The resignation of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who said he would step down last week, became effective late Saturday night. As in Greece, which is also struggling economically, the move was part of a broader plan to save one of Europe’s key economies from the debt crisis. Although Berlusconi's resignation may stabilize the eurozone and prevent the EU's dissolution, Europe will not be the same without one of its brightest politicians.
'Who do I call?'
“Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” Henry Kissinger reputedly asked. What he meant was, who is Europe's real leader?
Europe has been struggling to overcome a serious financial crisis and an even worse plague – the inability to live as it did before. It has borrowed lots of money to maintain customary living standards with negative results.
Further complicating the issue, Europe has now lost a person who was widely viewed as one of its symbols – at least in other parts of the world. Berlusconi was a political star, although many negative things have been said about him. His PR stunts with young girls and his looks were funny to some, irritated others and were admired by the rest. The media magnate's election as Italy's head of government gave him the power to control both the second (the government) and the fourth (the media) estates and was considered a questionable decision by European democrats. They also had other complaints about Berlusconi. But no one has ever called him a “dull” person.
Is there anyone of comparable stature left in Europe? Yes, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but he is unlikely to be reelected in 2012. Angela Merkel is much duller than Berlusconi or Sarkozy, and besides, her term as the German chancellor is also coming to a close.
The latter two officials think and act in the framework of Europe, and possibly on a broader scale. Merkel has acted softly, whereas some of Sarkozy’s diplomatic initiatives have been ridiculed around the world. He has tried to establish a link between Europe and other parts of the Mediterranean and proposed untenable solutions to global financial problems. But at least he has been trying to do something.
Getting rid of Berlusconi is worse than changing engines mid-race. It is impossible to imagine mediocre officials finding a way to overcome the crisis without leaders.
Are there any healthy countries in Europe?
When the crisis hit small and peripheral European countries, such as Ireland, Iceland and Greece, it looked as though they are unlucky exceptions in a generally healthy Europe. But Italy is neither small nor peripheral. It is the word’s eighth largest economy. In its Nov. 9 issue, Foreign Policy magazine enumerated the “eight reasons why Italy is such a mess” in the run-up to Berlusconi’s resignation.
According to the magazine, the result of Italy’s problems is “a whopping $2.6 trillion in government debt.”
The first reason pointed out by the magazine is that Italy has had “more deaths than births for four years in a row,” which has made it dependent on immigrants. Second, “Italy has more pensioners than workers and currently spends about 14% of GDP on pensions.” Furthermore, Italians are a nation of tax dodgers. Berlusconi wondered aloud in 2004 whether the country's high taxes made tax dodging a “natural right” (the premier himself has been accused of tax fraud.)
Italy is also plagued by the perennial waste management issue, North-South tensions, excessive “dependence on family-owned businesses” and a 30% youth unemployment rate.
All these problems constitute a strange mixture of socialism and individualism and are also typical of other European countries. Berlusconi, although a bright figure, has not been a very effective manager or tried to remedy society’s ills.
In fact, Margaret Thatcher has been the only European leader to consider society as material for reforms. Back in the 1980s, she mercilessly slashed the working class and turned Britain into a middle class country. Since then, European societies have considered their authorities hired managers whose task is to maintain the system, not change it.
Unlike the European, Australian and even U.S. societies, other nations believe the authorities’ mission is to change the country and improve their lives. This is one of the reasons why the Europeans’ or Americans’ attempts to export their values only come across as condescending – at best – in many countries.
Will this situation persist? Maybe not.
Spengler could be right
The title of his book, “The Decline of the West,” came to the German philosopher Oswald Spengler in August 1914 soon after the start of World War I. The book was written and published in 1918. Spengler, who was disliked during Hitler’s rule for his pessimism, was “inspired” by a period in European history that many thought the worst possible. But he is remembered mostly because he set the date for the West's decline – the year 2000. What if he was right? Some will say that Europe declined only to rise again, that the 15th century was a nightmare but the 16th century, when Europe set about conquering the world, was much better.
But the idea that a culture has a beginning and an end is intriguing in itself. What do we have in modern Europe? An electorate that does not want change and rejects the ideas of its leaders, that is only satisfied with mediocre “chief executives” who are afraid to speak up for fear of offending society? This reminds me of the era of stagnation under Brezhnev in Russia.
But crises have been known to change things beyond recognition. Europe believes that now is not the time for elections or referendums in Italy or Greece, where the electorate has already ended up in a bad way.
Attempts have been made in Italy and Greece to give premiership to politicians who simultaneously represent nearly all the political forces. This is a different Europe and a different political system. What next? Will the European mentality change to give rise to new leaders who may now be waiting patiently for their chance to define Europe’s future? After all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, initially seen as a minor politician and a patient master of compromise and maneuver, was ultimately praised as the man who helped the United States overcome its worst crisis to date.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti
