Gallowglass

Cosi fan tutti

The blogosphere’s reaction to Berlusconi has been depressing, if predictable - a mudslinging competition between semi-informed rightwingers and semi-informed leftwingers, where both sides are more interested in scoring points than figuring out what is actually happening. The piece-de-resistance of this dialogue des sourds is Michael Ledeen’s quite extraordinary article in The National Review (found via William Sjostrom). Even by Ledeen’s low standards, this piece is dimwitted and ill-informed. But it’s interesting as a specimen of a dual pathology within the American punditocracy - a hostility towards Europe combined with an inability to appreciate that European politics may be driven by anything other than Europe’s relationship with the US.

Ledeen’s argument rests on a mixture of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and factual errors. He claims

In fact, [other European leaders] hate Berlusconi not because he’s corrupt … — for which there is no convincing evidence — but because he has shown them up, time after time. Along with Spanish President Aznar, Berlusconi has led the “Coalition of the willing,” broken with the anti-American Franco-German axis, and established a special relationship with George W. Bush (and Tony Blair) that leaves other European leaders surprised and envious.

…To be sure, Berlusconi has been officially charged with corruption — in connection with events that allegedly took place 20 years ago. Ever since, Italian magistrates have been unsuccessfully trying to prove Berlusconi’s guilt, and, failing that, to wreck his political career by leaking allegations … But there wasn’t much of a case to begin with (I mean, isn’t 20 years enough? Even our own special prosecutors went away within eight or nine years).

Ledeen simply doesn’t understand European politics, or how controversial Berlusconi is. European leaders’ distaste for Berlusconi goes back long before September 11, as illustrated in the notorious May 2001 Economist cartoon (reproduced at the bottom of this post). As Ledeen points out, other European leaders, such as Jacques Chirac, have been accused of corruption. But their alleged crimes are bagatelles by Berlusconi’s standards. Mere common graft, rather than the widescale corruption, bribing of judges, involvement in murder and mysterious Mafia connections that Berlusconi stands accused of.

Second, Ledeen’s claim that there is no convincing evidence against Berlusconi doesn’t wash. There was enough evidence to see Berlusconi’s political fixer, Cesare Previti, sentenced to a hefty jail term for bribing judges. Even Berlusconi’s defenders don’t usually claim that he’s innocent; instead, they claim that he’s being singled out unfairly for activities (bribery, fraud) that every prominent Italian business figure was guilty of. Cosi fan tutti as they say in Italy; “everybody’s at it.”

Nor is it a simple left versus right, or Old Europe versus New Europe fight, as Ledeen implies. The Economist, which can hardly be accused of left-wing or anti-war bias, has said unequivocally that Berlusconi is not fit to be prime minister, or to lead Europe.

In any self-respecting democracy it would be unthinkable that the man assumed to be on the verge of being elected prime minister would recently have come under investigation for, among other things, money-laundering, complicity in murder, connections with the Mafia, tax evasion and the bribing of politicians, judges and the tax police. … As our own investigations make plain (see article), Mr Berlusconi is not fit to lead the government of any country, least of all one of the world’s richest democracies.

Ledeen claims that because the cases against Berlusconi have been dragging on for years, there probably isn’t much to them. Wrong: the cases have dragged on because the Italian judicial system is slow and cumbersome, and because Berlusconi wants it that way. As described by the US State Department in its annual report on Italy.

Both domestic and European institutions criticize the slow pace of justice in the country, which is due in part to cumbersome and frequently changing procedures, unclear or contradictory legal provisions, and an inadequate number of judges. In April the National Statistical Institute (ISTAT) reported that the average trial lasts 35 months; appeal procedures can add another 59 months. …The European Court of Human Rights noted the high number of complaints filed against the country in 1999 and the number of adverse decisions (44 of 120) that the court rendered. These decisions almost always centered on excessive trial delays.

Furthermore, not only have Berlusconi’s lawyers tried to delay judgements as long as possible, but his government has sought to frustrate the course of justice through introducing a variety of laws aimed at _a_ decriminalizing certain kinds of accounting fraud that Berlusconi was accused of, _b_ making the process of evidence gathering as difficult as possible, and, most recently, _c_ rendering Berlusconi immune to prosecution while in office. By any objective standards, Berlusconi has abused his office in a quite appalling manner, changing the law to avoid his own prosecution and imprisonment.

Ledeen says Berlusconi’s problems are imagined ones; they’re resentful fantasies touted by the beleagured lefties of Old Europe, who can’t stand being cold-shouldered by George W. Bush. This tells us more about Ledeen’s own vengeance fantasies than it does about European politics. If I were a Bush supporter, I don’t think that I’d be claiming that Berlusconi “shares [Bush’s] values,” as Ledeen does. Berlusconi is crooked, pure and simple. This isn’t an argument between right and left, or between Old Europe and New Europe, or between Europe and America. It’s about democratic values and basic political decency. And Ledeen is wilfully championing the wrong side.

Posted by Henry at July 3, 2003 03:49 PM | TrackBack