« | Home | »

A Letter from Berlusconi

Tags: | |

One of Mario Monti’s least popular reforms among Italian property owners is the introduction of a new property-based council tax (IMU) to replace the one that Silvio Berlusconi scrapped in 2008. On Wednesday, everyone on the electoral register was sent a letter with ‘Avviso Importante: Rimborso IMU 2012’ printed on the envelope. The two closely printed sides of A4 inside explained how people could get last year’s council tax refunded, either by bank transfer or in person at the post office. The letter was signed by Berlusconi: all people have to do to qualify for the rebate is vote for him in next week’s elections. But not everyone read that far; apparently hopeful queues formed at post offices within hours. They might have done better to mob Mediaset’s headquarters.

Monti obviously wouldn’t stoop to such tactics: instead he’s been muttering darkly about Angela Merkel not wanting the centre-left Partito Democratico in power (Merkel says she never said any such thing). The PD meanwhile, narrowly ahead in the polls, has promised to get rid of prescription charges, another of Monti’s austerity measures.

Yesterday Roberto Saviano wrote a piece in l’Espresso about voters across the country being offered benefits in kind in exchange for their votes (it’s only a crime if you pay cash): a €50 mobile phone top-up, a washing machine or dishwasher, a pair of trainers, a bank loan, tickets to a football game, pasta, a temp job.

The most likely outcome from Sunday and Monday’s vote is a hung parliament, and more horsetrading.

Comments on “A Letter from Berlusconi”

  1. Rikkeh says:

    Given that Italy reportedly has a secret ballot system, how is the transaction enforced? Do those doing the bribes accompany the voter, do they sit at the polling station?

    Presumably there is something in place to stop voters from signing up to everyone’s “vote for me” offer and then doing as they please in the voting booth. Investments must be protected, after all.

    • FoolCount says:

      Obviously, as rich as Berlusconi is, even he would find it problematic to refund everybody’s tax out of his own pocket. That letter was an electoral promise to retroactively abolish the tax and to refund the money it already collected, if elected into power, of course. Clearly, the promise applied to everyone, not just those who voted for his party. The form of that promise may have been a little unorthodox, but in substance it was no different than almost any other compaign promise.

  2. bluecat says:

    In the old days they used the “Lista” system. Parties would put up a list of candidates (ten or twelve from the larger parties) in each constituency, and voters would select three. Unsuccessful candidates’ votes would be transferred to whichever of the party nominees got the largest vote, usually the person on the top of the list, but it mean that the parties could keep a tally of approximately who voted and whether they voted as instructed.

    If, say, I give ten people a job in my factory, they and their families must vote not only for the party, but also in the combination 4, 7 and 12 on the party list. People who got a job in the Liceo down the road have to vote, say, for 5, 6 and 11 on the same list. All these votes are eventually going to elect candidate number one (my uncle, as it happens), but in the mean time the party operatives, who do the counting, can check we got the right number of votes in the right combinations.

    Because there were an awful lot of possible combinations, it could get down to within a few people, and because people mainly don’t talk about this kind of thing (for a start it means you didn’t get your job on your own merits) you’re unlikely to compare notes with colleagues to find out just how big a group is supposed to vote your combination: it might be only you in your constituency!

    This system collapsed in the mid 1990s when the Mafia signalled its loss of confidence in the government by assassinating some important figures, the government started arresting Mafiosi, the voting system was changed, and the old certainties and old parties disappeared into mist. There was a short moment of what looked remarkably like democracy.

    I was living in Naples, large chunks of which had been covered with scaffolding since the earthquake of 1980, when suddenly the town council started doing what it was supposed to do. Rusty corrugated iron came off the fountains in Piazza Plebiscito and Neapolitans were walking around in a daze at what a beautiful city they were suddenly living in.

    But there was uncertainty in politics, and that is bad for some kinds of business. Out of the uncertainty, like a grinning crocodile rising from a swamp, came Berlusconi. His party didn’t seem to exist: instead there was a pyramid selling organisation, in which a number of young people I knew found employment. Votefixing, at least offering bribes to the electorate at large on the lines of “vote for me and I’ll give you a rebate” seems to have survived.

  3. arandomreader says:

    Once in the voting booth you snap a picture of your bulletin with your mobile phone. Outside the polling station you show it to your handler to prove you voted correctly.

  4. Userdafi says:

    You brits really need to let go of the empire.

    I’m Italian.

    I’m a citizen, not a slave. My vote is not for sale.

    I voted in a school.

    I voted freely (for Mr. Grillo).

    I wan’t offered anything by anybody

    I definitely was NOT paid and i had no fuc***g “handler” to show anything to.

    Saviano was talking about the south.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement