Outgoing Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s fall from power marks the end of one of Western democracy most controversial recent chapters. But the story of Berlusconi’s rise and fall was written long ago, during the Renaissance, in Niccolò Machiavelli’s classic work The Prince.
ROME – Italy has always had a weakness for authoritarian figures. Emperors, kings, princes, or despots have held power one after another since the time of the Roman Empire. The last dominant personality, Silvio Berlusconi, deserted by his supporters under the pressure of global financial markets, is out as prime minister. Political fragmentation, age constraints, and emotional exhaustion have induced him to promise that he will not seek office again.
Berlusconi’s fall marks the end of one of Western democracy’s most controversial recent chapters. History will judge Berlusconi’s actions, but Italians remain divided. All agree that he was never primus inter pares. To his devotees, he was like an enlightened monarch, a man who gave up his successful private businesses to help Italy rebuild from the ashes of Italy’s post-war party system, which had collapsed in a vast corruption scandal that had left almost no part of government unsullied. To his opponents, Berlusconi was akin to a despot, albeit democratically elected, who abused his office by pursuing his commercial interests and protecting himself from legal sanction.
Whatever one’s view, the story of Berlusconi’s rise and fall was written long ago, during the Renaissance, in Niccolò Machiavelli’s classic work The Prince. Berlusconi carefully followed all of Machiavelli’s teachings on how to obtain and maintain power – all but one, and that lapse sealed his fate.
According to Machiavelli, a leading citizen is chosen as prince by the favor of his fellow citizens if his authority is perceived as arising from his ability to defend them from the elite (at that time, the nobility). When Berlusconi started his political adventure in 1994, Italians wanted protection from a ruling class that had been revealed to be utterly corrupt. He presented himself as a self-made billionaire, willing to enter politics for the good of the country. His huge wealth was the collateral for his honesty.
But Berlusconi also guaranteed the survival of a political class that had lost its credibility. Many leaders of Italy’s political center were charged with corruption; the left lost its appeal after the collapse of the Soviet Union; and the right never regained trust due to the fascist legacy. Berlusconi appeared to be a savior, because he seemed to stand somewhere beyond these tendencies and their tainted legacies. Politicians needed only to be with or against him, regardless of ideology. His party was based on such a strong cult of personality that even when he was leading the opposition (as he did for half of his 17-year political career), Italian politics remained focused on him.
When he was in power, Berlusconi was a master at maintaining it. According to Machiavelli, a prince is praised for the illusion of keeping his word. Owning the main Italian TV channels and much of the popular press simplified this for Berlusconi, and he sometimes resorted to censorship of the state-owned television channels as well. His media reported half-truths, depicting a country with a sound economy and a good reputation abroad. In fact, languishing economic growth, legal scandals, and the absence of long-term goals were leading Italy toward a precipitous decline.
Machiavelli argues that a prince ought to be well armed to take action against external powers. In Berlusconi’s case, these powers were actually internal but out of his control. His archenemy was the justice system. He faced 16 trials for various offenses alleged to have been committed prior to his political career. The army at his disposal was the strongest a democracy has: the law. He passed several measures to safeguard himself and his entourage against prosecution, arguing all the while that communists were conspiring to bring him down.
Finally came the fall. Machiavelli argues that the prince’s actions should not be constrained by moral considerations – that he pursue his political goals by any means. This is precisely what an ever more weakened Berlusconi tried to do.
In order to secure power in the most turbulent months of his political career, Berlusconi obtained the support of many MPs through patronage, publicly attacked his prosecutors, and tried to water down the emergency budget adopted in July in order to benefit his own companies. Here is where he deviated from Machiavelli’s path.
For Machiavelli, a prince’s ultimate goal should always appear to be the common good, not his self-interest. Berlusconi misunderstood this lesson. He confused the public with the private, and regularly forced the parliament to attend to his personal, business, and legal affairs. At the end of his political adventure, he lost touch with reality, unable to recognize that a depressed economy was causing popular discontent to fester and grow.
Eventually, Berlusconi lost the support even of his loyalists, as his government lost the illusion that it was serving a public mandate. So now an interim government, led by the technocrat Mario Monti, has been given the task not only of restoring the health of Italy’s public finances, but also of revitalizing the legitimacy of its democratic institutions.
If the cyclical view of history that holds sway in Italy is correct, Italians are once more waiting to be ruled by a new dominant personality. But today’s political landscape is so fragmented that no charismatic individual will be able to rise to power anytime soon. Italy’s time of princes, enlightened monarchs, or democratic despots is over – at least for the time being.
Read more from our "Italian Ice" Focal Point.
ROME – Italy has always had a weakness for authoritarian figures. Emperors, kings, princes, or despots have held power one after another since the time of the Roman Empire. The last dominant personality, Silvio Berlusconi, deserted by his supporters under the pressure of global financial markets, is out as prime minister. Political fragmentation, age constraints, and emotional exhaustion have induced him to promise that he will not seek office again.
Berlusconi’s fall marks the end of one of Western democracy’s most controversial recent chapters. History will judge Berlusconi’s actions, but Italians remain divided. All agree that he was never primus inter pares. To his devotees, he was like an enlightened monarch, a man who gave up his successful private businesses to help Italy rebuild from the ashes of Italy’s post-war party system, which had collapsed in a vast corruption scandal that had left almost no part of government unsullied. To his opponents, Berlusconi was akin to a despot, albeit democratically elected, who abused his office by pursuing his commercial interests and protecting himself from legal sanction.
Whatever one’s view, the story of Berlusconi’s rise and fall was written long ago, during the Renaissance, in Niccolò Machiavelli’s classic work The Prince. Berlusconi carefully followed all of Machiavelli’s teachings on how to obtain and maintain power – all but one, and that lapse sealed his fate.
According to Machiavelli, a leading citizen is chosen as prince by the favor of his fellow citizens if his authority is perceived as arising from his ability to defend them from the elite (at that time, the nobility). When Berlusconi started his political adventure in 1994, Italians wanted protection from a ruling class that had been revealed to be utterly corrupt. He presented himself as a self-made billionaire, willing to enter politics for the good of the country. His huge wealth was the collateral for his honesty.
But Berlusconi also guaranteed the survival of a political class that had lost its credibility. Many leaders of Italy’s political center were charged with corruption; the left lost its appeal after the collapse of the Soviet Union; and the right never regained trust due to the fascist legacy. Berlusconi appeared to be a savior, because he seemed to stand somewhere beyond these tendencies and their tainted legacies. Politicians needed only to be with or against him, regardless of ideology. His party was based on such a strong cult of personality that even when he was leading the opposition (as he did for half of his 17-year political career), Italian politics remained focused on him.
When he was in power, Berlusconi was a master at maintaining it. According to Machiavelli, a prince is praised for the illusion of keeping his word. Owning the main Italian TV channels and much of the popular press simplified this for Berlusconi, and he sometimes resorted to censorship of the state-owned television channels as well. His media reported half-truths, depicting a country with a sound economy and a good reputation abroad. In fact, languishing economic growth, legal scandals, and the absence of long-term goals were leading Italy toward a precipitous decline.
BLACK FRIDAY SALE: Subscribe for as little as $34.99
Subscribe now to gain access to insights and analyses from the world’s leading thinkers – starting at just $34.99 for your first year.
Subscribe Now
Machiavelli argues that a prince ought to be well armed to take action against external powers. In Berlusconi’s case, these powers were actually internal but out of his control. His archenemy was the justice system. He faced 16 trials for various offenses alleged to have been committed prior to his political career. The army at his disposal was the strongest a democracy has: the law. He passed several measures to safeguard himself and his entourage against prosecution, arguing all the while that communists were conspiring to bring him down.
Finally came the fall. Machiavelli argues that the prince’s actions should not be constrained by moral considerations – that he pursue his political goals by any means. This is precisely what an ever more weakened Berlusconi tried to do.
In order to secure power in the most turbulent months of his political career, Berlusconi obtained the support of many MPs through patronage, publicly attacked his prosecutors, and tried to water down the emergency budget adopted in July in order to benefit his own companies. Here is where he deviated from Machiavelli’s path.
For Machiavelli, a prince’s ultimate goal should always appear to be the common good, not his self-interest. Berlusconi misunderstood this lesson. He confused the public with the private, and regularly forced the parliament to attend to his personal, business, and legal affairs. At the end of his political adventure, he lost touch with reality, unable to recognize that a depressed economy was causing popular discontent to fester and grow.
Eventually, Berlusconi lost the support even of his loyalists, as his government lost the illusion that it was serving a public mandate. So now an interim government, led by the technocrat Mario Monti, has been given the task not only of restoring the health of Italy’s public finances, but also of revitalizing the legitimacy of its democratic institutions.
If the cyclical view of history that holds sway in Italy is correct, Italians are once more waiting to be ruled by a new dominant personality. But today’s political landscape is so fragmented that no charismatic individual will be able to rise to power anytime soon. Italy’s time of princes, enlightened monarchs, or democratic despots is over – at least for the time being.
Read more from our "Italian Ice" Focal Point.