Saturday,
April 14, 2007
The
ANNOTICO Report
Well
it looks like somebody finally heard me.
For
years Anti -Italians have charged the frequent change of Italian
Governments created Chaos.
For
years, I have been responding by stating that is was better to have changing
governments frequently to reflect the changes in circumstances, and move a few
portfolios around, than have a government that sticks to it's agenda
regardless, and then after 6 or 12 years there is an absolute pendulum 180
degree swing, and an almost complete change over in key government positions.
That's
Chaos!!!!
David
Horton of the Huffington Post has now become a
believer, and sees now how
Huffington Post -
David Horton
April
12, 2007
When
the Italian government was recently in trouble and looked like losing office,
the media were all over the story in their usual way. It would be 61
governments in 62 years since the war, they pointed out. Isn't this terrible,
those silly Italians, just don't know how to govern themselves, wouldn't know a
stable government if they fell over it.
No
way to run a country. Stable government, stable government,
stable government.
And once upon a
time I used to buy this kind of narrative. The Italians seemed uniquely
incompetent at getting their political act together. All these parties,
representing every part of the political spectrum, and a voting system that
ensured they all got represented in parliament, and often as part of
government, and that allowed for instant elections when coalitions fell apart,
as they did regularly. Hopeless, just hopeless.
But the older I
get the more contrary I get, and when I hear opinionated right wingers carrying
on like this, and asserting that the only attribute of a democracy that is
important is 'stability', my hackles rise, my hypocrisy and self-interest
detector goes into high gear, and I am more likely to believe that the opposite
is true.
I mean, just to take the most obvious test of an opinion - is it
actually true?
So what do the
right wingers really mean by stability being a good thing? Well, even leaving
aside Zimbabwe, they don't mean stability in a general sense, otherwise they
would have been singing the praises of Saddam Hussein instead of invading his
country and making it completely unstable, and would be singing the praises of
Fidel Castro instead of trying to overthrow him and creating instability in
Cuba.
No, what they
really dislike about Italy I think is that all these different parties have a
voice - people concerned about worker's rights, the environment, media control,
justice, foreign affairs (including Iraq), culture, religion, particular
regions, pensioners, all get to elect people to parliament. And, as a result,
all of these interests (and more) get to have an influence. A coalition
government has to take account of these diverse interests and if it tries to
ignore them, or ride roughshod over them, the government will fall. This is
anathema to the interests of corporations. In all western countries the
corporations have worked to ensure that the two major parties, whether
blatantly of the Right or nominally of the Left, will in fact reliably carry
out the wishes of the corporations, will enact policies favorable to them, will
remove regulation that slows down their increase in profit making.
So when the
corporation mouthpieces on radio and tv demand
'stability' in politics, they really mean, ideally, permanent government by the
party of the Right, or failing that, by a party of the 'Left' which can be
relied on to follow exactly the same economic policies. And they will do their
best to ensure that electoral processes (instant runoff, proportional
representation, preferential voting) that enable minor parties to have an
influence in or on governments will not be introduced to countries that don't
have them, and will be removed from countries that do. Minor parties don't do
the bidding of corporations, they represent different groups of citizens, and
they are therefore dangerous.
What corporate
interests demand is first-past-the-post voting and fixed terms of government.
Both of these features in themselves essentially ensure that either the Right
or pseudo Left will rule forever, and that smaller parties not only can never
take part in government, but can never have any effective influence on the
policies of the major parties. As an example, more people wanted a
The most stable
government in
So
60 governments in 60 years? Good for the Italians. With a bit of luck, and a
lot of care, they can aim for a hundred governments in 100 years. Good for the
Italians, and their democracy.
So what do you
want, stable government or democracy?
The
ANNOTICO Reports Can be Viewed and are Fully Archived
at:
Italia
The
ANNOTICO Reports Can be Viewed at
Italia Mia: http://www.ItaliaMia.com
Blogspot: http://annoticoreport.blogspot.com
Annotico
Email: annotico@earthlink.net