Political scientists often refer
to populism as a ‘thin ideology’, meaning an ideology characterized by a
limited set of core beliefs – in this case, that politics is a struggle between
a ‘pure people’ and a ‘corrupt elite’ – that can be adapted to various social
and political contexts. From this, two things follow. First, it is not possible
to be a populist, and be on the left. This assertion may place me in a minority
of one, but so be it. It is true that the core idea of populism is ‘thin’
because it can be filled with different policy proposals depending on the
specific circumstances or the goals of the political actors involved. But this
does not mean that it can be filled with any
proposals, and in particular, it is incompatible with the left’s core
commitment to equality (Bobbio, 1994). This is because a commitment to equality
implies a commitment to diversity and to internationalism. Populism is
intrinsically hostile to diversity, not least because ‘the people’ is, by
definition, a singular entity; and it is likewise hostile to internationalism
because the notion of ‘a people’ implies a political community, and such
communities, with their distinctions between members and those excluded from
membership, are organised by nation states. Second, the adaptability of
populism, and its ability to resonate across different cultural and political
landscapes, draws attention to the fact that the populism of political leaders
of the late twentieth/early twenty-first century is hardly original, but draws
heavily on traditions handed down from the past. Nowhere is this truer than in
the case of Silvio Berlusconi.
Berlusconi
was the leader of a personal party, Forza Italia, and the pioneer of a new
style of personalised political campaigning at which he was particularly adept.
Personalisation and populism almost invariably go together because if ‘the
people’ implies a single, undifferentiated entity, then the populist leader too
is ‘of the people’ and as leader s/he is by definition its most authoritative
representative. Berlusconi was masterful in establishing his credentials as
most authentic ‘man of the people’. In 1994, while his left-wing opponents
asked him to defend his economic programme against charges that it
would damage ordinary workers, he asked them how many Intercontinental Cups
they had won – so inverting the class connotations of the exchange by making
his opponents seem like arid university professors, he, the billionaire, like a
winner whom the average worker and football supporter could understand and
admire (Newell, 2019: 64; Stille, 2010: 190-1).
However, personalisation was a style of campaigning that
Berlusconi had learned from his mentor, Bettino Craxi, and which Craxi in his
turn had learned – ultimately – from Benito Mussolini, with whom newspaper
cartoonists often compared him. For Mussolini had understood better than his
contemporaries the potential of personalisation for the manipulation and
control of large populations in the era of the mass franchise and the mass
society that was being ushered in in the initial decades of the twentieth century.
Il caimano is a 2006 film by Nanni
Morretti focussing on the vicissitudes of Berlusconi. The caiman, a type of
crocodilian, is known for its cunning and agility in hunting, and so not
surprisingly, the term is also used figuratively, to refer someone who uses sly
and underhand means to manipulate situations to their own advantage: to someone
who is without principles, an opportunist. Opportunism is a second feature that
almost invariably goes together with populism since populist leaders seek, not
to lead the people by reference to their own convictions, but – precisely in
order to maintain credibility as the people’s most authentic voice – to
dominate the people by focussing exclusively on whatever needs to be done to
achieve that end. The term seemed appropriate in Berlusconi’s case. One of his
most striking personal characteristics according to the journalist Alexander
Stille (2010: 25) was his ‘ability to convey an idea of total conviction and
sincerity even when saying things that seem[ed] to be totally unrelated to
objective reality’. Famously, he promised a ‘liberal revolution’ in Italian
politics and society – but then stood in the front line of defence of taxi
drivers and other vested interests against the liberalising reforms of the
Prodi government from 2006. His party had no image separate from that of
Berlusconi himself, certainly none that could be described by reference to any
political principles, and he had joined the political fray in the first place
exclusively to safeguard his business interests. Again, his behaviour reflected
long-standing traditions. The portmanteau, ‘qualunquismo’, meaning an
indifference to political principles, had been bequeathed to the Italian
language by the populist, Gugliellmo Giannini. He in his turn had learned from
the inventor of Italian populism, Benito Mussolini, who once said:
Programmes are waste paper. We should leave them to the
socialists, and their interminable theoretical discussions. I’ve no idea what
to do with principles and programmes; indeed, I need to get shot of them,
because I need to be able to immerse myself in the moods of the people (quoted
by Scurati, 2023: 70).
Finally, Berlusconi was famous for his impatience with the checks
and balances of constitutional government, most notably, the idea that he as
Prime Minister might be called to respond, by the judiciary, to allegations of
illegality in his business dealings. Yet again, such an attitude almost
invariably goes together with populism since anything that obstructs the will
of the people and therefore its authentic leader originates outside the people
and is thus the enemy of the people. Berlusconi’s conviction that elections
served the plebiscitarian purpose of the investiture of leaders with the power
to issue orders, were reflected in his 2006 constitutional reform project with
its ‘anti-ribaltone’ provisions preventing changes of governing majority during
the course of a single legislature. His impatience with parliamentary
government reflected the view of Mussolini for whom Parliament was a gloomy
building populated by the ‘mummies of Montecitorio’ (quoted by Scurati, 2023:
64).
To conclude, populism is inimical to democracy because it rejects
principles of pluralism. The inventor of Italian populism, Benito Mussolini,
was also a fascist. Berlusconi was a populist but no fascist because he did not
use physical violence against his political adversaries – though he did deploy
incivility, a form of verbal violence that is harmful to democracy because by
definition it implies that those against whom it is used are unworthy of being
considered members of the democratic community. Political incivility has the
distinctive feature of being something that citizens are repelled by, but at
one and the same time feel drawn to – like celebrities: people known for the
their well-knownness (Boorstin, 1962: 57) and with whom their fans identify and
desire contact. This, then, was the most significant legacy of Berlusconi the
populist leader: As a celebrity he taught the populist politicians who came
after him – politicians such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson—that if you can
become a celebrity politician then you can create a public following with the
potential to make you very powerful indeed – because then you can establish a fan base, and with it a much more
powerful link with followers than one that can be provided by mere supporters.
References
Bobbio, Norberto (1994), Destra e Sinistra: Ragioni e significati di
una distinzione politica, Roma: Donzelli editore
Boorstin, Daniel J. (1962), The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events
in America, New York and Boston: Harper Colophon Books.
Newell, James L. (2019), Silvio
Berlusconi: A Study in Failure, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Scurati, Antonio (2023), Fascismo e populismo: Mussolini oggi,
Florence and Milan: Giunti Editore/Bompiani
Stille, Alexander (2010),
Citizen Berlusconi: Il Cavalier Miracolo, Milan: Garzanti.