My dog ate my homework..

.. sounds more credible than the tosh Berlusconi and his cronies have been spouting over the last week. The President is left-wing. The Consitutional Court is left-wing. 72% of the press is left-wing. The gullible foreign press is manipulated by the Italian left-wing press. You get the gist.

What’s worrying though is that although these conspiracies seem silly to most of us, they’ve been repeated so many times that a shift has taken place in Italy. A few years ago, a large majority of people would have said they implicitly trusted the Court, the press and, in particular, the President. Now, even plenty of moderates are thinking to themselves – “maybe there’s some truth in it..?” – and respectable institutions that form the backbone of Italian democracy are losing a part of their credibility in the process. Wonder if this might perhaps turn out to be the most damaging legacy of the Berlusconi years?

Musings from Italy

As regular readers will know from a recent melancholic post, I spent a bit of time in Italy last month, having been away for a year apart from the odd weekend. Although I was rather busy with important things like working on my tan I still did try to soak up a little of how “real” Italians (i.e. not half-Italians who live around and about Europe like me) are feeling about the state of politics in Italy.

Some observations:

1. Lots of people on both sides of the political divide seem to have Berlusconi-fatigue. It happened to everyone left of centre way back in 1994 so conservatives have joined the party a little late, but it finally appears to be happening. I heard people who a few years ago would have defended him actually now saying that he may now have gone too far. Hallelujah. Shame it took some prostitutes rather than the criminal indictments and Mafia connections et al.

2. At the same time, there’s a real sense of inevitability about him. No one has faith in the centre-left doing anything to awake from its self-induced slumber, and everyone in the centre-right PDL owes their success to Berlusconi so no one expects him to be toppled from within.

3. Another uncomfortable truth: lots of people don’t actually know the ins and outs of Berlusconi’s troubles. Can you imagine if one week Gordon Brown’s lawyer had been convicted of taking a bribe from him, the next week he appears at an 18 year old’s birthday party and lies about how he knows her, Sarah then leaves him because “he frequents minors and needs help”, the week after a prostitute reveals that she attended parties at 10 Downing Street and is coming clean because Gordon didn’t help her get a public contract as promised, then releases lewd conversations she had with him? I sense the press might have a field-day. Not so in Italy. Plenty of people don’t even know, seeing as only a few centre-left papers and blogs publish much about it. Scary stuff.

4. The Lega Nord is running riot and although it’s making some people feel uncomfortable, there’s not much of a rumble. The saying often goes: “well at least they’re responding to people’s concerns” i.e. immigration.

5. Which leads nicely onto this point. What are people’s concerns? Certainly not Italy’s plunge down the competitiveness rankings, disastrous debt, economic meltdown and the highest poverty rates seen in 30 years. It’s a mystery, but no one seems to know or care that the country is declining so dramatically – crisis or no crisis – that it’ll be surpassed not only by Spain and Greece, as is the case already, but also by scores of other new EU member-states within a decade. And no one seems to think the government should and could do something about it. It’s mind-boggling. Perhaps it’s down to people’s measly expectations, my next observation.

6. That’s right, people really don’t expect their politicians to get anything right. It’s always been the case but I felt it more this time around. Wonder if it’s actually tactical though? Remember the 2004 US Presidential campaign, when there was talk of the Republican tactic of lowering expectations prior to the Bush-Kerry debates so that Bush would be seen as the victor as long as he did not say or do anything utterly ridiculous (fans of the West Wing might remember a similar storyline prior to the Bartlett-Ritchie debates?!) I wonder if the Italian government adopts a similar ploy i.e. to lower expectations so that when something does not go horribly wrong or someone in the centre-right does something which doesn’t flop terribly, it’s hailed as a success.  Like what? The response to the L’Aquila earthquake was supposedly a success because Berlusconi showed up wearing a hard-hat and patted a few people on the back. The G8 summit was acclaimed as a great success largely because Berlusconi managed to not do anything embarrassing. The government supposedly saved Alitalia, although in actual fact they just split the company in two and left the Italian tax-payer to pay for the one company left with all the debt. And the list goes on.

7. Prize for the most ridiculous thing heard this year? That all of Italy’s problems are down to a bloated public sector riddled with abuses and that the private sector works brilliantly. The Italian economy has not grown for six years because nurses don’t show up to work. Quite. Nothing to do with an archaic system of small businesses getting flattened by the Chinese, a total lack of innovation, or one of the lowest FDI rates in Europe. Course not.

Berlusconi and the escort

What’s wrong with Berlusconi (2)

Most of this is in line with What’s wrong with Berlusconi take 1 (my very first blog post) but priorities have changed a little and I wanted to be a tad more concise (just a tad.) Here goes.

1. He compromises the rule of law

I won’t get into the details (the trials, Mills, Dell’Utri, Previti, Mangano, riling against magistrates, stating that Mani Pulite damaged Italy et. al.) Why is it an issue though? Call me crazy, but I think the rule of law is the cornerstone of a thriving society (don’t most people?) and should be totally sacrosanct. The most ardent Berlusconi supporter will argue that he’s never been convicted. I’d argue that he has been convicted (albeit then later cleared by the statute of limitations or laws rushed through by his government e.g. decriminalising false accounting) and that for a man who is on top of the food chain that is more than enough to call it a day. Why? Italians are suspicious of the law in the best of cases, but having a shady Prime Minister who treats the law with disdain only encourages the worst Italian traits. Beyond it being morally questionable, it’s damaging. It implies that the law is just another obstacle to be overcome and propagates a culture of mistrust, poor business practice, of tax evasion and of dodging responsibility. It says to the Italian shop-keeper and local councillor,  “if he doesn’t, why should I?” And it damages an already ailing business environment which does all it can to discourage investment. In an era of globalisation and global supply chains, this is perilous to say the least (more on this in point 3.)

2. He compromises democracy

Yes, that old chestnut. Again, call me crazy, but I think democracy is another cornerstone of a flourishing society. A few other people (Aristotle for starters) do a far better job of explaining why democracies thrive than I ever could, but who can argue with the tenets of democracy as a means for ensuring a fair and balanced society, equality before the law, a means for personal progress and fulfilling ambition, as well as a mechanism for expressing discontent?

But is democracy really under threat in Italy? Berlusconi’s supporters would say no, and they’d be right in that a semblance of democracy is nowhere near calling it a day in Italy. If we look a little deeper however, that’s where the cracks start appearing. How? First, Berlusconi does not act as if he feels accountable i.e. he does not see the need to respond to concerns and criticisms e.g. note his refusal to speak to members of the press who have criticised him. Second, laws designed to protect him from prosecution would indicate the he has no qualms about using office for personal ends. Third, the conflict of interest inherent in governing while owning TV channels and other news outlets shows scant regard for the separation of individual interests from political power which should be a hallmark of democracy.

As a result, I think Berlusconi’s leadership seems to illustrate that one individual can get ahead with whatever means possible; it promotes the power of the individual over the strength of the collective and its institutions. Similarly, it promotes conflict and strongman tactics over consensus; and politics as a means for personal advancement and protection rather than collective well-being. In short, a mild form of authoritarianism rather than a bustling, fair and open democracy where everyone starts at level pegging. Does it mean Italy will end up like Putin’s Russia? Hardly, but I think it will mean it will take a lot longer for Italians to view democracy, pluralism and accountability as sacred covenants to cherish and protect, as is the case in most other rich democracies.

3. He is not even trying to fix the economy

OK so rule of law and democracy and that sort of bla might seem a bit fluffy to some. Perhaps, if it were the case that Berlusconi’s government was extremely efficient in bringing about the sort of wholesale reform Italy needs. Yet despite two massive mandates, there is still no serious plan in place to liberalise, privatise and cut red tape. The situation is utterly desperate. Even before this year’s crisis, Italy’s economy had been at a virtual standstill for six years. Italy ranks alongside the likes of Ghana in competitiveness, public debt is unmanageable, foreign investment is minimal, innovation is non-existent and a massive brain-drain continues unabated while no Italian university makes the top 150 in to world. However, no serious steps have been taken to reverse any of this; even the centre-left did more to liberalise and reduce debt in two years (2006-08) than Berlusconi had managed in the five previous years and since. And it’s such a wasted opportunity, given the size of his mandate and the fact that his electorate is of the centre-right and thus probably wouldn’t argue if he were to try to make it easier to start a business, promote competitiveness via tax incentives or cut some red tape. He could be Italy’s Thatcher and yet he appears happy to simply stay in power for the sake of power. Perhaps his interests are in his own business and legal status rather than that of the country? Or maybe he just doesn’t have the vision or ability?

4. His role in making Italy nastier

This might seem trite, but it really grates. Italy has traditionally been a friendly place: family and community values, helping thy neighbour, caring for the old and young have always been highly valued. And they remain so, but my sense is that Italy is becoming a nastier place and it’s wholly avoidable. How does Berlusconi fit in? First, by legitimising the Lega Nord by bringing them into his coalition. They should be a fringe party – a party of thugs like the BNP and the Front National – but instead they’re a mainstream party which get to sponsor laws that allow vigilante groups onto the streets and ensure long prison sentences for illegal immigrants. I’m grossly simplifying a complex issue: the Lega Nord hasn’t just thrived because Berlusconi has embraced them; indeed, most of their supporters are disappointed and disavowed lefities. However, fact of the matter remains that Berlusconi brought them into his coalition, and worst, lets them call plenty of shots. Second, he promotes the traditional left vs. right schism that has been inherent in Italy for years. In fact he milks it: his rhetoric is angry and hateful. Opponents, all of whom are grouped as “the left” are openly and viciously attacked at every given opportunity, be it the press, judges or hecklers at a rally. This has helped cement a condition of us vs. them which is reflected all the way down to every dinner table or bar in Italy. Ever seen a Berlusconi supporter and opponent battle it out over a coffee? It’s not a pretty sight.

5. He is dumbing down political debate

The last point leads nicely onto this. I find that Berlusconi is dumbing down political discourse no end by reducing everything to us vs. them. Anyone who criticises him is a leftie. Or a Communist, or jealous, or an idiot. Or even anthropologically different(!) This has been taken to the extreme. Even the foreign press, be it the FT, the Economist or the Times, are supposedly part of a conspiracy to denigrate him. Please! It’s not real politics; it’s populism, or lowest-denominator politics, and it’s not healthy. It simply means that political debate always gets reduced to whether you support Berlusconi or not, rather than being about the topics that really matter.  Big, global, epoch-defining, tough issues are never discussed because everything gets reduced to a popularity contest or an attempt to argue that you’re not a Stalinist if you think the government could do more to encourage liberalisation (note the irony.) It’s smart in a way, as it means he never actually has to discuss anything of substance or answer his critics. The centre-left holds plenty of responsibility here as it too has failed in the last few years to build a grand-scale project, focusing instead on an ‘anyone but Berlusconi’ programme which clearly hasn’t worked.

____________________________________________________________

There are other things I could have included .

• His control of the media. Yes, it’s a disgrace (and embarrassing that Freedom House has Italy in the ‘partly free’ category), but there’s still enough of a free media to allow for heated debate.
• The call-girl furore. Yes, it’s wholly inappropriate, but I don’t really care that much.
• The misogyny? Yes, it’s not good to forward showgirls’ careers and all, but talented women can still get ahead in Berlusconi’s Italy, so it won’t make the top 5.
• He’s a polarising figure? Yes, but so are the others and Italians have always been polarised.
• His role in making Italy a whole lot trashier? Debatable. He’s a symptom rather than a cause, I’d say (although he’s certainly an accelerator.)
• Foreigners who ask “how in the name of God can you keep electing him?!” Sure, it’s annoying and a tad embarrassing, but I’ll live, and it won’t take long for a decent successor – left or right – to have eclipsed his memory.
• The fact that his habit of appointing stooges means Italy is poorly represented at the negotiating table at international level in many key areas? Certainly, but not a top-5 contender given that Italy has always played 2nd fiddle.
• He’s a poor role model? Yes, but in some respects he’s also a good role model (self-made man, ambitious, hard-working) gone astray and who is doing what many Italians have done before, just on a far grander scale. No excuse I hear? Perhaps, but it does mean this falls just outside the top 5.

The Berlusconi supporter checklist…

… is getting shorter! Being in and out of court for 20 years, changing the statute of limitations on crimes he was being prosecuted for, legalising false accounting when being charged for it, associates being convicted of bribery and mafia collusion, the gaffes, the conflicts of interest, and general ineptitude hadn’t made a difference before! A lawyer being convicted for taking a massive bribe from him a month ago? Nope, not a chance. But “consorting with minors”, flying showgirls to his house in official planes, photos of men in a “state of arousal” (the former Czech Prime-Minister no less) and half-naked women lounging about on his estate, and accusations that women were paid to attend his soirees seem to have finally made a dent in the Italian consciousness!

So much so that we can just about check the following off the aforementioned supporter list:

• Catholics who see him as the heir apparent to the Christian-Democrats (who don’t vote for their real heirs because they’re now a minority party.)
• Voters who like him because they think he is an honest, self-made man who speaks his mind, and is thus a little bit more like them than your archetypal politician.

That leaves us with:

• Right-wingers who will vote centre-right no matter what happens because the filthy Commie scourge will surely turn Italy into a pseudo-Stalinist state!
• Right-wingers who strongly support other factions of the centre-right and don’t see any other  option (some of these are the most reasonable people on this list; surely they can’t be happy – wish they’d kick up more a fuss.)
• Obsessive “Berlusconiani” who could witness him knife someone on live TV and still claim the Commies did it. They love Berlusconi because he’s unstatesmanlike, dodgy and a skirt-chaser, and the more trouble he gets into, the happier they’ll be.
• People who watch more than 3 hours of his TV channels daily and thus think he’s Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, your superhero of choice and Don Giovanni rolled into one.
• Tax evaders who know a centre-right government under Berlusconi will turn a blind eye to their activities.
• People in the south who are told who to vote for.

That’s still about 90% of the Berlusconi electorate. Darnit. We haven’t got a hope in hell.

UPDATE: Not so sure about this one… but how about swarms of young Italian women who dream of being showgirls and hope Berlusconi might show up at their birthday party?! The now 18-year-old at the heart of the “minors” scandal said she’d either want to be in politics or be a showgirl on telly. Imagine that. Starry-eyed girls elsewhere in the world dream of being popstars or models, but in Italy, it’s getting your knorks out on telly while sleazy old men patronise you OR being in politics. Politics has been reduced to showbiz. Parties at the PM’s place. Laughs, cash and fancy cars. Unbelievable!

Why is Berlusconi acceptable?

I recently hinted that I would not write about Berlusconi quite so much anymore, but given the week’s events, I couldn’t help myself.

With the incessant run-ins with the law, using office to stave off prosecution, the gaffes, the showgirls, the conflicts of interest, meddling with the press, and convictions of his closest associates for mafia collusion and bribery, some people (outside of Italy especially) might ask themselves how Italians deem him an acceptable Prime-Minister.

Just this week we’ve had the following: the report of the conviction of David Mills, a British lawyer, was published, showing in no uncertain terms that he’d been bribed by Silvio Berlusconi; calls by Berlusconi (for the umpteenth time) to reduce Parliament’s powers and to increase his own; and an attempt to appoint firm supporters to all top posts at the national broadcaster, RAI. Not to mention his stating that no Italian could be guaranteed a fair trial because left-wing extremists run the magistrature. Or telling the head of the Italian Employers’ Federation (a big deal in Italy) who had just implored his government to actually bring about serious reform, that she could be a showgirl..! There’s actually more (the ongoing saga of the 18 year old’s birthday bash, estrangement from his wife over the same 18 year old and selecting showgirls to run for the European elections, as well as continual furious claims that the centre-left press is leading a sickening and immoral campaign against him…) and that’s just this week!

UPDATE: Good article in the FT on Berlusconi.

The question is, why is he acceptable to so many Italian voters, who are otherwise decent, law-abiding citizens? Probably a mishmash of the following:

1. They don’t care

In some cases, it’s about values. Plenty of Italians simply couldn’t care less that he’s shady or that he denigrates parliament, the magistrates, the press and so forth, because broader societal values such as the sacrosanct nature of democracy, the rule of law and freedom of the press simply aren’t as strong in Italy as in other democracies. Individual, family and close-community values are on the other hand much stronger, so in some ways Berlusconi is just doing what’s normal – looking out for his lot – the natural order of things. In this respect he is actually more at risk of losing support because he’s getting divorced and fools around with young girls than anything else.

Could people not care because they think he’s competent, and that this is far more important than any pesky legal trouble or some ill-timed jokes?! Yes, some people think he’s done a great job, and would have done an even better job if only the left had let him(!) In their view, he keeps immigrants off the streets, a couple of education reforms have been deemed decent by some, he got piles of rubbish cleared off the streets of Naples, and he responded somewhat well to the disaster in l’Aquila. There’s a few more. And a lot of promises which people still hope he’ll carry out. You may ask yourself if this is enough given his two massive mandates, but each to his own.

Italians must have amnesia

It’s been a while since my latest Berlusconi rant. Here goes (apologies – am stretching the “personal blog” mantra and presumably alienating readers, but feels good to get things off my chest once in a while. Normal service will resume ASAP.)

Before: Following the corruption trials of 1992-94, Berlusconi says he’ll stand for office so as to bring a new lease of life to Italian politics after the shameful antics of the political classes over many years.

After: Berlusconi says the magistrates who brought corrupt politicians to trial had caused great harm to Italy.

Before: Berlusconi says he was never a paying member of the P2 masonic lodge, which was implicated in all manner of crimes from bribing politicians to murdering political “enemies.”

After: Berlusconi’s membership receipt was found.

Before: Berlusconi goes on TV to sign a “contract” with the Italian people in 2001 claiming that he’d never stand for office again if he failed to honour at least four of five pledges in the contract.

After: He honoured one of five pledges. He never mentions the “contract” and stands again in 2006.

Before: Berlusconi gets around legal issues surrounding his ownership of the comically pro-Berlusconi national daily, Il Giornale, by selling it to his brother. The paper (not to mention his weeklies and TV channels) remain comically pro-Berlusconi.

After: Berlusconi says the centre-left has too much control of left-wing newspapers.

Before: Berlusconi says he won’t discuss his pending divorce in public as it’s a private matter.

After: A few days later he goes on the most watched talk-show in Italy to talk about his divorce.

I’ll update this post when I think of more..

UPDATES:

Before: In 1997, Berlusconi cries when Albanians trying to enter Italy by ship are sent back and says he’ll put them up in his homes (the centre-left was in power.)

After: Sheds no tears when a Libyan ship is turned back in 2009. His government is in the process of passing stringent anti-immigration laws that flout EU human rights laws and the Geneva convention. Says he does not believe in a multi-ethnic Italy. Says walking the streets of Milan is like being in Africa.

Before: Shows up at 18 year old showgirl wannabe’s birthday party and says he knows the family because the girl’s father was Craxi’s chauffeur in the 1980s.

After: Turns out the man wasn’t Craxi’s chaffeur but Berlusconi says he never claimed he was although a string of journalists confirmed that he did.

Before: Says he had not met the wannabe showgirl before her 18th birthday party.

After: Photos from before of her at the Milan football club dinner prop up. In addition, it appears the girl was one of 30 or so young girls who spent a week at Berlusconi’s Sardinian villa around New Year’s 2008. The girl’s mother confirmed this.

Before: A convicted mafioso lives at Berlusconi’s for two years in the 1970s and his closest ally and co-founder of  Forza Italia, Marcello Dell’Utri, is convicted of mafia collusion.

After: Berlusconi says he wants the mantle of the man who defeated the mafia to be his legacy.

Before: Berlusconi cracks down on prostitution, in particular targeting those who pay for their services.

After: A prostitute who is annoyed that Berlusconi did not follow up on his promise to help her obtain building permits records and releases a conversation she had with him where they allude to intimate relations they are about to have. A man in Bari is questioned over providing prostitutes for parties hosted by Berlusconi. A string of women confirm that they were paid to attend parties at Berlusconi’s home.

Berlusconi and the Made in Italy brand

In Italy, before Mani Pulite, there were expensive motorways to nowhere, 20-storey hospitals built in villages, clientelistic practices reminiscent of the Middle Ages, millions (or billions depending on your currency of choice) found in politicians’ offshore accounts, shady deals cut with the Mafia or with odd Masonic lodges (the P2 being the most notorious). However, it was all to some extent done behind closed doors; politicians were in the public eye, but nonetheless fairly discreet. Apart from perhaps Bettino Craxi, Prime Minister a few times back in the 1980s and so preposterously corrupt that it almost seems too far-fetched to be true, they got on with their business of pilfering without too much fuss.

At the same time, Italian brands from Alessi to Armani to Ducati to Gucci to Vespa became world famous. And Italians themselves, according to most, had a keen eye for the aesthetic, they enjoyed the good life. They were laid-back, charismatic, charming, non-conformist and snazzy dressers. In short, cool. And if you were foreign but endorsed the Made in Italy brand with pride, you bought into that too.

And now? Some of it still resonates, but I don’t think Italy is anywhere near as cool as it was a few years ago, and my guess is that the Made in Italy brand is suffering. Now I’ll admit that this is utter conjecture – I have absolutely no way of measuring or proving this – but I’ll go out on a limb and say Silvio Berlusconi bears some responsibility.

The political practices described above still exist. Indeed, Berlusconi was a member of the P2, his right-hand man has been convicted of Mafia collusion, and Bettino Craxi was his political patron. Why, Berlusconi was even convicted of bribing Craxi – billions of lire were paid by Fininvest, Berlusconi’s holding company, into one of Craxi’s Swiss bank accounts – although the case was dismissed because it exceeded the statute of limitations before reaching the court of appeals.

However, whereas politicians in the past had the good sense to stay quiet, Berlusconi can’t. Top this with the gaffes – wake up Silvio, you’re NOT funny – he’s made such a spectacle of himself that frankly I’d dare say that the image that is conjured up when people hear or think Italy is now often not of a snappy dresser in shades, looking too cool for school, but the court-jester himself, who is really anything but cool. In fact, to the foreign eye, he represents the worst Italian stereotypes: sleazy, shady, corny, slimy and utterly untrustworthy. In short, not what you want to buy into when looking to brand yourself as an individualist with style and panache.

One explanation for the many shady politicians in Italy

Moral freefall

A law was passed in the Italian senate today that permits doctors to denounce illegal immigrants to the authorities. It might not pass, as it may be deemed unconstitutional, but so what, the damage is done. There is really no benefit whatsoever to this law, whatever way you look at it. It’s not going to do reduce the number of illegal immigrants in Italy, it’s just going to make them less healthy (and presumably the Italians who come into contact with them).

This is about appearing tough, laying down the law, showing that the administration means business when it says it’ll clean up the streets. But frankly the message to me sounds more like: we’re so intolerant that we’re going to pass a measure that will mean fellow human beings will not seek medical treatment for fear of being deported. Lovely. In fact, it’ll probably make things worse: it’ll put off real reform, while the damage to community relations will surely be far more costly than than the few illegal immigrants who happen to be troublemakers and end up in the surgery of a GP who reports them (and I suspect that there won’t be many). In any case, which illegal immigrant is more likely to be so desperate for medical treatment as to risk it: the 22 year-old purse-snatcher or the mother who is concerned that her baby has caught something life-threatening (probably brought on from living in appalling conditions?)

This really is deplorable. Italy has been in recession for nigh on two years, massive structural reform is required to fix it (although the credit crunch has given politicians a good excuse), infrastructure is in tatters, there’s no Italian university amongst the top 150 in the world, fewer Italian women occupy important positions in business or politics than any other developed country, and so on and so on. And yes, there is no immigration policy. Yet the administration seems hell-bent on populist gestures like this one rather than rolling up its sleeves and getting to work.

I won’t say I’m surprised, although it’s still disappointing. It’s all part of a string of developments under this administration that halts progress that little bit more. There are hiccups in most countries. People can become a bit less tolerant and worse off during times of difficulty, but by and large, social progress has been pretty constant in most places around the world. More people are getting an education, the gap between rich and poor is diminishing, women are breaking through the glass ceiling, minorities are increasingly tolerated, while the rule of law and respect for others’ rights gets stronger.

Not in Italy. The prime minister, with a string of convictions behind him and who spent his previous five years in power trying to get them quashed (it helps when you manage to reduce the statute of limitations on one crime you’ve been convicted of and to de-criminalise another), hardly leads by example. Nor does an administration that has reduced spending on education and R&D or that hires 32 year old showgirls as ministers. But the Lega Nord, who proposed and sponsored this new law, really are the worst of the bunch. A posse of populist, ignorant, narrow-minded, vile little men who try to impose their pathetic bigotry on the rest of the country. And lo and behold, it seems to be working.

Right, rant over: rational and impartial (and relevant) hat comes back on tomorrow.

Wolf in sheep’s clothing award

For 2008, I’m torn between:

1. The openly xenophobic Lega Nord stating that all Roma  living in Italy should be fingerprinted for the well-being of their children.
2. Silvio Berlusconi, who makes no secret of one day wanting to be President, stating that his government should towards the end of its five years in power make it a priority to vastly increase the remit of the President, for the sake of more efficient government.

Berlusconi and understanding NGOs

I work on some issues where the NGOs involved are so seething with rage that I frankly find them a bit frightening. This is in no way belittling them or what they believe in, and I acknowledge that most people who work for NGOs are entirely rational, but what amazes me is that some of them can feel so strongly about their side of the story to think that the other side (polluters etc.) are downright wicked, or that their cause is a moralistic crusade of good versus evil.

Then I read that Silvio Berlusconi said last week that the magistrates behind Mani Pulite, the series of cases in 1992-94 against politicians who were found guilty of such extents of corruption that it makes the mind boggle, had ended 50 years of progress and well-being. Scores of politicians were found with billions of lire in off-shore accounts, instances of gross mafia collusion were uncovered, and yet he rubbishes all of this to support yet another diatribe against the magistrates.

What am I getting at? That the utterly unreserved and all-embracing disdain I feel for Berlusconi must match that of the aforementioned NGO campaigners. This helps me understand their passion and motivation, and will probably make me better at my job i.e. make me a more effective communicator.

The cost of bad service

Some companies invest vast sums in Customer Service. For good reasons too: maintaining customer satisfaction high will -  a) keep people coming back; and b) turn them into your best marketers via positive word-of-mouth (assuming the product/service meets expectations of course).

Nonetheless, the service provided by scores of companies remains really poor. Clearly they’re so short-sighted as to think that the benefit gained from saving on good service will not have far-reaching implications.

I thought about this a few weeks ago when I was in Italy. After having booked my flight on Easyjet, I arranged to rent a car from their partner, Europcar, which I’d pick up in Milan. There was a change of plan: I got a lift instead and so did not need the car (mum was worried about me driving in the fog!) So I called Europcar to cancel my reservation, except they couldn’t, and told me to call Easyjet. They didn’t have the number though, and there’s none to be found on the Easyjet site either, just a contact form. Oh, and small-print stating that I should call Europcar direct if I need to cancel or alter my booking. So in short, there appeared to be no easy way to cancel my reservation. And next time I need to rent a car I’ll probably use Hertz.

Like me, tens of other people probably encounter the same problem every day, but Europcar and/or Easjyet probably think that streamlining their cancellation process is not a worthwhile investment. I understand to some extent: they’re doing well i.e. they have plenty of customers already, and they offer highly competitive prices partly because they keep costs down in other areas, so don’t think it’s worth it. And it’s not as if it’s that measurable. If you could calculate exactly how much it cost them, they might take notice, but working out how many customers switch to Hertz because of what I experienced plus how many others are put off by people like me telling them that the Easyjet-Europcar set-up can not be trusted is impossible.

Another instance I thought of happened on Filicudi (one of the Aeolian islands off Sicily – see previous entry) in 2007. I rented a boat for a day but when I was out at sea, I suddenly got stuck. The engine seemed to work, but the propeller would not turn and the boat was immobile. Luckily, there was a yacht nearby which I managed to attract. The yacht owner then proceeded to feed me, let me use his phone to call the boat-hire company (yes, mobile phone reception at sea – go figure), and take the engine apart and tell me that the propeller should have been changed years ago as the friction had worn it out so much that it could not connect with the bit of the engine that made it turn. Two hours later, the boat-hire people showed up. No apologies – they said it was my fault as I had sailed over a plastic bag (total BS). They changed the propeller and left in a huff. Later on, when back at their shop, they not only tried to charge me the full price of €90 but wanted me to pay €150 for the propeller. I obviously kicked up a fuss but still ended up paying €50 for hiring the boat.

Result? When I next rented a boat I went to their competitor; I went back to Filicudi this year and rented a boat off the same competitor. That’s €180 they lost already. Plus I told at least ten other people that I got ripped off. It’s a small island, so I’m guessing that these ten people will at some point tell ten other people that the company can not be trusted, and so on. I presume that this alone will result in at least five conversations per summer where someone asks: “I want to hire a boat. Where should I go?” and the reply will be “go to Company B as I’ve heard that Company A rips people off.” That’s €450 at least. Sure, these figures are arbitrary, but I’m pretty sure the company missed out on my €180 plus at least these €450 per year because of my experience. And if instead of being so short-sighted as to try to make a fast buck off me, they’d showed up within ten minutes, had apologised profusely, and offered me a boat for free for a day at some point, I’d have gone back at least twice and the conversation regarding companies A and B would have been reversed: “try Company A – I hear they’re really great!”

This was meant to be a short post but has turned into a rant. Moral of the story? Customer service is worthwhile, but some companies don’t bother with it because they’re too short-sighted. However, if it were easier to measure the precise value of it – the power of word-of-mouth (whether positive or negative) is nearly impossible to calculate -  companies would probably invest in it a lot more.

Mangling the English language: does it matter?

I fished out this photo from a holiday to the Aeolian islands a couple of years ago: it’s the English translation of a message to people with limited mobility in case of an emergency.

The English is amazing. Most of it doesn’t mean anything, and the bits that do have some meaning, you need at least 3 goes with before you’re quite sure.

Does it matter? You could argue that not bothering to get a safety notice translated by someone who speaks the language is unprofessional. On the other hand, so what? The message is worthless anyway: if an emergency were to occur, I’m sure people with limited mobility would know to ask for help. And when you’re on your way from Palermo to Filicudi, frankly you couldn’t care less.

Would it matter more if this notice were on the Milan subway? Yes, because in truth, the setting and the circumstances of people likely to see your message affect how it, and in return you, are received. And putting this sort of notice on a Milan subway would reflect very poorly on whoever is responsible.

Relevance? Minimal, but it does in some way show how the complex confluence of message, medium and target actually makes effective communication a lot harder than it seems!

So why did Berlsuconi enter politics then?

I had never heard this before, but Marcello Dell’Utri, one of Berlusconi’s right-hand men (he was co-founder of Forza Italia back in 1993), who has since been sentenced to nine years in prison for Mafia collusion, pending appeal, is on record saying the following:

“Fininvest had debts of 5,000 billion lira. Franco Tatò, who was the managing director of the group, saw no way out. He told Berlusconi that he must declare bankruptcy. Without entering politics, Berlusconi would not have saved his skin. He would have ended up like Angelo Rizzoli who, following the P2 investigation, went to prison and lost his company.”

Marcello Dell’Utri, interviewed by Antonio Galdo, the interview was published in the book “Saranno potenti”? (Spergling & Kupfer, 2003)

I came across this gem in a comment on The Economist website, but must say that I take it with a pinch of salt and would like to look into the source a little more. As I’ve written before, and as countless others would agree, Berlusconi is suspected of having entered politics to protect his business empire. The fact that Dell’Utri is on record actually confirming it just seems unthinkable. Why was he so candid? Why has no one mentioned this before?! When Berlusconi time and time again told the Italian people that he was in it for them, that he would liberate them from the Commie scourge for the good of the country, why did no one from the opposition mention Dell’Utri’s remarks and accuse him of gross hypocrisy or of misleading the Italian people for his own ends etc?

One of three things: 1) the source is not reputable; 2) maybe the quote is too vague and it’d be risky to use it: although he says that politics got Berlusconi out of trouble, Dell’Utri does not actually say that he did anything improper or indeed that he entered politics to save his skin; or 3) the centre-left is toothless and prefered to ignore it. I suspect it’s the latter.

What’s wrong with Berlusconi?

With Silvio Berlusconi’s latest government in power for nearly six months now,  Silvio-bashing seems to have abated a little. Even his arch-nemesis, The Economist, has quietened down, although it did raise a murmur a few weeks ago, when Berlusconi claimed that he had no idea that his government’s proposal to postpone all trials involving white-collar crimes would affect a number of cases in which he is the defendant..! So a summary of a few reasons why he might not be the best man to lead Italy does not quite fit the current news cycle. Nonetheless, I think the issues remain salient, while on a personal note, writing this down helps organise a long stream of thoughts.

The three overriding “themes” I’d narrow these various thoughts down to, although there’s a lot of overlap, would be: 1) Lack of competence (or will) to do what Italy really needs; 2) Legitimisation of damaging practices that have been the norm in Italy; 3) Regression on non-economic matters.

1. Lack of competence (or will)

Italy is the sick man of Europe, no question. GDP growth has hovered just above zero for years, and some say that the country would officially have been in recession had it not been for the centre-left government’s crackdown on tax-evaders in 2007 which brought in some hard-needed cash. Although the current credit crunch might affect some countries more adversely in the short-run, say the UK, Ireland or Spain, because construction booms have come to a sudden halt, or because they are more sensitive to interest-rate fluctuations, in no way do they have the same endemic barriers to economic growth as Italy. In addition, Italy is saddled with the second highest public debt in the rich world, which according to an estimate I heard (sorry, no reference, as I can not remember where), costs each Italian citizen €1,200 per year in interest payments alone.

I’m no economist, but I do know that a country with limited natural resources needs at least some of the following to prosper: to not have public debt of 110% (!); a solid infrastructure; a well-educated workforce; good public and private investment in R&D, especially in science, engineering and technology; and an environment which makes it relatively easy to do “business” efficiently (1. reasonable regulation, reasonable business costs; 2. open, honest, easy-to-deal with, transparent institutions, public bodies etc.) which in turn fosters business confidence and encourages individuals to set up businesses, expand existing businesses, or attracts investment from abroad.

Italy does not fill the bill on any of these fundamentals. War and Peace is a comic strip compared to the volumes it would take to describe all of Italy’s deficiencies, but a few of the most disconcerting problems are: 1) overcrowded universities that are understaffed with underpaid professors who teach antiquated courses; 2) totally negligible investment in R&D; 3) over-regulation, over-regulation, over-regulation, making it prohibitively complex or expensive to get a permit of any sort, start up shop, invest, expand, build, buy a property etc; 4) over-protected sectors resulting in overpriced and inefficient services.

As a result, Italians are poorer, miserable, don’t think it’s going to get better, and hoards of them are leaving the country. Not, as in the past, for any job, but for better jobs i.e. it’s primarily the well-educated who are leaving, exactly the sort of people who are needed to help re-build the country.