For more than a decade, Italy has been ruled through a bipolar political system. Voters could choose between a left-wing coalition and a right-wing coalition. Those disappointed by the incumbent government could vote for the opposition. And the existence of a viable alternative has had a disciplining effect on politicians: Not by chance, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government served its entire electoral term.
This is in contrast to Italian political tradition. Throughout the post-war era, until the early 1990s, Italian governments survived less than a year on average. Voters were unable to choose between the incumbent and the opposition, because the same centrist parties were in office all the time. Government crises were merely an opportunity to reshuffle key Cabinet positions or change the party faction of the prime minister.
However, there is now a high risk that Italian politicians will return to their old habits. This may seem strange, given the antagonism between center-left leader Romano Prodi and Berlusconi during the electoral campaign. But that antagonism reflected the personalization of politics achieved by Berlusconi, as well as an institutional feature that he abolished. One of the last acts of his government was to replace the majoritarian electoral system, introduced in 1993, with proportional rule. The new electoral system changes the politicians' incentives, and could induce a return to shifting coalitions and unstable governments. This outcome would be accelerated if, as is likely, Berlusconi himself were to distance himself from politics in the coming electoral term.
Under the new electoral rules, seats are allotted to parties in proportion to votes. However, a special provision induces parties to forge pre-electoral agreements: The pre-electoral coalition that wins the most votes receives a seat premium that ensures a comfortable majority in the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house). Unfortunately, the new law -- hastily enacted at the last minute of the previous legislature -- has a silly formulation that does not guarantee an equally safe majority in the Senate. As a result, Prodi has won a large margin in the lower house, but he has only a handful of extra votes in the Senate. Given Italy's almost perfect bicameralism, this means that the new government will find it very difficult to function even under ideal circumstances.
But Italy's circumstances are far from ideal. The new government will face formidable challenges. The budget deficit is again out of control, and well over the 3 percent-of-GDP Maastricht ceiling. The ageing population is straining the public pension and healthcare systems beyond sustainability. The manufacturing sector, squeezed by stagnating productivity and competition from China and other low-cost producers, is no longer competitive. Many services remain inefficient, because they are either in the domain of an archaic public administration or enjoy monopoly rents created by regulatory barriers.
Inaction is simply not an option for the new government. And yet agreement on virtually everything of significance will be very difficult to reach. Prodi's left-wing Union coalition comprises a hodge-podge of parties spread all over the political spectrum, ranging from staunch Communists to former liberals (with Communists stronger than in the previous election). Under the new electoral system, all of these parties will be competing with each other for the same votes, and each one will seek to protect its own constituency or claim credit for whatever is accomplished. Given Union's razor-thin majority in the upper house, the most likely outcome is paralysis.
As if this was not enough, Prodi will face another problem. Just before stepping down, Berlusconi's government also approved a constitutional reform that, among other things, provides a logical complement to the new electoral system. In particular, the new Constitution strengthens the powers of the prime minister and enables him to call early elections in the event of a government crisis. This provision would be an important weapon in Prodi's hands. But the left-wing parties that support him have already announced that they will block the constitutional reform, which they opposed for other reasons. Hence, Prodi will almost certainly be deprived of his best tool for imposing discipline on his unruly coalition.
What is likely to happen when a large and heterogeneous coalition with barely a parliamentary majority must govern in an increasingly dire economic situation? The answer is almost obvious: Either the government will collapse, or it will seek to poach supporters from opposition parties. Which of these two outcomes will materialize also depends on what happens inside Berlusconi's camp, and that is less easy to predict.
But, either way, the bipolar political system to which Italians were getting accustomed is unlikely to survive unscathed. The left-right divide will become easier for opportunistic politicians to cross, and perhaps a new centrist party will emerge. As a result, Italy will soon return to its older tradition of short-lived governments and unstable coalitions.
Of course, Prodi could preserve a bipolar political system -- and thus increase the longevity of his government -- by either restoring a majoritarian electoral system or pressing ahead with other constitutional amendments designed to preserve government and coalition stability. But forcing such changes on his coalition partners could be as difficult for Prodi as tackling Italy's daunting economic problems.
Guido Tabellini is professor of economics at Bocconi University, Milan. Copyright: Project Syndicate
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
Navy Commander Admiral Tang Hua (唐華) said in an interview with The Economist that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been implementing an “anaconda strategy” to subdue Taiwan since President William Lai (賴清德) assumed office. The Chinese military is “slowly, but surely” increasing its presence around Taiwan proper, it quoted Tang as saying. “They are ready to blockade Taiwan at any time they want,” he said. “They give you extreme pressure, pressure, pressure. They’re trying to exhaust you.” Beijing’s goal is to “force Taiwan to make mistakes,” Tang said, adding that they could be “excuses” for a blockade. The interview reminds me