Silvio Berlusconi: controversial protagonist of Italian politics

With the death of Silvio Berlusconi ends a stage in the history of the Italian Republic. This phase put an end to the so-called First Republic, ended the traditional parties, gave way to the spectacularization of politics and the success of the personalist parties, and reinforced a direct relationship between leaders and citizens.

A successful businessman first in the real estate sector and later with his television channels, at the beginning of the 1990s, Berlusconi discovered politics and fell in love with it: supposedly, to defend Italy from the risk of a communist electoral success; actually, as a result of a mixture of passion and business interests.

Without a doubt, Berlusconi was – for better or for worse – the personality that left the most evident mark in the last twenty-five or thirty years of Italian history. He founded a new center-right coalition and embodied and inspired a new way of doing politics, halfway between a model of authentic liberalism in Italy and the temptation to embrace the methods of a nascent populism. Berlusconi was also the most divisive and controversial personality in these thirty years of Italian political life.

Unconditionally loved by his supporters and fought against by his opponents, in his years of leadership, Berlusconi undoubtedly contributed to the modernization of the country and its institutions. He modernized the party system, reinstated the post-fascist right National Alliance (National Alliance) in the ruling majority and “institutionalized” the secessionist impulses of the League. Thanks also to the newly established majority electoral system, he effectively introduced alternation in government in Italy after decades of consociational democracy. Lastly, it forced the opposition (with rare exceptions) to define its programs based on a rigid anti-berlusconism that hampered their creativity and vision.

But the political leader found it difficult to coexist with the businessman, leading to an unresolved conflict of interest. This, in turn, provoked a constant challenge to the judiciary, which was perceived as hostile, also carried out through “ad-personam” laws in the name of a supposedly superior “guarantee”. But, above all, Berlusconi managed to marginally carry out the reforms he had promised, necessary to achieve an Italy with less state and more market, to implement a program that would supposedly free the “animal spirits” of Italian capitalism, and to put an economy that had always suffered from too many “fetters and restrictions.”

Despite his promises and his long tenure in government, and despite having a large majority in Parliament, in the end, Berlusconi also had to deal with resistance from powerful lobbies and corporations in such a difficult and complex country. to rule like Italy.

In foreign policy, he was very confident in his ability to establish good personal relationships, taking his relationship-focused approach to the extreme. These were excellent with Vladimir Putin during his early years in the Kremlin (and the reason for the success of the Pratica di Mare summit), but with thorny implications following the Russian aggression on Ukraine; also excellent with George W. Bush, to whom Berlusconi granted Italy’s support at the time of the Iraq war, despite his intimate conviction that that war was a tragic mistake; and equally excellent with Muammar Gaddafi, with whom Berlusconi laid the foundations for a collaboration that was expected to guarantee Italy’s energy supply and control of migratory flows.

Much more complicated, however, were Berlusconi’s relations with some European leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel or French President Nicolas Sarkozy, from whom he was separated by an abyss in terms of training and political culture, and with whom he never came to convergences.

Convinced of Italy’s place in the Atlantic and Western bloc and of its links with the United States, Berlusconi systematically focused on the strategic nature of the transatlantic relationship and on strengthening Italy’s presence in NATO, also against the temptations of “third parties”. force” of other political forces of the majority that supported him in Parliament. With regard to Moscow, Berlusconi set out to maintain, over the years, a relationship of convinced and sincere cooperation, convinced as he was that Russia was an indispensable partner for Italy, not only for energy supply and economic relations, but also as a interlocutor for European security and some global challenges. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine put it in a bind and forced it into an ambiguity that many abroad have considered excessive.

Its relationship with Europe and the EU underwent a notable evolution over the years. Berlusconi went from an initial attitude of mistrust towards a project that seemed too complex and far removed from the real concerns of his constituents to a sincere conviction that the destiny of Italy was and is closely linked to that of Europe. It is no coincidence that, in recent times, Berlusconi has insisted on presenting himself as the guarantor of Italy’s commitment to Europe. His steadfast determination to anchor the party he wanted and founded, Forza Italia, in the European People’s Party family is, after all, a testament to Berlusconi’s confidence in the European project.

Unable to choose a successor after having dropped so many, or perhaps unconvinced of the need to appoint one, Berlusconi leaves an already declining party in a difficult spot. Until now, Forza Italia had been the party of choice for a moderate center-right constituency across the country. Now it remains to be seen if the new leadership will guarantee the solidity of the party marked up to now by the leadership of its founder or if, on the contrary, the other partners of the coalition and perhaps the third pole will take away the voters of the created and founded party by Silvio Berlusconi.

Article translated from English from the website of the International Affair Institute (IAI).