"Il Magnifico": With daughters Barbara (l.) and Eleonora, around 1994.
Bild: Franco Origlia / Getty Images
“You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together”
Silvio Berlusconi was the first modern populist. Like Trump, he was a tycoon and womaniser. But unlike Trump, he was molto simpatico, writes Nicholas Farrell who teamed up with Boris Johnson to meet Il Cavaliere at the height his power in his summer palace in Sardinia.
Silvio Berlusconi, whose state funeral took place yesterday (Wednesday) in Milan, was the first modern populist. He was the media tycoon who became a politician in order to take back control of his country from the Establishment on behalf of the people.
The Italians called him Il Cavaliere (The Knight). I called him Silvio il Magnifico.
He created a brand of politics that decades later would become a driving force in America and Europe and be called populism. Italians voted for him in their droves. He was dead rich and loved by the dirt poor. He spoke their language: he loved beautiful football and beautiful women, And he hated tax and red tape and fines and the big bad state. His favourite book was In Praise of Folly (1509) by Erasmus of Rotterdam.
No other Italian politician in the history of the Italian Republic, founded after the defeat of fascism in 1945, got as many votes as he did, or was prime minister as long. He was prime minister four times. These are similarities between him and the quintessential populist de nos jours Donald Trump.
Like Trump, he was a tycoon and womaniser. But unlike Trump, he was molto simpatico. The Donald grabs women by the pussy, Silvio, a former cruise ship crooner, seduced them with songs and gifts. But both are on the side of the silent majority that is fed up being silent.
Berlusconi entered politics in 1994 to save Italy – as he put it – from communism. Italy had the largest communist party in Europe outside the Soviet Bloc which had never quite won power nationally. But a judicial revolution against endemic political corruption had destroyed the other main parties.
Despite the collapse of Soviet communism, Italy’s communists now called post-communistz stood poised to take over Italy. Berlusconi launched a party, Forza Italia, and two months later won the election. His football club AC Milan then won the Champion’ League.
From then on, Berlusconi was hounded by Italy’s notoriously politicized judges known as “toghe rosse” (red cloaks). He faced around 80 criminal trials over 30 years which cost him he said €1 billion in legal fees. Yet he was only convicted once - for tax fraud - by a company that he was not in charge of at the time whereas those who were, were acquitted. That led to a five year ban form politics. Trump too, of course, is now the target of a concerted judicial assault.
There are also similarities with former British prime minister Boris Johnson.
In 2003, at the height of Berlusconi’ power, I went with Boris – then editor of The Spectator – to his summer palace in Sardinia to interview him. Berlusconi told us: Italian fascist dictator Mussolini did not kill his opponents but exiled them to the islands (largely true); and Italy’s judges are “anthropologically different” from normal people (largely true).
These were truthes that absolutely cannot be said in Italy. They were front page news for two weeks. Berlusconi had to call a press conference to defend himself. The signori inglesi had got him drunk on champagne – he explained – which is why he told us what he had said,
It was a lie, he had given us only iced lemon tea.
Does it matter? Not, necessarily.
For as I told Boris – no stranger to lying either - at the time: Berlusconi reminds me of the tragic hero of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby about a tycoon whose wealth is ill-gotten but whose dream is beautiful. As the narrator Nick Carraway tells Gatsby at the end of the book: “They’re a rotten crowd. You're worth the whole damn bunch put together.”
Sie müssen sich anmelden, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
Noch kein Kommentar-Konto? Hier kostenlos registrieren.
Bitte beachten Sie die Netiquette-Regeln beim Schreiben von Kommentaren.
Den Prozess der Weltwoche-Kommentarprüfung machen wir in dieser Erklärung transparent.
Netiquette
Die Kommentare auf weltwoche.ch/weltwoche.de sollen den offenen Meinungsaustausch unter den Lesern ermöglichen. Es ist uns ein wichtiges Anliegen, dass in allen Kommentarspalten fair und sachlich debattiert wird.
Das Nutzen der Kommentarfunktion bedeutet ein Einverständnis mit unseren Richtlinien.
Scharfe, sachbezogene Kritik am Inhalt des Artikels, an Protagonisten des Zeitgeschehens oder an Beiträgen anderer Forumsteilnehmer ist erwünscht, solange sie höflich vorgetragen wird. Wählen Sie im Zweifelsfall den subtileren Ausdruck.
Unzulässig sind:
Antisemitismus / Rassismus
Aufrufe zur Gewalt / Billigung von Gewalt
Begriffe unter der Gürtellinie/Fäkalsprache
Beleidigung anderer Forumsteilnehmer / verächtliche Abänderungen von deren Namen
Vergleiche demokratischer Politiker/Institutionen/Personen mit dem Nationalsozialismus
Justiziable Unterstellungen/Unwahrheiten
Kommentare oder ganze Abschnitte nur in Grossbuchstaben
Kommentare, die nichts mit dem Thema des Artikels zu tun haben
Kommentarserien (zwei oder mehrere Kommentare hintereinander um die Zeichenbeschränkung zu umgehen)
Kommentare, die kommerzieller Natur sind
Kommentare mit vielen Sonderzeichen oder solche, die in Rechtschreibung und Interpunktion mangelhaft sind
Kommentare, die mehr als einen externen Link enthalten
Kommentare, die einen Link zu dubiosen Seiten enthalten
Kommentare, die nur einen Link enthalten ohne beschreibenden Kontext dazu
Kommentare, die nicht auf Deutsch sind. Die Forumssprache ist Deutsch.
Als Medium, das der freien Meinungsäusserung verpflichtet ist, handhabt die Weltwoche Verlags AG die Veröffentlichung von Kommentaren liberal. Die Prüfer sind bemüht, die Beurteilung mit Augenmass und gesundem Menschenverstand vorzunehmen.
Die Online-Redaktion behält sich vor, Kommentare nach eigenem Gutdünken und ohne Angabe von Gründen nicht freizugeben. Wir bitten Sie zu beachten, dass Kommentarprüfung keine exakte Wissenschaft ist und es auch zu Fehlentscheidungen kommen kann. Es besteht jedoch grundsätzlich kein Recht darauf, dass ein Kommentar veröffentlich wird. Über einzelne nicht-veröffentlichte Kommentare kann keine Korrespondenz geführt werden. Weiter behält sich die Redaktion das Recht vor, Kürzungen vorzunehmen.