Elezioni italiane 2013 - The Background

When signor Mario Monti accepted the task of heading up a technical government to tackle Italy's economic crisis, he committed to resigning when the emergency measures were completed and the situation stabilised (BBC, 2012). While it may be a bit early to tell whether Italy's economy has been successfully stabilised, Sig. Monti has kept his word and resigned, meaning that democratic elections are imminent in Italy, with voting taking place on the 24th and 25th of February.

This is serious news for Europe - and affects all; whether they are in the European Union, the Eurozone, or not.

First of all it means that the debate is back on as to how we solve the economic crisis. We have seen conservatives, backing cuts to public spending, sweep European elections since the economic crisis set in. Yet in the past year, social democrats backing more measured responses have found some success: the Democrats retained the US presidency (Cavna, 2012) and the Socialists found success in the French elections (Chrisafis, 2012). Italy presents an interesting marker; will the conservative trend continue, or will the specific rejection of cuts by the French electorate signal a general change in the wind?

The second issue, is how this decision will affect attempts to tackle both Italy's, and Europe's, debt and deficit. Italy's debts are a significant contributor to Europe's ongoing financial troubles. Its debts, as of 2011, were the second highest contributor to the general total of European debt, and were the second highest debts as a percentage of GDP in the EU, at 126% (Rogers & Wearden, 2012; Eurostat, 2012).

Sig. Monti was appointed by President Giorgio Napolitano to arrest control of the situation when the government of former Premier Silvio Berlusconi resigned with the country mired in financial crisis, and Sig. Berlusconi himself facing a number of personal accusations (BBC, 2011). Sig. Monti and his government did manage to get control of the situation - at least to a degree.

Italy's borrowing costs were brought under control, and the laborious process of structural reforms began, aimed at reducing the weight of government spending (Reuben, 2012). However, much was left undone when the passage of a budget was followed by the largest party in the Italian Parliament, Sig. Berlusconi's own 'Il Popolo della Liberta', refusing to give further support (BBC, 2012).

With the economic situation beginning to calm in Italy, the announcement of an election is causing a few concerns (Traynor & Hooper, 2012). And those fears have not been eased by Sig. Berlusconi's announcement that he is running for Premier once more - he has already been accused of being irresponsible for offering tax cuts described as 'dangerous electoral propaganda' (Davies, 2013).

Sig. Monti's most important contribution as Premier has been described as restoring Italy's international credibility (The Economist, 2012) - and now the belief is that an elected government has to be found to take the next step. And whichever candidate the Italian electorate back, they will have a profound impact on the people of Europe.

The election of a credible candidate, with a real and demonstrable plan to resolve Italy's economic woes, will benefit every country that trades with Europe. The stability offered by a solid, clear response will calm the fears of lenders and investors, and provide a much needed boost to market confidence - something that is sorely needed to encourage small businesses and employers to take on or retain staff.

But, and just as important, it is imperative that a credible candidate appears that can recover the confidence of the electorate and offer a response. Not just for Italy, but for Europe and its trading partners, that response has to overcome the symptoms of the economic crisis - high unemployment and struggling welfare systems. The credible candidate needs a plan that ensures the cost of economic recovery is not a human one.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Italy's Mario Monti resigns, as MPs pass budget'; 21 December 2012.

+ Michael Cavna's '"OBAMA WINS" CARTOONS: Artists draw upon the heat of the election'; The Washington Post; 7 November 2012.

+ Angelique Chrisafis' 'François Hollande wins French presidential election'; in The Guardian; 6 May 2012.

+ Simon Rogers & Graeme Wearden's 'Europe government's debts: how much do they owe?'; in The Guardian; 6 February 2012.

+ Eurostat's 'Second quarter of 2012 compared with first quarter of 2012, Euro area government debt up to 90.0% of GDP, EU27 debt up to 84.9%'; 24 October 2012.

+ BBC's 'Italy crisis: Silvio Berlusconi resigns as PM'; 13 November 2011.

+ Anthony Reuben's 'Has Mario Monti done a good job?'; on the BBC; 21 December 2012.

+ John Hooper & Ian Traynor's 'Monti resignation announcement causes fears of renewed euro turbulence'; in The Guardian; 10 December 2012.

+ Lizzy Davies' 'Silvio Berlusconi accused of "dangerous propaganda" over Italy tax cut vow'; in The Guardian; 3 February 2013.

+ The Economist's 'Monti's medicine'; 8 December 2012.

Heroes, Villains and Protectors

Pop culture is filled with heroes. It is bursting with guardians. But are these characters good for us?

Tolkien's Aragorn and Christopher Nolan's Batman - these are protectors - born to privilige and moved to self-sacrificing duty by something akin to noblesse oblige.

In Max Brooks' World War Z, he uses The UK's Queen as an example of this. His character David Allen Forbes compares the Queen, who acts with the required self-sacrificing courage during the Zombie War, to the ancient castles that the British people resurrect for everyday use:

'Their task, their mandate, is to personify all that is great in our national spirit. They must forever be an example to the rest of us, the strongest, and bravest, and absolute best of us. In a sense, it is they who are ruled by us, instead of the other way around, and they must sacrifice everything, everything, to shoulder the weight of this godlike burden. Otherwise what's the flipping point? Just scrap the whole damn tradition, roll out the bloody guillotine, and be done with it altogether. They were viewed very much like castles, I suppose: as crumbling, obsolete relics, with no real modern function other than as tourist attractions. But when the skies darkened and the nation called, both reawoke to the meaning of their existence. One shielded our bodies, the other, our souls.'

The trouble with these kinds of shields is dependence. These singular individuals, like the Dictators who protected Rome during desperate days, helps us to weather hard times... but what then? Harvey Dent, in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, describes Batman's fate as being to 'die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain'.

The problem of one person holding so much power, for so long, is not just the personal corruption of that individual or the immediate (and often lasting) changes to the social order. The most dangerous affect is the one it has on other individuals - dependence, from the most explicit cronyism to the most subtle shirking of personal responsibilities for the consequences of actions, deprives people of an essential and important aspect of their freedom - to make choices rationally, considering the results and accepting the consequences.

Aragorn's ambitions in The Lord of the Rings, to reclaim his rightful throne, and defend a people and a heritage; those ambitions still cannot prevent change. Even the return of the king can only reignite or keep alive the memory of how things were, not restore them. Much like the Rings of Power, used by the Elves to preserve the world as they cherished it, the crowning of Aragorn becomes an attempt to achieve a respite from the advance of time. But when Tolkien was asked what he saw as the future for middle earth, with Aragorn's line restored, he wrote that after Aragorn's time (Tolkien, 'Letters', p. 344) 'the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors -- like Denethor or worse'.

And others have asked the question, Is Batman actually bad for Gotham? His funnelling of resources into hi-tech vigilantism, that might otherwise have been used to stimulate the growth and investment needed to end the poverty that creates so much of Gotham's crime (and allows its more violent parts to flourish), was even pointed out to Bruce Wayne directly in the final part of Nolan's trilogy:

'This city needs Bruce Wayne, your resources, your knowledge. It doesn't need your body, or your life. That time has passed'.

These heroes, these protectors, when they stand up on our behalf, take onto themselves our own responsibility for the world we live in. We are able to shed from ourselves the consequences of our actions, because someone else has shielded us from them - in return for power. And that is a very dangerous bargain to strike. Rational consideration for the real consequences of our actions is an essential tool in building up the skill of critical thinking. When we give it up, we give up the skills essential to maintaining vigilance against precisely those abuses of power endemic to societies that give up responsibility to somebody else.

==========
References:
==========
+ Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises quotes from IMDb.com
+ Max Brooks' 'World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War'; Duckworth, 2007.

+ JRR Tolkien's 'Letters', p.344; quote taken from Michael Martinez's 'Exploring Tolkien's Fourth Age'; merp.com; 7 January 2000.

Covert Actions and Hidden Purposes

There have been some alarming allegations over the past few years about collusion or corruption between separate organisations, in situations were a status quo is threatened. Such concerted efforts make accountability difficult and pose a real threat to legitimate opposition.

For instance there were the allegations, based on information gathered by freedom of information requests, of coordinated action between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and major banks against the peaceful protest movement Occupy (Wolf, 2012). Such coordinated action between organisations that are supposed to represent competitive businesses, along with regulatory or security entities, is a pretty scary proposition.

But it isn't surprising.

Even organisations in direct competition within a given society maintain a shared vested interest in the continuation of that society's status quo. But such actions are unlikely to be popular, prompting covert actions through third parties, aliases and front groups that make it difficult to scrutinize actions, ideas and the consequences of interacting with them.

The Guardian's recent revelations about the Catholic Church's secret use of 'Mussolini's millions' to construct a lucrative property empire certainly fits the bill (Benhamou et al, 2013). The raising of funds by private enterprise for religious or ideological organisations is hardly new, but when done covertly is certainly disconcerting.

So to are the efforts of conservatives in the UK to advocate withdrawal from the EU. On the surface they present 'arcane debates' about identity and sovereignty. Yet once you get beyond the anti-european sentiment and nationalism, there lies a determination to repatriate controls over labour laws - plans that have been described as less than progressive (Syal, 2013). But attempts to weaken protections for workers aught not to be surprising, given that attempts have already been made to eliminate unfair dismissal (Landau & Snowden, 2011) and set-up a shares-for-rights scheme (Hurley, 2012).

Furthermore, the UK's journalism crisis seems at risk of being used as cover for the dangerous pursuit of press regulation (O'Carroll, 2013). The Leveson enquiry, and the resulting report, produced a recommendation that an independent regulator be set up to monitor the press (Sabbagh & O'Carroll, 2012). The very real fear is that such a recommendation might turn into a political attempt to humble the press and an opportunity for politicians to take action against some of their most effective of political opponents.

Time and again, vested interests defend the status quo by acting in concert, acting covertly or acting to achieve certain ends under the guise of others. The methods are there to be uncovered. The aim is the defeat of opposition to the established status quo. The question is, why?

It is easy to cling to the notions of human frailty and selfishness - powerful people, corrupted by power, attempting to prevent the diluting of that power. But is it all that simple?

The British Labour Party has governed Britain at numerous times during the 20th Century and yet always left the establishment intact - even reinforced the centralising of power. Labour leader of the late 1950s Hugh Gaitskell (Bogdanor, 1983) put it:

'We, as middle-class socialists, have got to have a profound humility. Though it's a funny way of putting it, we've got to know that we lead them because they can't do it without us, with our abilities, and yet we must feel humble to working people.'

Simply put, not all those who support the establishment, or various forms of central or controlling authority do so for selfish reasons. Instead, some see that control as the means to enact positive changes. However, as David Marquand (Bogdanor, 1983) points out about Gaitskell's colleague Anthony Crosland:

'Crosland took the traditional structure of the British state for granted, and failed to see that the centralist, elitist logic underlying it was incompatible with his own libertarian and egalitarian values.'

Progressives need not engage in the condescensions and contradictions of defending a status quo purely for the power it offers. When there is so much happening -  when movements like Occupy rally to organise the first responders to crises and draw attention to gross inequalities; when organisations like Kiva organise successful micro-financing projects to tackle world poverty; when journalists working within a free press uncover and expose the crimes of other journalists, politicians and the police - when all of these things are happening, progressives aught to be aware that alternative ways exist to make a difference.

'Legislation will never be able to do as much good for society, as corruption did against it. You can remain a strong government on the seats of Parliaments, but outside its enclosure, you are without any moral authority on the masses.'    - Louis-Joseph Papineau.

==========
References:
==========
+ Naomi Wolf's 'Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy'; in The Guardian; 29 December 2012.

+ Jessica Benhamou, David Leigh & Jean Francois Tanda's 'How the Vatican built a secret property empire using Mussolini's millions'; in The Guardian; 21 January 2013.

+ Rajeev Syal's 'TUC boss: Cameron will seize your EU employment rights to weaken them'; in The Guardian; 28 January 2013.

+ Philip Landau & Graham Snowdon's 'Employment law: what the changes could mean in the workplace'; in The Guardian; 23 November 2011.

+ James Hurley's 'George Osborne’s shares for rights scheme "helps no one"'; in The Telegraph; 15 October 2012.

+ Lisa O'Carroll's 'Hacked Off in row with government over regulation document'; in The Guardian; 16 January 2013.

+ Dan Sabbagh & Lisa O'Carroll's 'Leveson report calls for new press law'; in The Guardian; 29 November 2012.

+ Vernon Bogdanor's 'Multi-party politics and the Constitution'; Cambridge University Press, 1983.