Berlusconi is not finished yet

On June 24th and 25th, Italians voted overwhelmingly against a referendum on constitutional reform proposed by the previous government headed by Silvio Berlusconi's House of Freedom center-right coalition. Final results show that 61.7 percent of Italians voted against the reforms, with 38.7 percent of Italians voting in favor of them. This marks the third time this year that Romano Prodi and the new government formed by the center-left have emerged victorious over Berlusconi who asked the voters to "get revenge" on the Prodi government both in the local elections and the referendum over the constitution.

If passed, the constitutional changes would have devolved control over both Health and Education to the provinces in a key concession to Berlusconi's allies the Northern League, which could leave the center-right coalition now that the measures failed. They would also have fundamentally changed the way governments in Italy are formed and the way the operate.

Under the present system, elections for parliament must be held every five years to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, both of which have equal legislative power and functions. Every seven years parliament elects the President of the Italian Republic to serve as head of state, and when new elections are held the Presidnet holds consultations and appoints the government. Theoretically the President could appoint anyone Prime Minister provided that they have the ability to win confidence votes in both houses of parliament. The newly appointed Prime Minister, official titled "President of the Council of Ministers" then submits the list of ministers to the President who then approves of them. It is more complex than this a lot of the time but I am trying to simplify it. If the Prime Minister wants to conduct a major reshuffle, he cannot simply sack the ministers he wants to replace and appoint new ones. Rather, he must tender his resignation to the President and then hope that the President allows him to form a government with the changes he desires to make. This leads to instability, and Italy has had 61 governments since the end of World War II.

As a matter of fact, Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister from June-December 1994 and then again from June 2001 to May 2006, served longer in the post than anyone else since the end of World War II. Sure he was defeated in his bid for a second term, but the fact is that he is the only Prime Minister ever to last the five year term so he COULD be defeated afterwards. Additionally, the center-right House of Freedoms coalition, led by Berlusconi did better than expected in the elections and actually won the total popular vote. The reason why Prodi's Union won is because in the Chamber of Deputies they recieved 49.8 percent to 49.7 percent for the House of Freedoms, and in the Senate their votes were able to control a majority of the seats because they are allocated by regions.

Romano Prodi was elected very narrowly and took over in May 2006 with the narrowest of Senate majorities and a substantial advantage in the Chamber of Deputies only because of the "winner's bonus" that is allocated to the coalition recieving the most votes. Since taking over Prodi has run into one difficulty after another with his coalition which ranges from hardline communists to centrist roman catholics. He has been helped because the specter of Berlusconi's return has held the coalition together. Berlusconi, meanwhile, has alleged electoral fraud and has been asking voters to punish Prodi first in the local elections (they declined) and then in the referendum (they declined to punish him then also). Since the defeat many commentators have said that Berlusconi is finished, and that his coalition could fall apart, or at the minimum there could be a Leadership challenge. However, with his position of being seemingly discredited, the communists are no longer going to be restrained by fear of his return. This makes it more likely that the government will either fall, or descend into incoherence.

Government's that are incoherent and divided are generally voted down at the polls, and voting down Prodi in this case would mean the return of Italy's richest man as Prime Minister. Even as they cheer his demise, even as they write his political obituary, forgetting that Berlusconi came back once before after the fall of his first government, they are making his return as Prime Minister more likely.

Explanation of this blog's title

I know that there are a few people who read this blog, so I would just like to say why I chose the title "Throne of the Basileus" and what it actually means. I have long been interested in the history of the Byzantine Empire and from about 700 (thereabouts, its been a long time since I have read the histories of the empire that I have and I should check but can't right now) they started calling the Emperor "Basileus" which replaced the previous title of "Augustus." There really never was an actual position called "Emperor" at any time during either the Roman Empire or its successor in the Byzantine Empire, but rather the rulers were awarded the title of "Basileus."

So when you read this blog, know I mean "Throne of the Emperor" which means that I have a high opinion of myself :D

Learning about economics

Recently it occured to me that while I know a great deal about politics that my knowledge of economics is sorely lacking. This is not normally something to be concerned about but it is important to be an informed voter and to understand the true economic impact of government policy so I can filter out the partisan spin I hear about it. Therefore, I have gotten two books out of the library on Economics, one of them being a textbook and the other being "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, which is a book about the economy in layman's terms. It is really quite an interesting field because many of the things we think about as central to economics are really only one small part of the puzzle. Basically economics is the study of how scarce resources are used by a society.

It is, I think, about human behavior as much as it is about money and that's why this is going to be quite a learning experience.

Bush's political comeback?

Every poll, save for the most recent one released by CBS, shows the President's approval rating rising slightly from its lows at around 31 percent.

Here is the progression of the Gallup poll from May 5th-7th until now, and it gives a decently accurate picture of upward progress for the administration over the past month.

May 5th-7th: 31 approve, 65 percent disapprove
May 8th-11th: 33 approve, 61 disapprove
June 1st-4th: 36 approve, 57 disapprove
June 9th-11th: 38 approve, 56 disapprove

This is just the Gallup poll but it does show un upward trend from May 5th through May 11th, and then after polling was resumed the ratings rose again. There was a net 7 percent increase in approve and a 9 point decrease in disapproval and that is something statistically significant.

The AP/Ipsos poll has been one of the most negative about the President for quite a while (not in terms of bias but in terms of approval rating), and even there his ratings did slightly rise, from 33 approve, 65 disapprove from May 1-3 to 35-63 approval/disapproval in their most recent poll. The only poll showing any sort of downward trend over that time period was the most recent CBS poll, showing Bush's approval rating dropping from 35 to 33 percent, and disapproval remaining static at 60 percent.

This is nowhere near where it needs to be for Bush to be anything but a major drag on Republicans up and down the ticket, which begs the question: Is any sort of political comeback for the President even possible? The major difficulty is that voters are very framiliar with him and their impressions are very hard to change. During the period after the 2000 election for example, the Bush strategists decided that the public views the President in very black-and-white terms and that 93 percent of people already knew how they were going to vote in 2004 immediately after the 2000 election. The campaign's strategy was based largely on winning the election in such a tightly contested climate and the President was reelected 51-48, as everyone knows. The polarization would serve to limit the extent of such a revival.

Perhaps the best the administration can do is lift the approval ratings above 40 percent to where they were during most of 2005 before Hurricane Katrina. However, even that would be a benefit in many marginal districts.

California 50th District Recap

As I said before, the 50th district special election was not a test for the Republican Party but it is also good that the Republican candidate won the election. Brian Bilbray's return to congress (he previously served from his election in 1994 until he was defeated in 2000) means that the Democrats are going to have to fight one more Republican incumbent in order to win the election this year. Brian Bilbray won only 49.5 percent of the vote, despite the fact that the Democrats failed to except marginally improve on Kerry's 2004 total in the district, indicating that they have not made the inroads into the Bush districts they are going to have to make in order to win the election.

At the same time, the fact that the independent who ran opposing immigration and amnesty won more than three percent of the vote indicates that the right may now not be as cohesive as the left, and that a right-wing equivalent of Ralph Nader in 2008 might be a spoiler if the circumstances are right. This is no sign that Republicans can sit on their hands and expect victory to come in the November elections, but it does mean that the Democrats still have a lot of work to do for them to be able to contemplate winning the elections for the House this year.

Could the Jefferson office raid end up actually hurting Democrats?

In the evening of May 21st, the FBI executed a search warrant on the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged bribes recieved by the congressman to promote business ventures in Africa. The warrant was obtained and the search was conducted, and it is likely the first ever raid on a congressional office in the history of the nation. Immediately there was outrage in congress from both parties about whether or not the justice department had the authority to conduct such a raid or not. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a rare joint statement about their concerns, and the Judiciary Committee had a number of witnesses all condemn the search.

Many commentators have taken this as an example of the Republicans stirring up controversy with the administration once again and again bungling an opportunity to improve their standing with the public. Certiainly the position they are in, of defending a congressman who is very likely guilty of the crime of accepting bribes (and there is substantial evidence against as well as the guilty pleas of two associates of Jeffersons) and thus reinforcing their apparent willingness to defend corruption at every step of the way. All this might be true, but it is important to also note that the attention given to a story, no matter what the spin it is given does boost the profile of the issue it involves and the elements it contains. The controversy over the raid and its being repeated on national television turns what had been a footnote into a major national issue and something people remember. Indeed, it is an example of corruption within the Democratic Party in congress that people remember. The Democrats have actually had a rough time recently as Patrick Kennedy's run-in with the Capitol Police is something people are going to remember as well because of his famous father and the famous family name.

The Democrats right now have gained the advantage on several issues, including the unpopularity of the Iraq war (which could be worsened by the revelations that the US marines engaged in a massacre at Haditha of innocent and unarmed civilians), high gas prices, and corruption in congress. When one of their members is constantly in the headlines, even as a footnote to the investigation, then its as likely as not that it will be damaging to the Democrats this November when voters go to elect the next congress.

California 50th District Special Election

On June 6th in the California 50th district there is going to be an important special election which could help predict what the result is going to be in the fall. It is not going to be a perfect indicator as in 2004 the victory of Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota following the resignation of Billy Janklow, didn't presage Democratic control of the House of Representatives in the fall. This could be a similar situation, but still, as a Republican its better for Brian Bilbray to win the seat and hold it for the House Republicans than it is for Francine Busby to win it. Its not a test per se, but it is always good for the Republicans to win these special elections.

Republicans are going to have to retain seats like this to retain control of the House this fall, and if Francine Busby is the incumbent she is going to have something of a natural advantage. The election may be national to a certain extent but the way control of the House is decided is victories in individual constituencies like this one and the Democrats are going to be one seat closer to the majority if they win this special election.