Politicians and
the people they represent don’t tend to agree on a whole lot. This is probably
borne from the deep mistrust in politicians or any symbol of authority which
politicians represent; simply put, people don’t like being told what to do.
Further, everybody is under a delusion that what they think is ‘right’, so when
things don’t go their way, which they often don’t, they get frustrated.
But there is one
thing both politicians and ordinary people can agree on; politics is like a
circus, a farce if you will. In the end, it’s all a show, particularly modern
politics which is so dependent upon style over substance; it does not matter what
‘is’, only what it appears to be. Last year we saw the greatest clown of all,
Silvio Berlusconi, unceremoniously bow out and be replaced by a novel form of
government led under an apolitical and independent Prime Minister. Sixty two
years of Italian democracy wiped out as an unelected technocratic government was
installed. After eight months of a technocratic government, an uncomfortable
revelation has been discovered; Italy’s technocratic government works and is
working better than their democratic government.
Technocrats are
more focussed than politicians. Politics is like a circus, and anyone who knows
the workings of internal party politics can easily attest to that. Party
insiders know all the politicking that takes place, the controversies and
internal disagreements; how difficult it is to get to the top without
alienating everyone. Party politics is so often the ugly side of politics. One
huge advantage faced by technocratic ministers is that they do not have to
serve the interests of a party or have to traverse through the quagmire of
internal party politics. They don’t have to look after the interests of those
who fund the party or the party members; they are not vying for anyone’s
support. It is often said “no one can serve two masters”; technocratic
government only serves one – the country.
Because none of
the cabinet is from a political party, there is no petty ‘red vs blue’ fighting
and they are free from the political bubble. It is a government without any
rivals; it is pure governing. They are not trying to win votes or score points
or embarrass opponents; just pure pragmatism, doing their job. Further, they do
not have to look after constituents so they are more focussed on fixing a
broken country during a never ending economic crisis.
Further, the lack
of politics means that they carry no ‘political baggage’. Scarily enough, it is
being touted in Italian papers that Berlusconi, the great clown, is planning on
making a comeback. Another contender for PM is a comedian, and I’m not
insulting him as he is actually a comedian, Beppe Grillo. What does he know
about politics? What does he know about running a country? Will he bring the
dignity the office requires? It would be like Jimmy Carr being PM in the UK.
That’s the worrying thing about democracy; theoretically anyone can run the
country. An even more worrying thing is people’s tendency to vote for such
characters (Boris Johnson, anyone?).
When one looks at
the portfolios of the technocratic ministers, one sees that it is composed
entirely of independent experts who know what they are doing. A quick
comparison would suffice; their foreign secretary is a diplomat, Giulio Terzi
Sant’Agata, who joined the diplomatic service in 1973, once served as Italy’s
permanent representative to the United Nations, headed Italy’s delegation to
the UN Security Council and was Italy’s ambassador to the US. Basically, this
guy knows his way around foreign affairs. In the UK, we have William Hague. Don’t
get me wrong, he’s an intelligent guy, but his background and education before
politics is business. Then he got into politics, making comments such as that
the EU does not need to focus on constitutional tinkering while the Eurozone
crisis was going on; that is precisely what is needed and what is being done.
His experience in foreign affairs started as shadow foreign secretary in 2005.
Other comparisons
can be made; Italy’s EU secretary is a former EU official and university
professor of European affairs while the UK has a historian who rotated around
various ministerial offices. The Italian minister of defence is a highly
decorated naval officer and former chairman of the NATO military committee
while the UK has Philip Hammond. The last Labour government managed to go
through six secretaries of state for defence in thirteen years; technocracy
needs no rotating door. Further comparisons show similar results. The only
curious appointments are a professor of law as minister for health, and a man
educated in medicine as minister of environmental protection. But under a
technocratic government, unlike under a democratic one, it is more guaranteed
that the heads of departments know what they are doing and are doing it right.
Mario Monti and
Silvio Berlusconi could not be more different. Mr Berlusconi, for those who may
have forgotten, was covered in scandal; hiring prostitutes, holding parties,
having sex with anyone and everyone, inviting fellow politicians over to his
mansion (former Hungarian minister caught naked there), wild misappropriation
of funds, control over the media (imagine if Murdoch was PM), constant allegations
of racism and nothing but sleaze. Italy was the joke of Europe. Yet in just
eight months, Italy is now an integral part of the European project. Monti has
brought dignity and other politicians have nothing but praise for him.
Importantly, Angela Merkel is willing to work with him and his opinion is valued
at European summits. Italy has become a player in Europe again; thanks to
technocracy and being led by people who know what they are doing.
Maybe, just maybe,
Italy is onto something here. Alternatively, given the torrential state of
Italian politics, a technocratic government was right for Italy under the time
and circumstance but those circumstances are unique to Italy. It has only been
twenty years since Italian politics was shook to the core by corruption scandal
and ties to the mafia with the ‘Mani Pulite’, which many say brought an end to
the ‘First Republic’ it was that significant*. And the corruption scandals have
not left Italy under the Second Republic (1992- ). While most of Western Europe
was booming in the 21st Century, Italy’s economy was staying flat
while Berlusconi was busy with his infamous ‘bunga-bunga’ parties. During the
crisis, the cost of borrowing soared and the government did nothing but draw
attention away. Given the ridiculous and unique state of affairs in Italian
politics, some respite via technocracy works for Italy but would not work where
things are a little saner.
Is technocracy the
next step of governance? No. For all the advantage of technocracy and flaws in
democracy, it would take something pretty spectacular for the voters to allow a
government to take away their right to vote. Even though we live under a veil
of ‘democracy’, even the most passive would still fight for the right to vote.
And here’s the problem with technocracy; what if we get a technocratic
government we do not agree with? What if it does not identify the problems that
need fixing, such as inequality or social injustice? What if the priorities are
mistaken? Who decides?
 |
| Il Grande Pagliaccio |
*To get an idea;
take the expenses scandal, times it by ten, throw in more prison sentences and
suicides, link it to organised crime and dissolve the main parties at the time
and you might just understand the scale of what happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment