Can Italy's new government be considered "democratic"?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is a difference between accepting that this is legal under the democratic system of Italy (which it obviously is) and thinking that it is democratic in spirit.

I maintain that it is deeply problematic to treat the democratic structure this way.

I like this answer. Mind you, what I have a serious problem with isn't so much the existence of a technocratic government (as questionable as that must always be) but the fact that it apparently intends to stay in power for the duration of the parliamentary term. Of course it might not be able to do that, but the principle is a questionable one.

[Gustaf]

There is a difference between accepting that this is legal under the democratic system of Italy (which it obviously is) and thinking that it is democratic in spirit.

I maintain that it is deeply problematic to treat the democratic structure this way.

I like this answer. Mind you, what I have a serious problem with isn't so much the existence of a technocratic government (as questionable as that must always be) but the fact that it apparently intends to stay in power for the duration of the parliamentary term. Of course it might not be able to do that, but the principle is a questionable one.

To me, the problem is that this is not a product of the democratic system in Italy. It isn't as if the people called for this government. It is not even the case that an elected parliamentary majority wanted this government. It's a government that certain forces outside of the country wanted and which was thus instituted.It's basically circumventing democracy and I think that is highly dangerous.

[© tweed]

There is a difference between accepting that this is legal under the democratic system of Italy (which it obviously is) and thinking that it is democratic in spirit.

I maintain that it is deeply problematic to treat the democratic structure this way.

I like this answer. Mind you, what I have a serious problem with isn't so much the existence of a technocratic government (as questionable as that must always be) but the fact that it apparently intends to stay in power for the duration of the parliamentary term. Of course it might not be able to do that, but the principle is a questionable one.

you are a parenthetical person.  Sir.  btw.  Cornell has a sh**tload of library items or whatever you call it.  6 million or so.  I took out Hobsbawm's 'On History' largely due to you.  congrats, you've had an influence on my life.  not as much as has BRTD, as my iTunes will attest, but still, an influence.  I pride myself on being the most intellectually curious almost B+ student Cornell has to offer.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Polling has shown that the Monti government is extremely popular among the Italian public. I still don't think that this government is justifiable and I believe that it goes against all democratic principles but so far the public is in favor of this undertaking. I'd imagine that these "technocrats" will be dumped in favor of elections in under 6 months or so once they become as popular as they deserve to be.

Having technocrats lead countries always seems like a novel idea until they actually get into power and have no common touch with the public that they're serving. It's also much easier to scapegoat technocrats as being "bankster tools" or whatever.

[ingemann]

*Which limits true democracies to USA, Latin America, half of Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Cyprus, Indonesia, Iran, Yemen and Belarus.

France?

France have a PM who is elected by the parliament. The French president power is more or less limited to foreign policy and war. So France is structural more or less placed in the middle between USA and Italy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

*Which limits true democracies to USA, Latin America, half of Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Cyprus, Indonesia, Iran, Yemen and Belarus.

France?

France have a PM who is elected by the parliament. The French president power is more or less limited to foreign policy and war. So France is structural more or less placed in the middle between USA and Italy.

It's a tad more complicated actually. The PM is responsible before the Parliament, but appointed - and dismissed - by the President. Since the President's party is always disciplined to the Dear Leader, it means the PM is the President's tool as long as he has a parliamentary majority. In the opposite case (called "cohabitation") the PM is indeed the actual leader, but these cases are pretty rare.

[ingemann]

There is a difference between accepting that this is legal under the democratic system of Italy (which it obviously is) and thinking that it is democratic in spirit.

I maintain that it is deeply problematic to treat the democratic structure this way.

..and you're welcome to do, but it's your subjective individual opinion nothing more. I happen to have the subjective opinion that if something follow the rules, have widely popular support it's rather meaningless to call it undemocratic, and it's not like the Italians doesn't have very precise idea what a technocratic government means, they had one in the nineties, so that it will hurt won't surprise them.

[SPQR]

Certainly more democratic than a "politic" government like the last one,where the decisive majority deputies had been blatantly bought corrupted from the opposition parties.

[Insula Dei]

The Roman Republic really only started to flourish when Augustus was consul.

[Хahar 🤔]

In the 1920s and '30s, were the innumerable right-wing French governments propped up by the Radical-Socialists democratic? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to this one.

[Gustaf]

There is a difference between accepting that this is legal under the democratic system of Italy (which it obviously is) and thinking that it is democratic in spirit.

I maintain that it is deeply problematic to treat the democratic structure this way.

..and you're welcome to do, but it's your subjective individual opinion nothing more. I happen to have the subjective opinion that if something follow the rules, have widely popular support it's rather meaningless to call it undemocratic, and it's not like the Italians doesn't have very precise idea what a technocratic government means, they had one in the nineties, so that it will hurt won't surprise them.

All that is not really the problem. The problem is that a bunch of unelected people step in and puts a government in place because they can bankrupt the country otherwise. It's a behaviour that signals that democracy and the democratic process is a bad thing.

[Foucaulf]

Of course not; it's "technocratic"!

Gustaf's points are very valid, and I'll just add onto them. Negotiated cabinets like those in the  French republics at least had popular representatives in them. I have yet to see one MP in Monti's cabinet.

We have to remember that the parliamentary system is not inherently democratic; it only became democratic through legislation enfranchising the masses.

[Beet]

Practically; it hardly matters. If politicians were in these posts, they would simply be enacting policy by picking up the phone to call the technocrats, listening obediently, and then acting. This way, things are more honest. One more layer of fluff is peeled away between who is publicly in charge and who is really in charge. Perhaps it's the brazenness of it that really disturbs. Things are no longer bothered to be hidden. But to be too pessimistic would be a mistake. The government does not trample on individual liberties, and so far it does have popular support of 60 to 70 percent of Italians, so it is a difference with little substance. The question would be, could the government survive after it loses popular support? Almost surely, this one will not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Practically; it hardly matters. If politicians were in these posts, they would simply be enacting policy by picking up the phone to call the technocrats, listening obediently, and then acting. This way, things are more honest. One more layer of fluff is peeled away between who is publicly in charge and who is really in charge. Perhaps it's the brazenness of it that really disturbs. Things are no longer bothered to be hidden. But to be too pessimistic would be a mistake. The government does not trample on individual liberties, and so far it does have popular support of 60 to 70 percent of Italians, so it is a difference with little substance. The question would be, could the government survive after it loses popular support? Almost surely, this one will not.

The government is meant to become unpopular, actually. It will have to implement measures most italians oppose (or support in theory but won't once it will concretely affect their wallets). Hopefully it won't be too much, since most people are resigned to austerity and realize it's unavoidable. But still, Monti's agenda is clear : do the dirty job, get Italy out of mess (which is, considering the country's strong fundamentals, more likely than not to succeed) and then leave the charge back to politicians and let them start bickering again. There will be new elections in 2013, where Monti won't run.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's democratic, because it's operating under a democratic constitution. The fact it's a technocratic government doesn't change it.

Monti was confirmed by democratically-elected parliament.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's democratic, because it's operating under a democratic constitution. The fact it's a technocratic government doesn't change it.

Monti was confirmed by democratically-elected parliament.

There have been a number of points brought up in this thread against that line of reasoning.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's democratic, because it's operating under a democratic constitution. The fact it's a technocratic government doesn't change it.

Monti was confirmed by democratically-elected parliament.

There have been a number of points brought up in this thread against that line of reasoning.

We may well consider all governments operating under parliamentary system "undemocratic".

The voters don't elect their government, they elect their representatives, who then go on and a majority of them anoint their leader as Prime Minister and he goes on to form a government, which the representatives can throw out whenever they want.

You reminded me quote from The West Wing. "We live in republic, not democracy. People doesn't make decisions, they elect people who do".

[scoopa]

In the Western notion of democracy, elected representatives and officials were never supposed to be roller chains of the public opinion.

One of my favourites political pieces is Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol. His understanding of the role of the elected corps in a liberal democracy has been prevalent till very recently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And JFK wrote on Profiles in Courage  that representatives aren't elected to serve as a mere seismograph to record shifts in popular opinion and have the duty to correct or flat outignore the will of their constituents.

The idea that this Italian government or the current legislature may lack democratic legitimacy is a product of a very recent tendency to see democracy as a direct and instantaneous expression of the constituency will. But the dominant concept in liberal democracies, besides the non-democratic mechanisms that serve the vital purpose of limiting democracy, is that representatives shouldn't cater the whims of the populace. That the public opinion should be consulted periodically via the electoral process.

IMO not only it's obviously formally democratic but also very democratic in spirit. The fact that the government is "technocratic" seems completely irrelevant to me - that's a completely different axis.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Burke was not a politician in a democratic country.

[Хahar 🤔]

The voters don't elect their government, they elect their representatives, who then go on and a majority of them anoint their leader as Prime Minister and he goes on to form a government, which the representatives can throw out whenever they want.

You reminded me quote from The West Wing. "We live in republic, not democracy. People doesn't make decisions, they elect people who do".

The question isn't whether the government is republican; it clearly is. The question is whether it's democratic.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The voters don't elect their government, they elect their representatives, who then go on and a majority of them anoint their leader as Prime Minister and he goes on to form a government, which the representatives can throw out whenever they want.

You reminded me quote from The West Wing. "We live in republic, not democracy. People doesn't make decisions, they elect people who do".

The question isn't whether the government is republican; it clearly is. The question is whether it's democratic.

True, but I don't think we can call it "undemocratic". It's a government appointed and confirmed under democratic constitution. Italy did not chance their system from democracy to technocracy. They just used this option temporary within democratic frameworks.

[Stan]

Yes, because Italian Constitution says that the Government is elected by the Parliament, and the Monti's Governement is elected by the Parliament.
The use to indicate a candidate to PM is informal and starts in 1994, buf before 1994 elections the PM was everytime elected by the Parliament after the elections.

[Insula Dei]

By that definition there are very few non-democratic regimes in the World. It's quite easy to have one's constitution read that the People's Congress as supreme representative of the people elects the government and is the supreme source of political legitimacy.

[Franzl]

By that definition there are very few non-democratic regimes in the World. It's quite easy to have one's constitution read that the People's Congress as supreme representative of the people elects the government and is the supreme source of political legitimacy.

Yeah but it kind of depends on how and under what circumstances that parliament is elected, no? I don't think anybody claims that Italy's last parliamentary election was undemocratic.