2014 European Elections, Rosa Balfour: “There is no interest for Europe in Italy”

 By Antonietta Demurtas

THE GRAVE SILENCE IN ITALY. At the end, after months and months of debates, press conferences and polemics, “the true Italian anomaly” said to Lettera43.it Rosa Balfour, political analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels, “is that, even though in other Member States the electoral campaign wasn’t focused on how Europe works, and the debate was just demagogy, in Italy you hadn’t that debate.”

 QUESTION. Flat line?

ANSWER. No line at all, I’d say, notwithstanding a little more dynamic campaign thanks to the television debates among the candidates for the European Commission Presidency.

Q. Yet only 127,000 Italian followed it, 0.48 percent of total audience.

A. For sure it was not a remarkable share, but in Italy there was no hype about it, while in the other countries it was publicised a lot.

Q. A “zero-content” electoral campaign?

A. Indeed. Yet it was merciless, given that there’s a government under continuous attack by the other parties. Moreover, the MoVimento 5 Stelle [Five Stars Movement] has completely turned the terms of debate around.

Q. How?

A. They turned anti-Europeism a mainstream topic. And then, Silvio Berlusconi: he was the king of electoral campaigns, and now that he’s unable to reign he contributed to decrease the level of the debate.

Q. Which has never been very high dealing with European politics.

A. There’s multi-party governance in Italy, yet the society is quite polarised, both politically and socially speaking. It was like that for years, with the challenge between Berlusconi and left-wing parties, among political leaders, even newspapers focus on this. And when the electoral campaign is over, there is even less interest in European issues.

Q. Apart from economic or migration-related policies.

A. Pushing the Union towards a more sympathetic approach toward border controls has always been one of the priorities for the Italian political class. They even had a EU Commissioner, Franco Frattini, dealing with these issues, but they didn’t get much. On the other hand, there are issues in which Italy has a very scarce proactive attitude.

Q. For instance?

A. On foreign affairs, or even on the economic crisis: at least for the first years, Italy was not among the countries which contributed to opening the debate, to taking the necessary decisions. Italy emerged only when there is a specific issue affecting a certain category (think about the ‘milk quota system’ for example), but generally speaking it plays a minor role compared with Germany or France; in the meantime, we are assisting at the increasing influence of Poland into the Union.

Q. Is this poor presence due to a poor preparation of Italian politicians, or are there responsibilities to be given to citizens, who are not interested in the European Union?

A. Since ‘70s, Italy has been uncritically pro-Europe, and the ‘Europeistic’ attitude among citizens was incredible, not only because there was trust in the institution but also because there was no real debate around it.

Q. Do you think this lack of debate was ‘created’ on purpose?

A. Yes, there was very little room for more critically constructive attitudes towards the European Union. Even media did not stimulate the debate. Then Europe was used by politicians as an alibi for unpopular decisions – “It’s because of Europe” – which allowed the political class to convince citizens it was not responsible for anything

Q. Better to seat in a television debate than in the European Parliament?

A. This idea got even worse with the 2001 Berlusconi’s government, when he was allied with the Northern League, remarkably euro-critic. Pile it up with the former PM’s poor appreciation of the EU – because he was not loved by other European leaders, and because he would rather be with George Bush and Vladimir Putin.

Q. Then we got completely detached from Brussels?

A. Indeed, and the separation was highlighted by newspapers and television, which relegated the debate on European politics in a niche, being focused only on national politics – their true obsession.

Q. Is it because that’s the only thing they can understand?

A. In the end, there’s an unbelievable ignorance on the European decisional mechanism, on who’s responsible for what. In Italy, for instance, there’s a big fuss about the (non) use of European structural funds, and about the inability of local institutions in distributing them. It’s just chattering, given that the issue has a low effect on local and regional electoral results.

Q. Why?

A. Because citizens vote according to their ideology, or according to ‘nepotism’, not for the competences shown by candidates. That’s why it is so hard to understand and fix the situation. Q. Q. Then maybe they won’t vote for the European Election because they think ‘it is all Europe’s fault’

A. And when they vote, their vote is exploited, because it isn’t like the other countries, where it is clear that we are talking about European, not national election. This is not a way to judge national governments, and Italy hasn’t understood it so far. European citizens use it to show their disappointment, yet they are not a true symbol of their preferences at national level. In Italy, it is not like that. And it wouldn’t have any sense, given that the turnout is quite low, and the themes are different from the national ones.

Q. Then, no awareness at all?

A. And it’s a shame: citizens delegate a representative through their vote, some who will act on their behalf and take crucial decisions. The European Parliament, thanks to the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, has crucial co-legislative powers together with the European Council. The occasion should have been used far better.

Q. Is it just an Italian problem?

A. Other countries offer the same, quite distressing scenario: there are left- and right-wing populist parties, far-right or far-left parties, eurosceptiscs or anti-european parties. And I have never heard something coherent coming from them. It’s just ranting against Europe. And this lack of debate is a real pity, because this is the way for taking people far from the polls.

Q. They will realise it too late, when someone else will decide on their behalf.

A. Or when decisions will not be taken, because even though anti-Europeans parties are different and have no common platform to form a coalition on, they could fine some shared theme to defend together against other parties, blocking decisions, filibustering. For sure there will be parliamentary actions blocked by several parties that represent just a minority of the various Member States.

Q. And no one will take on the responsibility.

A. It is not a matter of being guilty or innocent. It is quite difficult to make “European things” appealing: they are part of a complex and sometimes muddled mechanism, decisions are quite technical and it is difficult to tell them to the European public arena. Still, the real problem is that there is little attention towards European issues, especially in Italy.

Q. So everyone can keep on complaining.

A. The government led by Matteo Renzi said it wan to play a main role at European level, and given that the Italian Semester is approaching, it will be an occasion for realising that promise. Let’s wait and see.

This is a tranlation by eunews to the original italian interview published by Lettera43.