After having fought off
popular rejection of its neoliberal economic policies that serve its own
interests, the European establishment has lost its first major election, as
Andrew Spannaus reports.
By Andrew Spannaus
Special to Consortium News
in Milan, Italy
The revolt of voters across
the Western world has reached a high point in Europe. The Five Star Movement
and the League, two so-called “populist” political parties in Italy, are
preparing to form a government after Wednesday’s appointment of a new prime
minister following an election result that could directly challenge the
foundations of the European Union.
Like other anti-system
movements around Europe, the Italian parties are calling in particular for
abandoning the neoliberal economic policies and speculative finance, which are
hollowing out the middle class.
The breakthrough comes two and
a half months after the elections held on March 4, in which Italian voters sent
an unequivocal message to the current political institutions, not simply of
protest, but of a desire to actually give power to those willing to implement
deep changes.
The two parties were not
allies during the election, but they ultimately recognized that their
anti-establishment positions, and in particular their opposition to the
austerity-based policies of the E.U., made them obvious candidates to join
together in an attempt to shake up Italy and Europe as a whole.
On the Heels of Trump and
Brexit
After the shock of the Brexit
vote and the U.S. presidential elections in 2016, Europe’s political elite
looked fearfully towards the series of elections to be held across the
continent in 2017. Political outsiders had already increased their support in
recent years, fueled by anger over deepening economic difficulties and the
related backlash against increased immigration mainly from Africa and the
Middle East.
With the precedent of Trump’s
victory and Britain’s vote to leave the EU, it seemed possible that some of
those movements could actually force their way into government, opening a gape
in the fabric of “liberal democracy” across Europe.
By the end of the summer, the
revolt had faltered. The anti-Islam party of Geert Wilders had failed to break
through in Holland, and although right-winger Marine Le Pen had done well in
the first round of France’s presidential election, she was soundly defeated by
neoliberal, centrist Emmanuel Macron in the run-off.
The results in Germany were
more problematic, when in the September elections the far-right, anti-immigrant
Alternative for Germany (AfD) successfully diverted votes from the political center,
forcing the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats into months of
negotiations to form a new Grand Coalition as a bulwark against the populists.
Then last October in Austria
the anti-immigrant rhetoric of young conservative leader Sebastian Kurz led him
to victory, producing a government based on an alliance with the far-right
Freedom Party. Europe’s elites had taken some hits, but overall it seemed that
disaster for them had been avoided.
Italy, however, would prove to
be different. The Five Star Movement (M5S) increased its vote total in March as
the top party, coming in at 32%. By itself this wouldn’t have been enough to
overcome the establishment’s efforts to keep them out of government, though.
Indeed the political parties that have governed Italy in recent years had
hatched what they thought was a brilliant plan to block the newcomers: change
the election law to reward the coalition with the highest vote total,
rather than the single party. That way, even if M5S came in first, the
center-right bloc led by Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia could still claim
victory, for example; and in the likely event that the coalition didn’t have
enough votes to govern, an agreement would be made with the centrist Democratic
Party (Pd) for a sort of “Grand Coalition”, not too different from the
governments in place in recent years.
What upset the apple cart was
the success of the League, led by brash young leader Matteo Salvini. Formally
known as the pro-secession “Northern League,” the party has succeeded in
expanding beyond only the North, still drawing on anti-immigrant sentiment, but
combining that with an effective anti-austerity message that allowed it to
reach 17% of the vote. That beat Berlusconi’s party by several points. The
center-right had gotten the most votes as a coalition (37%) but the internal
balance of power had shifted; the best laid plans of the elites quickly came
crashing down.
A Predictable Result
This outcome was actually
entirely predictable, given the nature of the response by Italian institutions
to the results of the country’s last general election, five years ago. In 2013,
the Five Star Movement burst onto the scene with 25% of the national vote,
despite having refused to even talk to the mass media; everything was done
through the web and meet-ups, which proved to be more than enough to catalyze
an effective movement against the “caste” of privileged members of the elite,
seen as pursuing their own interests, and not those of the people, through
various forms of corruption.
As time went by, the centrist
parties in government deceived themselves into believing that warning people
about the lack of experience of the M5S, and branding anyone who criticized the
EU as inviting a return to nationalism and war, would scare voters away from
the populists.
What the governments led by
the center-left did not do, however, was considerably change the direction of
the economy for the majority of the population. The situation improved slightly
as the harshest austerity measures from previous years were abandoned and some
limited initiatives were implemented to encourage investment and exports in the
manufacturing sector.
But the drivers of the revolt
against globalization run much deeper, rooted in the long-term destruction of
the middle class with increases in poverty and inequality, and less stable
working conditions for those who do have work. An increase in short-term
employment and promises of better times if the country would just stay the
course, was far from enough to stop the anti-system momentum.
After two months of
back-and-forth, the League ultimately split from its center-right allies in
order to avoid the risk of a grand coalition government that would continue the
same centrist policies as in the past. They reached a deal with the Five Star
Movement and accepted a non-politician close to M5S as prime minister, Giuseppe
Conte, who is now tasked with implementing a “government contract” negotiated
between the two parties.
There are significant
differences between the partners, but the most important obstacles seem not to
be internal, but rather put in place by Italian and European institutions. M5S
and the League quickly came to agreement on general issues such as deficit
spending for welfare reform (to significantly expand social benefits, not cut
them as in recent years) and simplification of the tax code. The contract also
includes the key points of separating commercial banks from investment banks
(the Glass-Steagall principle) and using public institutions for targeted
investment.
Neither Luigi Di Maio, the
31-year old Five Star leader, nor Salvini seem cowed by threats from EU
officials or pressure from the financial markets regarding the need to follow
strict budget rules. In response to a recent objection claiming his proposals
would break the public accounts, Di Maio claimed that when done right, the
multiplier effect of public investment would boost, rather than hurt the
economy.
Yet the establishment is doing
everything it can to avoid an open clash with the EU. Like many countries with
a parliamentary system, Italy has a “President of the Republic,” a figure-head intended
as a guarantor of the institutions without a direct political role. The
position is similar to that of a constitutional monarch, but in a republican
system. Despite often being viewed as merely a figurehead, the Italian state
president formally has the power to choose the head of the government, and also
the cabinet. In this case, President Sergio Mattarella seems to be taking those
responsibilities fairly seriously.
There is great pressure on the
Italian elites to ensure that the coming populist government will not be able
to call into question the architecture of the EU by openly challenging the
budget orthodoxy of the European Commission in Brussels, and the European
Central Bank in Frankfurt. Thus Mattarella’s office made its opposition known to
certain figures proposed by M5S and the League. This happened with one of the
first names floated for prime minister, Giulio Sapelli, a professor of economic
history who is strongly critical of globalization and EU economic policy. But
his prospects were quickly shot down through a series of leaks to an obliging
press.
Another name which has sparked
opposition is that of Paolo Savona, a highly-credentialed economist who was
minister of industry twenty-five years ago. Since then, he has become critical
of the European single currency and the related spending constraints. Thus,
despite clearly being qualified, when his name was suggested for the post of
finance minister, objections immediately began to appear in the establishment media.
Di Maio and Salvini seem to be
sticking to their guns on Savona, but it remains to be seen if they will
succeed in obtaining his nomination. The situation raises serious questions
about democracy in Italy. Well over 50% of Italian voters supported parties
that strongly criticize the neoliberal policies of the EU; yet there is a
concerted institutional effort to not allow someone who reflects precisely that
view to guide the country’s economic policy.
The EU Against the People
This conflict is even more
ironic because the insistence on EU principles comes from institutions which
are supposed to be guarantors of the Italian state. Their view, however, is now
that Italy is irreversibly part of the European Union, and any threat to lessen
the bonds of integration would be unacceptable. Add to this the fact that over
the years the EU has done everything it can to avoid having European citizens
actually vote on the construction of the supranational government, and the
paradox becomes clear: state institutions are defending Europe against the
democratic choices of their own people.
There are certainly risks
inherent in the coming populist government. The League wants to take a hard
line on immigration, and has often curried favor with racists and xenophobes. This
has been part of its identity from the start, although it has gradually worked
to expand its appeal by focusing on the broader issue of problems with
globalization and Europe.
M5S, on the other hand, is
inconsistent and in recent months has seemed malleable even on important points
in its program, in both economics and foreign policy. Di Maio quickly
backtracked from his criticism of Trump’s bombing of Syria, for example,
fearing it could damage his prospects to lead the government.
Furthermore, the M5S campaign
against wasteful spending goes so far as aiming to stop important
infrastructure projects like a new high-speed rail line between Italy and
France; while its environmentalist bent is expressed in the desire to shutter
the second largest steel production center in Europe, the Ilva plant in
Taranto, due to environmental problems.
These issues and others
provide plenty of legitimate grounds for criticism of the anti-establishment
parties, and raise the question as to whether they will actually succeed in
improving people’s lives. Yet there is no question that the voters have asked
for change, and that change means abandoning the pro-austerity policies that
are hollowing out the middle class and making people fear for their families’
future.
Despite the populist wave that
has spread across the Western world in the past two years, European leaders in
pursuit of their own interests have generally seemed to ignore the need to
recognize the errors of the pro-finance, post-industrial model of recent decades,
clinging to the hope that their neoliberal system will ultimately survive
despite discontent from a significant portion of the population. The Italian
elections have changed the calculus. Regardless of how effective the new
government is, European institutions need to recognize that certain problems
cannot be ignored. The only way for the elites to survive – to the extent they
still can – will be to finally accept that their errors can longer be defended.
No comments:
Post a Comment