It's a terrible thing to say this of a man, or someone who has died, but thank God.
I mean, it might well by the end he was been pretty aged in his mind and was being used or fooled or had lost the plot : his comments about Ukraine were staggering, appalling aberrations you never want to hear from someone with considerable public stature in any country.
To his credit it has to be said that he saved the Italian tax payer a lot of money on funeral costs by undergoing embalmment at his own expense while still alive.
It's a horrible thought, but one that I share. Italy is in a better place to have such a destructive and negative influence removed.
He revealed the flaw of the democratic process in that it relies on people who are inherently honest and not there merely to further their goals of power and influence.
A negative force with significant power and influence can effectively become untouchable by law, since they can corrupt the processes which are used to control such behaviour, and use their media influence to whitewash their image.
We saw time and time again a familiar pattern: Berlusconi convicted of a serious crime, only to be acquitted on appeal, then years-later further charges of witness tampering being brought raising questions of a corrupted appeals process.
But this is not the democratic process!
"choosing" among candidates(as infrequently as every four years) that have already been prescreened by the elites is not democracy.
It's an absurd system, I reject it.
It's not terrible thing to say, he was a horrible person, only God knows how much damage he has done to our country and for how many years we will have to deal with them.
Anywhere in the world, I doubt any real estate business functions with no contact with criminal organizations and local politics - too much money depends on regulations and their executive applications or lack thereof. In early 90's Italy ? Is that even a question ?
Seems like a fairly straightforward misappropriation of party funds at this point, I don't think there's any suggestion she was playing around with taxpayer money
It is an odd consequence of the free speech and contempt of court laws in both countries that we can see inside the US president's house and look at the pile of illegal documents, while, sitting here in Scotland, the charges against Sturgeon remain extremely vague and it's basically illegal to discuss whether there is any substance to them.
UK contempt of court laws prohibit "publications" from influencing any future trial (publications taken to mean any communication addressed to the public - including twitter etc).
Yes, politicians engage in some incredibly corrupt shit. Kids in cages for profit, starting wars based on lies to funnel trillion into banks, selling tens or hundreds of billions in arms to bonesaw-wielding dictator Kings, trading guns for drugs with gangs, etc.
Yes, the mafia and other gangs literally own some politicians. And vice versa, for sure.
BUT! Sturgeon is just about the most milquetoast possible example you could ever have chosen. EVEN IF the allegations against her are true, which is far from proven afaict.
For 100s of millions, I'd rather look at us politicians ("Democrats") that trade stock and receive large paychecks from corporations... In exchange of what exactly?
As a staunch Italian hater of anything Berlusconi, we still have to agree that he was never found guilty of those charges, though--it doesn't mean he was involved, but the judiciary system in Italy had also its own agenda and an obsession with indicting Berlusconi that, tbh, backfired against the court system in a big way.
One of the very few people whom it's not worth shedding tears over. The sheer destruction Berlusconi brought upon his country and democracy at large is unimaginable.
Berlusconi was the pioneer of modern populism, of all of it. Corruption, embezzlement, buying up or otherwise controlling media for manipulating or influencing coverage, being involved in so many scandals that it became completely impossible to track their progress or to discuss/demand consequences... you name it, Berlusconi invented it.
(Presumably) having sex with (close to) underage women and girls and having extramarital affairs in general was just the cherry on the cake (the Bunga Bunga affair).
There's something to be said about modern political and legal systems that these rotten to the core people can gain and maintain power for so many years, in spite of the obvious wrongdoings on every level.
What is the problem here? The law being complicit? Extremely effective charisma and propaganda?
Politics is full of these characters, and it seems that the more awful they are, the higher up the ranks they go. It's like humans are conditioned to celebrate the worst in people, and the pessimistic concern that this will never change is quite powerful.
The answer is quite simple: as rotten as the likes of Berlusconi and Trump may be, the folks on the opposite side (e.g. Hillary) are simply just as rotten and despicable.
As a voter you are then left with a choice of rotten or rotten ... their despicability sort of cancels out, and your choice then hinges on their secondary characteristics such as : are they right or left leaning.
Right, but there's a long road for getting to be President. These people need to be elected for lower ranked positions, or in the case of celebrities, spend years in the public eye. There's seemingly no wrong a person can do that money and charisma can't be used to gain influence and power. And at some point it becomes a reinforcing loop that eventually leads them to rule over countries.
I'd like to understand why this is such a foolproof road for many politicians. It must be ingrained in us as a species. This comedy sketch comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3zNLfmDm-0 (warning: crude humor)
How can you ever trust judicial system when even the top people got their position from the rotten people... Why would any of them bite the hand that got them their position and possibly in future a higher position. Everyone is corrupted and rotten.
To be fair many of those he surrounded with, including his second in command Dell'Utri, did end up in jail with extremely serious convictions like Mafia conspiracy and corruption of Judges. But he personally managed to change enough laws, delay trials, and keep enough plausible deniability to avoid the charges to stick.
I think it's more subtle than that: there's an already highly inefficient system in place and then delaying or swaying procedures becomes easier and less traceable. This is where cronyism flourishes; but it's far from a hierarchical direct favour relationship and more akin to a network or web.
For those who did not grow up like me in Berlusconi's Italy, he was an interesting character and in many ways a precursor of today's politics. When Trump came to rise, I felt many aspects were similar: both very rich entrepreneurs, arrogant personalities, a tendency to go against well established rules, personal attacks on opponents, an admiration for strongmen (Berlusconi had a clear crush on Putin), tax creativity, laws purposefully written for himself and his friends, and of course exploiting partisan news outlets. Berlusconi's career took a turn when he developed Mediaset to be a large TV company that could compete with national public TV, and still does, while offering a load of trash to the public. He was many times under investigation, sometimes convicted without ever going to jail, and many times exploiting the statute of limitations to avoid conviction by dragging the trial along for years.
His party was essentially founded upon him and his personality, and is currently one of the parties in the government coalition, with a relatively minor share, I expect voted by older people nostalgic of his era. We will not miss him -- but in hindsight we have seen even worse characters in the last 10 years.
> When Trump came to rise, I felt many aspects were similar: both very rich entrepreneurs, arrogant personalities ....
And you forgot the knee-jerk reactions from the left, which reduced itself to a role of a spectator with the index finger raised and perpetually shouting "no, you can't do that"- applied to just anything he said or did [1]. I have seen the same with Trump. Some part of the population (including me) can't really stand the perpetually scandalised, self-appointed guardians of good manners, and will become disgusted by both sides equally.
1) for example, once he dared to say "it would be better to consult a second doctor before undergoing a risky or debilitating surgical procedure"- that apparently was a scandal, too.
> And you forgot the knee-jerk reactions from the left, [...] Some part of the population (including me) can't really stand the perpetually scandalised, self-appointed guardians of good manners,
This had me nodding along.
> and will become disgusted by both sides equally.
This is the part that makes you, or perhaps just that part of you, a bad person.
You are equating somebody who actually abused power and brought the world closer to an authoritarian strongman dystopia to people who, by your own description, are mostly ineffective and don't actually do anything.
(I can sometimes feel a knee jerk reaction that feels a bit like what you're describing, but I would never be proud of it, and I think it's important to be clear on that point.)
> You are equating somebody who actually abused power and brought the world closer to an authoritarian strongman dystopia to people who, by your own description, are mostly ineffective and don't actually do anything.
I didn't say that they were ineffective: they were actually eroding the trust on their side by exaggerating and misinterpreting as much as they could, mixing up good and bad reasons; also, I feel that there is a germ of authoritarianism in people who are constantly complaining of others violating rules, including the unwritten ones and the plainly made up ones.
As for the other side, from one hand I think that Berlusconi was not as bad or dangerous as Trump (aside from completely different relevance for the world); otoh, I have seen enough demonization in Italy during the Berlusconi years to understand that at least some of what Trump was accused of had to be an exaggeration.
He had been prescribed some major surgery, but got a second opinion and found out it wasn't necessary and/ or it had been prescribed in error. He was sharing his experience and providing some sort of general advice.
Politicians from the left criticised him for giving an advice ("get an opinion from a second doctor") that they deemed a privilege unaffordable for poor people.
This seems like typical victim of populists marketing. No meter what populists have done, trying to shift the focus with "everybody is against me" and some people will eat it.
I think these are directly related to their age bracket and the demographics which they were representing. Italy just happened to be a lot more aged than america. We should be talking about the demographic page-turning that will happen in this decade
Been happening a lot longer than a decade. One of the reasons for the GOP's aggressive actions in things like redistricting ("gerrymandering") has been in an attempt to hold back the coming demographic crash.
Another huge similarity with Trump was Berlusconi's theatrics. He would often make boisterous, ridiculous statements in order to attract outrage. Very effective at distracting people from his actions.
What many people outside of Italy don't understand is how crazy the left side of politics in Italy was (and still is).
Italy had a looong period (that arguably hasn't ended yet) in which there were no good choices to vote for: either corrupt Berlusconi or Communists (who were also corrupt).
Meloni has so far been a pleasant surprise. I didn't have any positive expectations when she became PM but she seems to be doing ok.
This government like any other has failed to address the big themes and is concentrating on stupid, more media-friendly stuff. Zero addressing themes of tax evasion, public health, public school, work reform... the list goes on.
> in which there were no good choices to vote for: either corrupt Berlusconi or Communists (who were also corrupt).
That's a pretty bad description of the situation in Italy.
First of all we (I am from Italy, I voted in 1994 when Berlusconi bootstrapped his political career) have a large number of parties.
In 1994 there were at least 20 symbols grouped in 2 main coalitions.
Secondly, the communist were already a thing of the past, they dissolved in 3 different groups in 1992, but communists in Italy have a strong tradition and have been the backbone of our democracy.
Last but not least, the left in Italy is divided in an infinite number of movements and parties, communists were historically the largest one but Italy has a Socialist party that is separated from the Communists.
p.s. corruption of the Communists (as a political party) has never been proved anywhere.
Incidentally, many Socialist refugees that managed not to get jailed during the Mani Pulite purges, ended up in Berlusconi's party. Incidentally Incidentally, Berlusconi was really a man of equal opportunities: he didn't really care about your beliefs, political background, gender or sexual orientation, as long as you could help him get more power, money, or at least keep him out of jail.
> was really a man of equal opportunities: he didn't really care about your beliefs, political background, gender or sexual orientation, as long as you could help him get more power, money
This is the perfect definition of a politician.
And sadly it applies to 99% of them in a "democracy".
> Incidentally, many Socialist refugees that managed not to get jailed during the Mani Pulite purges,
It wasn't really a purge, anyway not so many, just those that were on the Bettino Craxi's side, who was close friend with Berlusconi, who was best man in the second Berlusconi's marriage, a man who's considered the one who ruined the Italian Socialist Party beyond recover.
Proof is the two Craxi's sons: Stefania ended up with the center-right coalition, Bobo with the center left and he's still member of the PSI (Italian Socialist Party)
> Berlusconi was really a man of equal opportunities
That's a bit romantic.
He had a lot of help from corrupted politicians and organized crime.
He simply escaped justice for enough time to make the narrative of the political victim stick.
>> Berlusconi was really a man of equal opportunities
>That's a bit romantic.
To be clear, my description was very much tongue in cheek. The man had no discernable sense of morals. He very brazenly allied to whomever he needed to further his interests. For example he was always very friendly with Putin and I wouldn't be surprised if a Russian exile was always an open option if things went south at home.
> "we do whatever USA tells us to do, against our own interest"
This statement sounds like criticism, not an endorsement of such state of affairs. But I was unable to find a source for it, so context or a citation would be welcome.
We foreigners judge Berlusconi on our own moral framework. But Italy is not like most other countries:
"Italy breathed a sigh of relief today upon learning that the country's highest court of appeal had ruled that influence-peddling is not a crime. The only punishable offense, the judges decided, is overstating one's power to exert influence.
''Essentially, the judges are saying what everybody in Italy believes: It is not a crime, as long as you do it well,'' Franco Ferrarotti, an Italian sociologist said of the Wednesday ruling on ''raccomandazione,'' the Italian custom of seeking and receiving special treatment from people in power, or close to it.
''This is our version of the Protestant ethic,'' Mr. Ferrarotti said. ''When a favor works successfully, it ceases to be a crime and becomes a work of art.''
In 2001, British author and physician Theodore Dalrymple argued that corruption is actually the "one saving grace" of Italian public administration. Dalrymple explained his view that Italy's government was overburdened with an inefficient bureaucracy that slows down any progress but that corruption and bribery to bypass roadblocks allows for some progress to be made.[31]
Dalrymple further maintained that the open display of corruption on the part of government officials causes Italian citizens to view the government as the 'enemy', an attitude that Dalrymple considered sensible and healthy, as compared with the misguided British belief that the state is purely good. This belief, Dalrymple charged, "has completely eroded the proud and sturdy independence of the British population."
>In 2001, British author and physician Theodore Dalrymple argued that corruption is actually the "one saving grace" of Italian public administration. Dalrymple explained his view that Italy's government was overburdened with an inefficient bureaucracy that slows down any progress but that corruption and bribery to bypass roadblocks allows for some progress to be made.[31]
I have a friend who grew up in Italy, he emigrated for university and worked abroad. He came back in his late 30s, bought house. The usual deal when 'coming back'.
He hates the corruption. Its happening at every level of public interaction, starting from local communities, all the way up. He made a decision that after 3 years he is sick and tiered of it and will be moving out of Italy for good.
Corruption is always bad as it propagates and rewards the people who are most of the time most ill-suited for the position of trust they are holding.
Saying corruption is a blessing for over-bureaucratic and inefficient systems is like saying that cutting of a hand that is broken is a good solutions because hospitals overcrowded and underfunded.
As an Italian-American I find comments in this thread very very distasteful.
I am not a Berlusconi fan, and am disgusted by politics in general, but this guy was basically a JFK who got to live till 86 years old.
Corruption and ties with the organized crime? Those were the bread and butter for the Kennedy family, that's how he stole Illinois , how his dad made money with the contraband etc. and yet given that he took the bullet in Dallas and signed off the Apollo program everybody should get on their knees and genuflect and pay respects to the big man.
Airports and roads and everything entitled to the memory of the dude, but hey Berlusconi is an olive oil drinking devil and so we ought to celebrate his death, right?
The American melting-pot is an extraordinary feat but as long as Americans will keep treating other countries who made up the same melting pot with a different set of standards there will always be tensions. It is a melting pot but most people don't like insults to their country of origin and double standards for 2 identical political leaders just because one was born within the limits of the invisible border and has the Bald Eagle on the Passport.
Trump before Trump - Silivio Berlusconi was maybe the first of the modern populists - a political outsider who used celebrity status and media influence to enter the halls of power, and then proceeded to denigrate the establishment at every opportunity. It's a serious matter that this type of personality finds political favour amongst the people, and that our current systems of governance allow for unserious characters of this type to become paramount leader of an entire country.
More of this type to come. Tucker Carlson for President? Jake Paul? Wouldn't bet against either or worse
I could, no joke, see Jake Paul taking a run at it.
Tucker C is too compromised from his emails getting leaked and already has the reputation of being a spineless mouthpiece. He'll need more than (foreign) money to run the cursus honorum enough to get legitimacy, i.e. what happened to Sarah Palin.
In history classes in the US, Mussolini is often cast as a minor sidekick of Hitler, but Hitler was following in Mussolini's footsteps but had much greater military capabilities. If history is an indicator then it is hard to exaggerate how bad a new populist strategy originating from Italy may end up being once it infects other nations.
Famously, Zelensky was a comedian and won an election on a populist ticket. I think also Italy had a left wing comedian type become a party political leader. It's happening, Joe Rogan an in independent ticket
Trump followed the rich tycoon playbook of Berlusconi, I think. He also did work within the framework of existing politics.
Grillo wasn't particularly rich and bootstrapped a new party through his internet reach. Although it is possible that Casaleggio was the real mastermind behind it.
> He also did work within the framework of existing politics.
I mean sorta? He didn't have any particular allegiance to one or the other, and famously ran as a Democrat before. He clearly has nothing but distain for either party and is mostly there out of his own ego, or because foreign intelligence was goading him (one way or the other) to.
It's unbelievable how long the reign of this generation of politicians was and still is today. It will also never be repeated in the future, thankfully.
Actually when you look at previous one or one before that those were quite extreme in many places in Europe. We are talking about decades. I would not be surprised if history repeats itself.
I feel that there are ways of "living life to the maximum" which should be applauded and then there is a way that impacts negatively on other people and society in general.
To quote an opinion article[0], "he faced prosecution more than 30 times on charges including embezzlement, false accounting and bribing a judge. Many cases failed to go to trial, sometimes because Berlusconi changed the law under which he had been charged."
The trouble with having your own personal prostitution harem is that eventually it turns out that some of the girls are (a) under 18 and (b) coerced. Berlusconi was his own Epstein, and that is what ultimately did him in rather than any of the other misconduct.
Only if you define "the maximum" as a 14 year old narcissist boy's fantasies.
He didn't really get to know the joys of adventure or a loving relationship. By all accounts, his life was actually pretty empty, a hole he tried to fill with material objects and anonymous sex.
Everyone has a different definition of living like to the maximum. For one person, it’s having lots of money and your personal harem like Berlusconi. For another, it’s spending time with kids and grandkids. For another, it’s playing video games all day!
One of the last giants, signing the end of an era. While not perfect, like anyone, he marked both Italian and European politics of his singular approach and proverbial ball. Politics now are becoming much more dull and suffering of a lack of vision.
I mean, it might well by the end he was been pretty aged in his mind and was being used or fooled or had lost the plot : his comments about Ukraine were staggering, appalling aberrations you never want to hear from someone with considerable public stature in any country.