economy to liberalise. It will also push the European authorities to move quickly to introduce real powers of monetary control if they want to save the euro. And it will no doubt accelerate moves to limit the ratings agencies possibilities of publishing sensitive opinions at difficult times. They are, after all, even more guilty of the newspapers proprietors’ aim of “power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages”.
The only meagre consolation for Italians (and particularly Berlusconi supporters) is to see that France and Sarkozy got their comeuppance. In real politics, though, it does mean that European leaders will have to work together with less of a heirarchy. As ever, Corriere’s Giannelli got it right again; Monti visited the pope today and Giannelli has the prime minister saying “Holiness, we need a miracle” and Ratzinger replies “I will pray in German”.
Ratings agencies have the same equivocal function only the stakes are a mite higher than in Scrabble.
Whenever a country is downgraded, like now, the markets and the country’s authorities go into overdrive to justify their own policies and downplay the move as if the agencies’ opinions were somehow the absolute truth. But it is worthwhile to go back to the source to see what the agencies’ ratings actually claim. This is Standard & Poor’s account of what ratings mean:
Ratings should not be viewed as assurances of credit quality or exact measures of the likelihood of default. Rather, ratings denote a relative level of credit risk that reflects a rating agency’s carefully considered and analytically informed opinion as to the creditworthiness of an issuer or the credit quality of a particular debt issue.
This is the sort of obfuscation worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby or the much more direct Italian “qui lo dico e qui lo nego”. Like the lexicographers, they say that they do not impose a value; theirs is only a considered opinion. Except of course, the markets act and react on changes in ratings. Standard & Poor’s downgrading of most of the euro zone sovereign debt yesterday will certainly have effects on the cost of servicing those countries’ debts after the timid signs of recovery over the last few days. We will see on Monday when the markets reopen.
On Thursday and Friday, the difference between Italian and German bonds stayed below the psychologically sensitive figure of 500 points. Italian three-year bonds sold well and at lower interest rates than before. And Milan seemed to be regaining some of the ground it had lost. The Monti medicine, austerity now and promises of growth, seemed to be working.
Ratings agencies have another quality in common with dictionaries at least when they are being descriptive rather than prescriptive – they reflect changes that have already taken place; S & P gave a warning that they might downgrade Italy and the others early in December. And so they did, without taking into account latest developments. This might just mean that on Monday the markets will stay relatively calm.
S&P’s hammerblow arrived at almost exactly the same time yesterday evening as the huge Italian cruise liner “Costa Concordia” went aground and then keeled over. It would be tempting to use the ship as a metaphor for the Italian economy: grand, immobile, half-sunk, a wrecked fun palace with some casualties (thankfully relatively few) and thousands shivering in the winter night. Even the ship’s name has ironic resonance in a country known for discord.
The disaster is indeed a blow to Italian pride but it is not even a distorted reflection of the reality. S&P’s call for more growth is a valid one (but hardly original). The downgrade will certainly act as a prod to Monti and an instrument he can use to persuade unwilling sectors of the Italian economy to liberalise. It will also push the European authorities to move quickly to introduce real powers of monetary control if they want to save the euro. And it will no doubt accelerate moves to limit the ratings agencies possibilities of publishing sensitive opinions at difficult times. They are, after all, even more guilty of the newspapers proprietors’ aim of “power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages”.
The only meagre consolation for Italians (and particularly Berlusconi supporters) is to see that France and Sarkozy got their comeuppance. In real politics, though, it does mean that European leaders will have to work together with less of a heirarchy. As ever, Corriere’s Giannelli got it right again; Monti visited the pope today and Giannelli has the prime minister saying “Holiness, we need a miracle” and Ratzinger replies “I will pray in German”.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Pigs’ Dinners and Rolling Pins – the Constitutional Court Verdict on the Electoral System Referendum
Over the last week there was a crescendo of rumour and counter-rumour on the Constitutional Court’s likely verdict on whether to allow two referendums to change the Italian electoral system. The referendums were to be another moment in process of changing the whole political system. Now the Court has spoken and the answer is No. We will know the precise legal reasoning in a fortnight when they publish the sentence but in the meantime the political consequences are already being faced.
Supporters of the referendum like Antonio Di Pietro have already cried foul accusing the Court of killing Italian democracy and suggesting that the verdict was a favour to President Napolitano. Napolitano responded rapidly and curtly saying that any connection between the Court and the President was “a vulgar insinuation”. The debate on whether and how to change the present law will start now.
Electoral systems are normally less than controversial but the way the Italians elect their Parliament has generated much heat since it was passed in 2005. As the second Berlusconi government moved towards the end of its mandate due in spring 2006, it changed the existing mixed system (three quarters single member constituencies, one quarter fixed party lists) to one which was all fixed party lists and with a premium for the majority party or coalition. It was a thinly veiled attempt to hold onto power and it almost worked.
The old law was nicknamed “Mattarellum” after its proposer, Sergio Mattarella (and mattarello means rolling pin). The new one was dubbed “porcata” or pigs’ mess by its proposer, Roberto Calderoli, giving an idea of how much its own supporters supported it. This was immediately rendered into dog-Latin by Giovanni Sartori as “Porcellum”.
In practice, the Porcellum allows party leaders to decide who will be elected and who will not. Election depends on a candidate’s rank on the list not on any link with electors. As a voter, I have no say in who is elected – I might prefer Party A but not like their candidate X but I cannot vote for candidate Y. When there is a well running party organisation, then the party debates and bickers over the order and the system works tolerably well as in Israel though even there, there are complaints. In Italy where most of the parties have a weak organisation and are heavily dependent on the single leader (not just Berlusconi), the Porcellum means that each deputy is responsible to and dependent on the leader rather than the voters.
Then there is the premium. To give a winning party a premium (a higher proportion of seats than votes polled) is not such a bad idea if all accept the way the premium is given out. It allows the winner to actually govern without having to worry about a single missing deputies. All but the Lib.Dems in Britain accept that 40-45% of the vote will normally give a party 60% of the seats in the Commons – not mathematically fair but legitimated by habit. In Italy there had been half a century of proportional representation and the only attempt to change it, in 1953 was called the “swindle law” or legge truffa. So Italians are less happy about premiums.
Hence the campaign last year to gather half a million signatures to repeal the Porcellum. Instead of the minimum 500,000 Di Pietro and the organisers took 1.2 million, a very strong signal that a lot of Italians were fed up with politicians.
Those signatures were verified by the High Court and then it was up to the Constitutional Court to decide whether the referendums are legitimate. We will know for certain in two weeks but it is likely that they turned down the referendum because of the risk of having a legislative vacuum if the Porcellum was repealed. Ie there would be no law instead of reverting to the old one. They did not accept that the Mattarellum would come back into force.
Politically this is a relief for some and infuriating for others. All parties say that there must be a new law and the Constitutional Court is likely to recommend that the law be changed, but no one agrees on what exactly should replace the Porcellum. And we know that it is always easier to do nothing than to do something, especially when we can’t agree on what something to do.
No one will admit it, but of course a system which gives all power to political leaders and none to candidates and voters is attractive to the leaders, the so-called casta or caste.
We have already some fiery statements from Di Pietro and will have many more. From the other politicians and parties, there are earnest calls for dialogue and everyone will put forward worthy proposals but without the risk of having to fight a referendum campaign next spring, the heat is off. Prime Minister Monti has made it very clear that electoral reform is definitely not on his agenda so that there is even a chance that Italians will once again have a pigs’ dinner once again for their 2013 general election unless popular pressure can persuade the politicians to act quickly.
Supporters of the referendum like Antonio Di Pietro have already cried foul accusing the Court of killing Italian democracy and suggesting that the verdict was a favour to President Napolitano. Napolitano responded rapidly and curtly saying that any connection between the Court and the President was “a vulgar insinuation”. The debate on whether and how to change the present law will start now.
Electoral systems are normally less than controversial but the way the Italians elect their Parliament has generated much heat since it was passed in 2005. As the second Berlusconi government moved towards the end of its mandate due in spring 2006, it changed the existing mixed system (three quarters single member constituencies, one quarter fixed party lists) to one which was all fixed party lists and with a premium for the majority party or coalition. It was a thinly veiled attempt to hold onto power and it almost worked.
The old law was nicknamed “Mattarellum” after its proposer, Sergio Mattarella (and mattarello means rolling pin). The new one was dubbed “porcata” or pigs’ mess by its proposer, Roberto Calderoli, giving an idea of how much its own supporters supported it. This was immediately rendered into dog-Latin by Giovanni Sartori as “Porcellum”.
In practice, the Porcellum allows party leaders to decide who will be elected and who will not. Election depends on a candidate’s rank on the list not on any link with electors. As a voter, I have no say in who is elected – I might prefer Party A but not like their candidate X but I cannot vote for candidate Y. When there is a well running party organisation, then the party debates and bickers over the order and the system works tolerably well as in Israel though even there, there are complaints. In Italy where most of the parties have a weak organisation and are heavily dependent on the single leader (not just Berlusconi), the Porcellum means that each deputy is responsible to and dependent on the leader rather than the voters.
Then there is the premium. To give a winning party a premium (a higher proportion of seats than votes polled) is not such a bad idea if all accept the way the premium is given out. It allows the winner to actually govern without having to worry about a single missing deputies. All but the Lib.Dems in Britain accept that 40-45% of the vote will normally give a party 60% of the seats in the Commons – not mathematically fair but legitimated by habit. In Italy there had been half a century of proportional representation and the only attempt to change it, in 1953 was called the “swindle law” or legge truffa. So Italians are less happy about premiums.
Hence the campaign last year to gather half a million signatures to repeal the Porcellum. Instead of the minimum 500,000 Di Pietro and the organisers took 1.2 million, a very strong signal that a lot of Italians were fed up with politicians.
Those signatures were verified by the High Court and then it was up to the Constitutional Court to decide whether the referendums are legitimate. We will know for certain in two weeks but it is likely that they turned down the referendum because of the risk of having a legislative vacuum if the Porcellum was repealed. Ie there would be no law instead of reverting to the old one. They did not accept that the Mattarellum would come back into force.
Politically this is a relief for some and infuriating for others. All parties say that there must be a new law and the Constitutional Court is likely to recommend that the law be changed, but no one agrees on what exactly should replace the Porcellum. And we know that it is always easier to do nothing than to do something, especially when we can’t agree on what something to do.
No one will admit it, but of course a system which gives all power to political leaders and none to candidates and voters is attractive to the leaders, the so-called casta or caste.
We have already some fiery statements from Di Pietro and will have many more. From the other politicians and parties, there are earnest calls for dialogue and everyone will put forward worthy proposals but without the risk of having to fight a referendum campaign next spring, the heat is off. Prime Minister Monti has made it very clear that electoral reform is definitely not on his agenda so that there is even a chance that Italians will once again have a pigs’ dinner once again for their 2013 general election unless popular pressure can persuade the politicians to act quickly.
Friday, January 06, 2012
“New Italians”. The Paradox of Immigration and Crime in Italy.
Almost four years ago, the centre-right candidate for mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno played the law and order card and implicitly blamed immigrants for crime in Rome after a Romanian murdered an Italian woman. He won the elections but has not reduced violent crime. On Saturday, a young Chinese man, Zhou Zeng, and his 9 month old daughter were murdered apparently by two Italians in Tor Pignattara, an immigrant quarter.
Soon after his victory, he told John Follain of The Sunday Times "In the south of Italy the problem is the mafia. In Rome the problem is immigration: there's a large group of desperate people who survive in dodgy ways."
It is so easy to dump on immigrants and blame them for a host of social problems starting with crime. Populism and xenophobia rarely lose votes, especially on the right. Intuitively, too, the idea of poor immigrants as criminals has an initial ring of plausibility. Often there are numbers published which show the higher proportion of foreigners in prison than locals and sometimes the crime statistics for petty crime do genuinely show a higher level of foreign offenders than their overall presence would warrant. But these figures are equally often misleading – immigrants tend to be male, poor and young, precisely the class where most offenders come from. Many of the foreigners are in gaol precisely because they are foreign and are presumed to be liable to leave the country if granted bail or parole as natives often are.
These are pretty normal explanations for immigrant “crime”. In Italy, though, there is a paradox: in many areas, the foreigners are not only not more delinquent than Italians, or even as delinquent – no, they are actually more law abiding and contribute positively to crime reduction.
The paradox occurred to me at a conference in Denmark a year and a half ago in which we were compared organised crime in the two countries. Apart from the bike gangs which run most of the illicit trade, there are also immigrant gangs who also look after trade like the Danes. A minority in some communities turns to crime.
In Italy since the influx of foreigners, above all over the last decade or so, there are indeed foreign mafias. The regular Ministry of the Interior reports on organised crime have subheadings on “Chinese”, “Maghreb and North Africa”, “Nigeria”, “Russian”, “Romanian”, “Bulgarian”, “South American”, “Turkish” which often work closely with Italian groups.
The paradox is that in areas of organised crime like Sicily, Calabria and Campania, the immigrants are the ones who fight back against the mafia, camorra and ndrangheta usually more forcibly than the general population.
In September 2008, six west Africans (three Ghanaians and three from Togo) were killed in Castelvolturno just north of Naples, an area controlled by one of the most brutal camorra groups, the Casalesi. The first presumption was that if was part of a turf war between the camorra and the Nigerian gangs who have a licence to run drugs and prostitution there but none of the victims had anything to do with any organised crime group. They had been killed as a show of violence to keep immigrant labour in line.
The remarkable reaction was that instead of meekly accepting the camorra’s near monopoly of violence, the immigrant community protested and demonstrated in a way which no locals had ever done. These were people who picked fruit for €30, €40 a day and many lived in desperate conditions paying rent to the same landlords who were exploiting them. They put up with appalling pay and conditions without batting an eyelid but the murder of six of their fellow immigrants was too much. The day after the massacre, the west Africans protested, a protest which ended in a riot and almost became a battle between Italians and Africans. It was a vivid demonstration that poor immigrants were not prepared to put up with the overwhelming presence of the men of violence.
They had become part of the fight against organised crime in Campania and forced the police to increase their presence in Castelvolturno. They were part of the solution increasing legality and reducing violence.
Just over a year later, in January 2010, a group of orange and olive pickers in Rosarno in Calabria demonstrated against conditions and pay. As in Castelvolturno, most of them were west Africans, from Ghana, Senegal, Mali, Burkina, Côte d’Ivoire. The area is controlled by the ndrangheta or Calabrian mafia which has always had a tight rein on the labour market. Shots were fired at the demonstrator; this time no one was killed and the injuries were not serious. Once again, immigrants were revolting against organised crime in a way the local people rarely did.
They were almost all irregular and none wanted to play the hero but together they were not prepared to put up with potentially lethal violence.
After the demonstrations, they were moved to other parts of Italy. Some came here to Rome and bided their time at an empty factory on the Casilina, the SNIA, doing odd jobs, learning Italian (some of our students went to teach there) and jumping through the legal hoops to get a permit to stay. Volunteers from a local anti-racist association provided legal advice. A film was made about them, Andrea Segre’s “Sangue Verde” which was screened last year at the SNIA. There were some murmured complaints but the documentary is an eloquent testimony of their desire to lead normal lives… lives where the law protects them and is not just used to harass them.
Earlier this week, in Caulonia on the other side of Calabria to Rosarno a cooperative looking after work for refugees was bombed. No casualties but the ndrangheta uses little bombs as frighteners and for them, it is much better to have irregular and blackmailable immigrants.
Back in Rome Zhou Zeng’s killers were not mafiosi but they almost certainly were part of a local gang, one of many that are becoming increasingly important in some parts of town, or maybe “just” drug addicts in need of cash.
The reaction from not just the Chinese and other immigrant communities of Tor Pignattara but Romans of all sorts means that immigrants do not just enrich the host community with their culture and their labour, but they also add to a civic society.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Squealing parliamentarians
On the day that the German president, Christian Wulff finds himself under pressure because of an equivocal soft loan of €500,000, Italian parliamentarians are moaning that they are worse off than their European colleagues. The rest of Italy is preparing to pay the reintroduced property tax, to put off retirement and is already paying €10 or €20 more every time they fill their car but the political class cries poverty and refuses to take action… at least not now “we need another committee” they proclaim, from the far right to far left, united in protecting their own privileges. Yesterday an eminent committee reported that parliamentarians’ income was indeed higher than in the rest of Europe… but… The Chamber replied that after tax, their salaries were actually lower. Anyone who dissents is accused of being a “populist” even a “fascist” who does not appreciate that democracy has a price.
And what a price! The risk is that popular resentment really does reach a dangerous level while the Honorable Members debate the difference between “salary”, “travel allowance”, “living allowance” and “contribution for research and secretarial assistance”. If they completely lose touch with the electorate, that would indeed be a disaster for Italian democracy.
But they are moving towards it. First of all, these are people who are responsible to their party bosses and not to their electors – with Italy’s fixed party list system, a parliamentarian’s election depends on where they are on the list which depends on the party, not the electorate. That already puts some distance between “representatives” and the people.
Any survey one takes shows clearly that Italian parliamentarians are better off than any other European legislator. It is only by very selective accounting that they are able to massage some of the numbers down to approximate parity with the French and Germans. All of them (including those who live in Rome) have tax free housing and travel allowances even though they travel free anywhere in Italy (whether on parliamentary business or not). Research and secretarial support is more than €3,600 per month given directly to the parliamentarian who may pocket it all, employ a relation or employ an assistant for much less. With all perks included, an Italian parliamentarian has around €25,000 per month which even after tax is a healthy sum.
Salaries and pensions can also be summed. It is bad enough that someone can be mayor and deputy at the same time (not only an Italian vice) but that they take home two salaries and sets of perks is difficult to persuade the public over in time of recession. Former prime minister, Giuliano Amato has €31,000 gross p.m. between his university and ministerial pensions and there are many like him.
Not only are the legislators generous with themselves, there are lots of them. The Chamber has 630 members, the Senate 315 elected and at the moment seven life senators: 1,000 for a population of 60 million. The US has 535 for 310 million. There has been talk of reducing the number of parliamentarians for decades but once again, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
Italy then has two middle levels of government (most countries just have one), the 20 regions and the 110 provinces; the lower level, over 8,000 comuni and for the big cities, a sub-local level, the circoscrizioni or municipi (Rome has 20). All these have assemblies and executives which are paid either salaries or some expenses. For some regions a councillor can earn well over €10,000 p.m. Again, there has been talk of abolishing the provinces since the regions were introduced in 1970 (when, by the way, there were just over 90 provinces).
If we move on to the appointed officials, the situation would be comic if taxpayers were not paying for the show in the middle of austerity measures. According to Gian Antonio Stella and Sergio Rizzo who started uncovering the waste in their bestselling La Casta, an Italian senate stenographer earns €290,000 p.a., as much as the king of Spain’s allowance (and €50,000 more than President Napolitano’s salary) while a barber is earning €160,000 at the end of his career. I could go on.
Then there is the cost of elections. In 1974, parliament introduced public financing for political parties as a result of a funding scandal. The following decade saw the worst corruption Italy has ever seen and in 1993 a referendum abolished public financing. The following year, the new parties got round the measure by creating a “reimbursement for election expenses”.
That is still the law. On top of the legal expenses are the many instances of corruption – kickbacks or tangenti paid to politicians for their assistance in procuring public contracts. In the old days, it was an envelope (or sometimes a suitcase) of used notes; today it comes in tax-deductable donations to this or that foundation or a transfer from a Swiss bank to one in the Cayman islands but the effect on the exchequer is the same.
All of this is referred to as la politica. At the moment, the resentment is still inchoate and mostly does not distinguish between the various elements, each of which needs a different remedy. For years the majority of Italians tolerated the misbehaviour and legalised theft because they hoped to benefit from it as well. But no longer. If the objects of the resentment do not realise what is happening and quickly, and continue urging their fellow citizens to “eat cake”, they risk ending up like a crowd of downmarket Marie Antoinettes, not guillotined literally but cut out of Italian society.
And what a price! The risk is that popular resentment really does reach a dangerous level while the Honorable Members debate the difference between “salary”, “travel allowance”, “living allowance” and “contribution for research and secretarial assistance”. If they completely lose touch with the electorate, that would indeed be a disaster for Italian democracy.
But they are moving towards it. First of all, these are people who are responsible to their party bosses and not to their electors – with Italy’s fixed party list system, a parliamentarian’s election depends on where they are on the list which depends on the party, not the electorate. That already puts some distance between “representatives” and the people.
Any survey one takes shows clearly that Italian parliamentarians are better off than any other European legislator. It is only by very selective accounting that they are able to massage some of the numbers down to approximate parity with the French and Germans. All of them (including those who live in Rome) have tax free housing and travel allowances even though they travel free anywhere in Italy (whether on parliamentary business or not). Research and secretarial support is more than €3,600 per month given directly to the parliamentarian who may pocket it all, employ a relation or employ an assistant for much less. With all perks included, an Italian parliamentarian has around €25,000 per month which even after tax is a healthy sum.
Salaries and pensions can also be summed. It is bad enough that someone can be mayor and deputy at the same time (not only an Italian vice) but that they take home two salaries and sets of perks is difficult to persuade the public over in time of recession. Former prime minister, Giuliano Amato has €31,000 gross p.m. between his university and ministerial pensions and there are many like him.
Not only are the legislators generous with themselves, there are lots of them. The Chamber has 630 members, the Senate 315 elected and at the moment seven life senators: 1,000 for a population of 60 million. The US has 535 for 310 million. There has been talk of reducing the number of parliamentarians for decades but once again, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
Italy then has two middle levels of government (most countries just have one), the 20 regions and the 110 provinces; the lower level, over 8,000 comuni and for the big cities, a sub-local level, the circoscrizioni or municipi (Rome has 20). All these have assemblies and executives which are paid either salaries or some expenses. For some regions a councillor can earn well over €10,000 p.m. Again, there has been talk of abolishing the provinces since the regions were introduced in 1970 (when, by the way, there were just over 90 provinces).
If we move on to the appointed officials, the situation would be comic if taxpayers were not paying for the show in the middle of austerity measures. According to Gian Antonio Stella and Sergio Rizzo who started uncovering the waste in their bestselling La Casta, an Italian senate stenographer earns €290,000 p.a., as much as the king of Spain’s allowance (and €50,000 more than President Napolitano’s salary) while a barber is earning €160,000 at the end of his career. I could go on.
Then there is the cost of elections. In 1974, parliament introduced public financing for political parties as a result of a funding scandal. The following decade saw the worst corruption Italy has ever seen and in 1993 a referendum abolished public financing. The following year, the new parties got round the measure by creating a “reimbursement for election expenses”.
That is still the law. On top of the legal expenses are the many instances of corruption – kickbacks or tangenti paid to politicians for their assistance in procuring public contracts. In the old days, it was an envelope (or sometimes a suitcase) of used notes; today it comes in tax-deductable donations to this or that foundation or a transfer from a Swiss bank to one in the Cayman islands but the effect on the exchequer is the same.
All of this is referred to as la politica. At the moment, the resentment is still inchoate and mostly does not distinguish between the various elements, each of which needs a different remedy. For years the majority of Italians tolerated the misbehaviour and legalised theft because they hoped to benefit from it as well. But no longer. If the objects of the resentment do not realise what is happening and quickly, and continue urging their fellow citizens to “eat cake”, they risk ending up like a crowd of downmarket Marie Antoinettes, not guillotined literally but cut out of Italian society.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Liberalisation, Free Trade, Kennels and Taxis
After more than a century of quarantining pets, you may now take your cat or dog into Britain by just showing a vaccination certificate. Most reports of this earthshaking piece of news concentrate on the pets; instead, they should point at the free trade element which is far more significant. When we think of controlling lobbies in the UK, most of us would look at the City, the defence industry, the unions (once upon a time). Wrong. It was the Kent kennel owners that managed to prevent the free movement of moggies and mutts for decades with far more staying power. I have no idea how they managed to literally act as gatekeeper and tollbooth to the UK but they did. Now that they have lost the monopoly, it’s a great day for the free market.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that if the UK government can beat Kent kennels, then there is now a chance that the Italian government can take on the Rome taxis and pharmacists across Italy and maybe win. Mrs. Thatcher took on the National Union of Miners and won; Mario Monti took on Microsoft and forced them to relax their software monopoly.
Now he has the really tough nuts to crack; he has promised to introduce a growth and liberalisation package for the Italian economy. In a 3 hour end-of-year press conference, Monti laid out his plans. There will be no special budgets (but he did point out that Berlusconi said the same a year ago and there were five). Over the next few months, he is going to start the much-vaunted liberalisation of the economy – not just taxis and pharmacists but also public services. That way, vested interests like taxidrivers, petrol stations and pharmacists will lose their monopolies and increase competition (paradoxically annoying the right and pleasing the left) and public services will be privatised (annoying the left and giving opportunities to the right). The theory is that Monti will be able to maintain support from both PdL and PD. He has also promised to make it easier to set up a business in Italy.
Overall, Italy does not score well on any of the economic freedom indices. The Heritage Foundation ratings have shown Italy falling over the last few years and is now on the edge of “moderately free” and “mostly unfree”, ranking 87 out 179, a disastrous showing after Berlusconi’s much trumpeted “freedom” for business. Monti would like to genuinely free up the economy.
On the other side, Monti has backtracked on the possibility of changing the 1970 Workers’ Statute in order to make firing easier. There was a threatened confrontation with the unions and even without changing article 18 of the statute (which guarantees that workers unfairly dismissed should be re-hired), there will be tension.
There are not only economic issues. He has promised to address civil law reform, an issue which is actually economic as much as social or justice. Civil cases drag on for years and often a successful plaintiff has wound up the business long before the winning verdict.
Two other issues are high on the agenda but which the government will avoid carefully – electoral reform and citizenship reform. Assuming the Constitutional Court gives the go-ahead within the next month or two, there will be a referendum next year to repeal the present fixed party list system. This means that Parliament will have to concentrate its collective mind if they want to have any say in the matter rather than leaving it to the vote. No one admits to supporting the present porcellum (pig’s dinner or worse) as the law is nicknamed but they do not know what to replace it with.
On the citizenship issue, there is a growing body of opinion in and out of Parliament which reckons that not giving Italian citizenship to children born and brought up here is not only unjust but counterproductive as it alienates useful member of society.
In the meantime, unsurprisingly, economic issues dominate.
The pre-Christmas budget will start to bite with the new property tax to be accompanied by a revision of the land registry which not only underestimates the value of most property but apparently is missing up to 600,000 properties… Also on the tax evasion side, cash payments above €1,000 are no longer legal for private transactions and €500 when dealing with the public administration. This in theory will make more business traceable. Retirement ages have been raised but there are still differentials between men and women and between salaried self-employed workers. The regional tax has been increased and already a fuel excise hike has been applied.
Combine the extra taxes with the recession and it is not surprising that almost a quarter of Italian families are risking poverty according to a recent ISTAT survey. Over the last year, the Milan stock exchange lost a quarter of its value (25.28%) and that followed a 12% drop in 2010.
The private and individual difficulties and suffering combine with the bleak public outlook with the continuing risk of Italy not being able to service its debt leading to a meltdown of the euro. So far Monti has very definitely changed the style of Italian government and introduced a level of international confidence that was not there before but the real test will be over the next 6 to 12 months. There is substance in the country’s economy but it will take very careful guidance and some luck too.
Kent kennel keepers? Rome taxis? Maybe he (and we) really can do it! Happy New Year.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that if the UK government can beat Kent kennels, then there is now a chance that the Italian government can take on the Rome taxis and pharmacists across Italy and maybe win. Mrs. Thatcher took on the National Union of Miners and won; Mario Monti took on Microsoft and forced them to relax their software monopoly.
Now he has the really tough nuts to crack; he has promised to introduce a growth and liberalisation package for the Italian economy. In a 3 hour end-of-year press conference, Monti laid out his plans. There will be no special budgets (but he did point out that Berlusconi said the same a year ago and there were five). Over the next few months, he is going to start the much-vaunted liberalisation of the economy – not just taxis and pharmacists but also public services. That way, vested interests like taxidrivers, petrol stations and pharmacists will lose their monopolies and increase competition (paradoxically annoying the right and pleasing the left) and public services will be privatised (annoying the left and giving opportunities to the right). The theory is that Monti will be able to maintain support from both PdL and PD. He has also promised to make it easier to set up a business in Italy.
Overall, Italy does not score well on any of the economic freedom indices. The Heritage Foundation ratings have shown Italy falling over the last few years and is now on the edge of “moderately free” and “mostly unfree”, ranking 87 out 179, a disastrous showing after Berlusconi’s much trumpeted “freedom” for business. Monti would like to genuinely free up the economy.
On the other side, Monti has backtracked on the possibility of changing the 1970 Workers’ Statute in order to make firing easier. There was a threatened confrontation with the unions and even without changing article 18 of the statute (which guarantees that workers unfairly dismissed should be re-hired), there will be tension.
There are not only economic issues. He has promised to address civil law reform, an issue which is actually economic as much as social or justice. Civil cases drag on for years and often a successful plaintiff has wound up the business long before the winning verdict.
Two other issues are high on the agenda but which the government will avoid carefully – electoral reform and citizenship reform. Assuming the Constitutional Court gives the go-ahead within the next month or two, there will be a referendum next year to repeal the present fixed party list system. This means that Parliament will have to concentrate its collective mind if they want to have any say in the matter rather than leaving it to the vote. No one admits to supporting the present porcellum (pig’s dinner or worse) as the law is nicknamed but they do not know what to replace it with.
On the citizenship issue, there is a growing body of opinion in and out of Parliament which reckons that not giving Italian citizenship to children born and brought up here is not only unjust but counterproductive as it alienates useful member of society.
In the meantime, unsurprisingly, economic issues dominate.
The pre-Christmas budget will start to bite with the new property tax to be accompanied by a revision of the land registry which not only underestimates the value of most property but apparently is missing up to 600,000 properties… Also on the tax evasion side, cash payments above €1,000 are no longer legal for private transactions and €500 when dealing with the public administration. This in theory will make more business traceable. Retirement ages have been raised but there are still differentials between men and women and between salaried self-employed workers. The regional tax has been increased and already a fuel excise hike has been applied.
Combine the extra taxes with the recession and it is not surprising that almost a quarter of Italian families are risking poverty according to a recent ISTAT survey. Over the last year, the Milan stock exchange lost a quarter of its value (25.28%) and that followed a 12% drop in 2010.
The private and individual difficulties and suffering combine with the bleak public outlook with the continuing risk of Italy not being able to service its debt leading to a meltdown of the euro. So far Monti has very definitely changed the style of Italian government and introduced a level of international confidence that was not there before but the real test will be over the next 6 to 12 months. There is substance in the country’s economy but it will take very careful guidance and some luck too.
Kent kennel keepers? Rome taxis? Maybe he (and we) really can do it! Happy New Year.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
“New Italians”, Old Racism and New Violence
Back in July, the Northern League European MP, Mario Borghezio made a clumsy attempt to explain and justify the Norwegian murderer, Anders Breivik’s motives for his killing spree. “Some of his ideas are good, excellent”. He was forced to apologise but ended up claiming that the Norwegian chargé d’affaires had “thanked him” for the apology.
Racism in Italy is nothing like as virulent as it has been in the past in Britain, France and Germany, but it is there and not far below the surface.
Over the last week, it erupted into open violence in two episodes and was prevented in a third. Last Saturday, a group of angry Turinese turned a protest march into a lynch mob when they attacked a Roma camp at Continassa, because a 16 year old girl said she had been raped by two gypsies. As it turned out, the girl had lied but even if it had been true, it would not have justified the Piedmontese pogrom. The attackers arrived with flares and clubs and set fire to the camp.
Then on Monday, a 50 year old Tuscan right wing radical, Gianluca Casseri, killed two Senegalese street vendors in piazza Dalmazia in Florence. He went on to the market piazza S. Lorenzo and shot three others, seriously wounding them; surrounded by the police, he then shot himself. He had a long history of militancy and had written articles for the extreme right wing cultural centre, Casa Pound (which exists in many cities in Italy and tries to present itself as a “moderate”, “concerned” and “non-violent” right, inspired by Ezra Pound).
As a result of the attack, police in Rome arrested Maurizio Boccacci, leader of an extreme right wing group in Rome, Militia, charging him and others of planning attacks on the president of the Jewish community in Rome, Riccardo Pacifici, and some Romanians. Ironically, they were also accused of planning attacks on the mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno and speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, both former right wing militants. Both, though, have made their commitment against racism very clear.
All these episodes are a long way from mass violence against new immigrants or the old “other” (there have been Jews in Rome for longer than there have been Christians) but they show how easy it is to rekindle old hatreds or create new ones. Italy introduced discriminatory laws against Jews in 1938 and had had similar racist legislation before then in the colonies. There was never any violence to match the Nazis or even the colour bar in the US and European colonies (and some home countries too)… but then until the 1990s, there were in practice no people of colour…
The risks for the future are not just from the extremists, including some supporters of the Northern League, part of the government until last month. The real risk is from moderates (real and fake) who make low key racism respectable or increase tension, sometimes without realising. There is Berlusconi who said in 2009 that Milan “looks like an African city because of the number of foreigners”. That was an overtly racist remark but there is a much more subtle and dangerous form of language.
This week there were presentations of research on migration to coincide with International Migrants’ Day today. In one of them, the Transatlantic Trends on Immigration 2011 report was presented. TTI is sponsored by the the German Marshall Fund and the report was presented by the international relations thinktank, the Istituto Affari Internazionali at the Chamber of Deputies. It was all highly respectable, light years away from any racist radical. And yet the presenter, Pierangelo Isernia from the University of Siena, started by talking about “the problem” (others used more neutral terms like “question” or “phenomenon”) of immigration. Orally and in the report, the phrase “illegal immigrant” was used despite recommendations from the ILO internationally and Italian journalists to use “irregular”. Worse, in most of the discussion that followed, there was a constant confusion between “immigrants”, “asylum seekers”, “refugees”, a distinction which is crucial in informing the public perception of migration.
Magistrate and former junior minister of the Interior with responsibility for immigration, Alfredo Mantovano, bundled together the European Commission, the Council of Europe’s Commission for Human Rights, France and Greece as “Europe” which according to him was not helping Italy deal with immigrants. As a man of law and political practitioner, he knows the differences much better than most, and admitted as much afterwards. If someone like that and people much more open to migration do not make these distinctions, then we cannot expect the broader public to do so. It is not pedantry or political correctness – words create assumptions and reinforce perceptions so we must all be careful how we use them.
For today’s celebration of Migrants’ Day, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s message was very clear.
“Migration affects all countries – and so do myths and misperceptions about its impact. There are many false assumptions surrounding migration. One such myth is that migrants are a burden. In reality, migrants make vast contributions to host countries. As workers, they bring skills. As entrepreneurs, they create jobs. As investors, they bring capital. In advanced and emerging economies, they play an indispensible role in agriculture,tourism and domestic work. Migrants often care for the youngest and oldest members of society. People view irregular migration as a crime. Many think migrants who lack proper documents are a danger to society and should be detained, or that all women who migrate to take up low-skilled jobs have been trafficked”.
Yesterday, there were demonstrations in Florence and across the country to show solidarity for the two murdered Senegalese. Thousands marched to show their condemnation of all racist violence. It was an important sign, but as important as the numbers (of Italians and immigrants), and more important than the usual speakers from the centre-left, was the presence of a minister from the previous government, Gianfranco Rotondi, and the Northern League mayor of Verona, Flavio Tosi. Neither is representative of his party, but their example is a start to curb the old racism and prevent a new one growing.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Monti the Knife
That great cartoonist, Vicky (Victor Weisz) got it right more than 50 years ago when he drew the aristocratic Harold Macmillan as the cutthroat Macheath
, Mack the Knife. Mario Monti is as polite and well-mannered as Macmillan and is trying to deal with Italy’s debt in a similarly surgical way.
Yesterday he presented his new budget to the press; today he has taken it to Parliament and tomorrow he’ll start the television round.
The immediate result has been positive with markets going up and the spread between Italian and German bonds going down. If it’s more than a one-day-wonder, there will be hope that next week’s European summit will be able to look at Italy with less trepidation and start working on the European aspects of the crisis.
Monti promised “rigour, fairness and growth”; this budget has the first element but is very weak on the other two. The whole is worth €30 bn, almost three times the figure of €11bn first mooted when he took office a fortnight ago. New taxes make up €17-18 bn and cuts €12-13 bn. A third will go to growth and €20 bn to debt reduction.
Predictably, he has re-introduced the property tax on first houses and will increase their nominal value; luxury items will be hit (bigger boats and cars, planes and helicopters) but Berlusconi proudly claimed a victory as there is to be no wealth tax nor indeed an increase in income tax. There will be a further levy on funds which had been illegally exported and then returned under an amnesty last year. Index-linked pension raises will be stopped or reduced over €1,000 per month and retirement age will be increased to 62 for women and 65 for men. The only reduction in the cost of politicians will be a 10 person limit for provincial assemblies (for the last 30 years all governments have promised they would abolish the provinces altogether, instead another dozen have been created). There are limited tax incentives for businesses.
Monti is wholly dependent on Parliament to pass these measures and both sides have laid down clear vetoes. He obviously thought that the centre-right was more likely to actually use the veto, hence no wealth tax while the unions rather than the centre-left parties will complain about pension reform.
There is nothing dramatic or symbolic in the budget; its most striking features are what is missing. The wealth tax for a start and serious measures to deal with tax evasion (there is an upper limit of €1,000 for cash transactions, supposed to allow great transparency but unlikely to uncover those who do all their business in cash). There was no mention of cutting an order for 131 F35 planes for €15 bn, ordered in 2009. There had already been protests before Monti became prime minister. The thorny issue of la casta, the political class perceived as leaches on the country’s lifeblood, is not addressed. No cuts in parliamentarians’ pensions and privileges, their cars, their phones even their tickets to football matches. No suggestion that Church property used for commercial purposes should pay the property tax (leading to suggestions that the Catholics in the cabinet are a fifth column for the Vatican). Today’s NYT article showed Monti on a television screen dominated by a crucifix on the wall behind, a perhaps not so subtle way of pointing out where power lies. It is true that there is a high proportion of Catholics in the cabinet but often it is the practicing Catholics like De Gasperi or Scalfaro who make the strongest stands against an overbearing Vatican. No one could accuse either of them of not being real Catholics…
Despite the good results on markets, on the home front, there is less jubilation.
The contrast between here and abroad was also evident in how the Labour Minister, Elsa Fornero’s tears at the press conference were covered (she was unable to pronounce the word “sacrifice”. Most Italian commentators thought this showed “a technocrat’s humanity”. But it was devastating for the image of Italy in general and Italian women in particular. A German (female) colleague pointed out the German women have been working to the same age as men for years and both work longer than Italians will when these measures take effect. So what is there to cry about? And Irish journalists asked me, somewhat bemused, “there’s a freeze on index-linked pension increases; where's the drama?” They have been through much worse. A Spanish friend was much more direct “No, Spanish ministers don't weep during press conferences, but they make the electorate weep on a permanent basis”.
There was an interesting contrast between the moment of drama in the Italian press conference and the very low key address to the nation at the same time, by the Irish prime minister, Enda Kenny, also trying to cut spending and increase jobs and who also took over with the job of cleaning up a serious mess. His most telling remark was that next week’s European summit “must not only make tough decisions but implement them”. Touché. He also cut phones and cars for former taoiseachs (PMs). Double touché.
There is another disappointment in Monti’s style rather than substance. Tomorrow, he will go to “Porta a Porta”. This is RAI 1’s flagship talk show run by Bruno Vespa, Italy’s televisual answer to Uriah Heep. He is the man who fawned over Berlusconi and encouraged him to use the progamme as an uncontested soapbox for his views in return for Berlusconi promoting Vespa’s books. Either Monti expects a similarly comfy ride or he calculates that he can rely on the centre and centre-left but has to cover his centre-right flank and is better served there than in some other show. Neither motive is very endearing.
Monti might be imitating Macmillan with the knife but he could better act on that other line of Macheath’s “what is the crime of robbing a bank compared to the crime of founding one?”
Saturday, December 03, 2011
“New Italians”. The Good News and the Bad.
A month ago, I wrote about a project the American University of Rome was working on with the Rome City Council; the first phase came to end this week with a closing ceremony. More importantly, the whole issue of immigrants in Italy and their children has become an important part of the political agenda.
Last week an immigrant boat was wrecked on the coast of Apulia; three died. Most of the immigrants came from the Middle East and further east. They were Kurds, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis and Bengladeshis all seeking streets paved with gold in the European Union. Then a Morroccan woman, resident in northern Italy, was killed by her violent husband when she wanted to leave him and convert. These are two episodes which underline the ongoing difficulties both of immigration and of integration for those who have made the jump.
The good news, though, is that something is moving for the great majority of immigrants and their children. Beyond the predictable difficulties that immigrants face, they have a peculiarly Italian condition. Children born and brought up in Italy of non-Italian parents, are not Italian citizens. They can only become Italian when they reach 18 and then jump through a difficult set of bureaucratic hoops. President Napolitano made his opinion abundantly clear last week when he said that denying citizenship to children born in Italy was “a real folly, an absurdity”.
His remarks were picked up by Andrea Riccardi, the minister for “International Cooperation and Integration”, a new minister and a new ministry which is already a positive sign. He said the President was right and that the present citizenship law based on blood ties (ius sanguinis) should be modified in favour of rights based on territory (ius solis). At the moment an Argentinian or Australian with Italian grandparents can claim citizenship whereas the child of foreigners born here, cannot.
There is solace too from that very opinionated voice, The Economist. It has just run a cover story
, editorial and a briefing article extolling the financial and economic advantages of migration for both host and original communities. They know it and we know it, but it is a point that has to be made again and again to dispel the “emergency” and “invasion” view of immigration.
The invasion image is, of course, part of the bad news. There are neo-Fascist groups in the area around my University on the Janiculum and this poster
was put in front of a nearby lycée (it has since been torn down). The message is clear and explicit and many believe it which is why The Economist articles are so important. When Napolitano said that children born in Italy should be Italian, former ministers Calderoli and Maroni of the Northern League said they were ready to fight at the barricades and La Russa (outgoing Minister of Defence, now in the PdL but once of the neo-Fascist MSI and hardly changed since then) threatened to bring the government down if the new Monti government dared move on the issue. They have tried to muddy the waters by implying that a new law would give citizenship to the child of any irregular immigrant – it wouldn’t.
This is where our ceremony fitted in. It was some sort of antidote to the poison not just spread by neo-Fascists in our part of town but by much more moderate folk in the whole country. We had confirmation of President Napolitano’s commitment to the issue when his Diplomatic Counsellor, Amb. Stefano Stefani replied to our invitation saying: “The Head of State wishes to inform you of his sincere appreciation… of the attention opportunely given to the issue of the new Italians which is so important for the future of Italy and Europe”. Much appreciated by us in turn, to have encouragement from the President.
We gave out the certificates to those who had taken part in last month’s seminars and received some feedback from the participants. One, an AUR student, a Tuareg, Iddar Adingad, pointed out how the seminars had broken down barriers between the immigrant groups and given them a clear idea of who the “other” was. There was a Singalese who explained how the seminars had mitigated his anti-Americanism and shown him that American ways allow migrants to flourish in the States (it it were always that easy… but direct human contact often works). He also told us of an episode where he felt empowered enough to intervene on behalf of some immigrants on a bus (again, if it were always that easy…); but both are a start
.
Then the serious ethnic fraternising began in the University garden with tables laid out with food from the four continents. It was a feel-good moment, and meant to be so and provides a foundation on which to build. There will be other initiatives like this one, ones which include some of the biggest groups of immigrants (there were few north Africans and no Chinese) and at least a few “old” or “ethnic” Italians.
Parallel to lobbying for a change in the citizenship law, there are other “softer” activities which are still very relevant. The Rome Public Libraries have offered prizes for video, photo and literary accounts of the lives of “new” Italians in their Concorso Biblioteche di Roma “Figli di tante patrie”.
And on Monday, the RAI’s Radio 3 will have a whole day of programmes presented by “new Italians” or foreigners resident in Italy to underline their presence and contribution.
We’re moving in the right direction.
A note on words used: even more than most political subjects, the words used to describe and analyse betray a position held. The most obvious conflict of words is over “irregular” and “illegal” immigrants. The ILO tries to persuade journalists and politicians to call them “irregular” but has scant success even with non-xenophobes. Today in Italy, since 2009, it is actually a crime to be an irregular immigrant, so “illegal” is sadly correct though if the courts really had to try and convict them all, there would be chaos.
But the term which I am interested in is what to call the people this blog describes. Often they call themselves “second generation immigrants” while others argue that they have not emigrated from anywhere – they are natives of Italy even if many are not Italian citizens. Hence my use of “new Italians”, itself a loaded word because it presumes there is an “Italo-Italian”; but for the moment it’s the best I can do.
This blog is part of the ongoing project at The American University of Rome in which we are working with immigrant communities on integration and leadership issues for both “old” and “new” Italians. This and future blogs will be headed by the title “New Italians” and Lele Luzzatti’s multicultural she-wolf.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Protocols of the Elders of Brussels
Conspiracy theories are a alive and well in Italy.
Today’s editorial by Marco Travaglio in Il Fatto Quotidiano is headlined “Giù il cappuccio” (Off with the hood) which he repeats in the text. His point is that the new junior ministers in Monti’s government have political pedigrees (and sometimes not very clean ones) behind their “technical” qualifications. Fair enough… but why introduce the innuendo that they are somehow masons.
Travaglio is a liberal who for a decade or more has been the country’s conscience on corruption and malpractice, mostly Berlusconi’s but not only. So why does he stoop to plot theories?
From the moment Monti was given the job of forming a government, there was a swirl of insinuations first around him and then around his cabinet and now, around the junior ministers too.
Mario Monti after all, is an ideal target for conspiracy theories. He is apparently a man of power but ever understated, quiet and confident with a subtle sense of humour. This in a country where power is usually advertised loudly, certainly in Berlusconi’s version but even before that, ministers and cardinals had costumes and cars which showed their status. In the past the only downplayed power in Italy was the mafia, the ultimate conspiracy.
Monti’s power too, is hidden, so the conspiracy logic goes. He comes from an elite university, the Bocconi in Milan both as a student, a teacher, rector and president. A good proportion of his cabinet are also Bocconiani, enhancing the idea of an old boy network; the rest come from other universities or are managers or professionals (an admiral for Defence, a magistrate for Justice, a diplomat for Foreign Affairs). Monti is also a real catholic (in Italy almost everyone is nominally catholic but few practice beyond rites of passage – hatching, matching and dispatching) as are a significant number of the cabinet. Then there is the banking connection; Monti worked as an international advisor to Goldman Sachs and more sinister for the conspiracy theorists, he has been an active member of the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral Commission. Both are very discreet meeting places for people of influence who discuss international politics and economics off the record and as such easily branded as cabals of devious leaders planning world dominance.
His time in Brussels is well known and well documented as is the mutual respect between him and the EU establishment. But for some, that too is evidence of underhand activity.
A few days after Monti’s appointment, a very loquacious and publicity-seeking Freemason, Giole Magaldi, declared that Monti was a mason on a controversial radio chat show La Zanzara. And that an unspecified number of his cabinet were also masons.
It is difficult to judge how many Italians take the “plot” seriously but the beauty of any self-respecting conspiracy is that it’s impossible to disprove a negative so the temptation to think there must be something there is strong. The original “Protocols” were a plagiarised fraud, uncovered 18 years after they were first published in 1903 but that did not stop Hitler using the text as if it were true. Even today, copies are on sale in many countries purporting to be serious evidence of the “Jewish plot”. It is a story which is flexible (and vague) enough to bend into most real history over the last century which is why it is longlasting and devastating as an antisemitic tract.
The Monti protocols are far more banal but to sustain the plot we can see that the banks (or many of them) have indeed been supported by governments from the US to Greece. There are indeed networks running through Monti’s cabinet (it would be surprising and disturbing if none of them knew any of the others). Hardly Dan Brown stuff, though.
Monti and his colleagues have experience and achievements which can be judged on their merit; his presence in both the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral are part of this curriculum and give us an idea of what sort of policies he will put forward and the methods he will use to implement them.
So far the talk has been of anything but radical policies. The most likely are what he has promised, liberal economics tempered by social justice – hardly a plot. Especially if he succeeds.
There are indeed flaws in some of the ministers and junior ministers’ CVs. Some are definitely not neutral, non-political technicians and some apparently have some shadows in their past and potential conflicts of interest in their present. But Travaglio and other serious journalists should concentrate on that and the real policies that the government proposes, not hoods, aprons and plots.
As Monti was putting his government together, a friend wrote to me asking if he was Jewish… if he was, the last piece of the plot theory would have fallen into place. But who knows, maybe going to mass and appointing lots of Catholics to his cabinet is all just a coverup and Brussels really is run by Jewish bankers and masons… who are preparing to take over Italy.
Today’s editorial by Marco Travaglio in Il Fatto Quotidiano is headlined “Giù il cappuccio” (Off with the hood) which he repeats in the text. His point is that the new junior ministers in Monti’s government have political pedigrees (and sometimes not very clean ones) behind their “technical” qualifications. Fair enough… but why introduce the innuendo that they are somehow masons.
Travaglio is a liberal who for a decade or more has been the country’s conscience on corruption and malpractice, mostly Berlusconi’s but not only. So why does he stoop to plot theories?
From the moment Monti was given the job of forming a government, there was a swirl of insinuations first around him and then around his cabinet and now, around the junior ministers too.
Mario Monti after all, is an ideal target for conspiracy theories. He is apparently a man of power but ever understated, quiet and confident with a subtle sense of humour. This in a country where power is usually advertised loudly, certainly in Berlusconi’s version but even before that, ministers and cardinals had costumes and cars which showed their status. In the past the only downplayed power in Italy was the mafia, the ultimate conspiracy.
Monti’s power too, is hidden, so the conspiracy logic goes. He comes from an elite university, the Bocconi in Milan both as a student, a teacher, rector and president. A good proportion of his cabinet are also Bocconiani, enhancing the idea of an old boy network; the rest come from other universities or are managers or professionals (an admiral for Defence, a magistrate for Justice, a diplomat for Foreign Affairs). Monti is also a real catholic (in Italy almost everyone is nominally catholic but few practice beyond rites of passage – hatching, matching and dispatching) as are a significant number of the cabinet. Then there is the banking connection; Monti worked as an international advisor to Goldman Sachs and more sinister for the conspiracy theorists, he has been an active member of the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral Commission. Both are very discreet meeting places for people of influence who discuss international politics and economics off the record and as such easily branded as cabals of devious leaders planning world dominance.
His time in Brussels is well known and well documented as is the mutual respect between him and the EU establishment. But for some, that too is evidence of underhand activity.
A few days after Monti’s appointment, a very loquacious and publicity-seeking Freemason, Giole Magaldi, declared that Monti was a mason on a controversial radio chat show La Zanzara. And that an unspecified number of his cabinet were also masons.
It is difficult to judge how many Italians take the “plot” seriously but the beauty of any self-respecting conspiracy is that it’s impossible to disprove a negative so the temptation to think there must be something there is strong. The original “Protocols” were a plagiarised fraud, uncovered 18 years after they were first published in 1903 but that did not stop Hitler using the text as if it were true. Even today, copies are on sale in many countries purporting to be serious evidence of the “Jewish plot”. It is a story which is flexible (and vague) enough to bend into most real history over the last century which is why it is longlasting and devastating as an antisemitic tract.
The Monti protocols are far more banal but to sustain the plot we can see that the banks (or many of them) have indeed been supported by governments from the US to Greece. There are indeed networks running through Monti’s cabinet (it would be surprising and disturbing if none of them knew any of the others). Hardly Dan Brown stuff, though.
Monti and his colleagues have experience and achievements which can be judged on their merit; his presence in both the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral are part of this curriculum and give us an idea of what sort of policies he will put forward and the methods he will use to implement them.
So far the talk has been of anything but radical policies. The most likely are what he has promised, liberal economics tempered by social justice – hardly a plot. Especially if he succeeds.
There are indeed flaws in some of the ministers and junior ministers’ CVs. Some are definitely not neutral, non-political technicians and some apparently have some shadows in their past and potential conflicts of interest in their present. But Travaglio and other serious journalists should concentrate on that and the real policies that the government proposes, not hoods, aprons and plots.
As Monti was putting his government together, a friend wrote to me asking if he was Jewish… if he was, the last piece of the plot theory would have fallen into place. But who knows, maybe going to mass and appointing lots of Catholics to his cabinet is all just a coverup and Brussels really is run by Jewish bankers and masons… who are preparing to take over Italy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)