The idea that a government loses its innovativeness and gains complacency if it remains in power for too long has always been something of a fixture in the world of politics. In the United States the president, and his administration, cannot sit for more than two terms for this reason amongst others. In the UK, even those who do not necessarily dislike the Labour party are considering voting against them in the upcoming election, precisely because they believe that the current government, in power since 1997, has become stagnant and that the UK requires new leadership regardless of their policies.

In such scenarios it is considered not so much the aim of the opposition to win the election, but to allow the government to lose it. There is one European leader who has managed time and time again to debunk this truism; Silvio Berlusconi. He is the longest serving current leader of a G8 country and the longest-serving prime minister of Italy, a position he has held on three separate occasions: from 1994 to 1995, from 2001 to 2006 and currently since 2008. As The Economist said of Berlusconi in November 2009, “No forecaster has yet benefited from predicting the irrepressible media tycoon’s demise.”

Any ideas?

Much like the UK, in Italy’s recent (regional) elections in late March, many commentators predicted widespread backlash against the government, yet Berlusconi’s coalition managed to make significant gains – now controlling six of the thirteen regions where voting took place, whereas it previously controlled only two (see below). This is despite the fact that the turnout was relatively low in Italian terms, around 64%, the lowest in 15 years, a factor that usually favours the opposition. And also contrary to the idea that it is somewhat of a habit in politics for the electorate to show their discontent with the incumbent government via an anti-government vote in regional/local elections. Commentators predicted that voters would use this opportunity. As highlighted by Press TV in March 2010: “Berlusconi's popularity will be tested in the regional elections... After 20 months in power, the Italian Prime Minister's popularity has been declining in the polls following his involvement in alleged sexual adventures, efforts to control the media, and mafia collusion, amongst other scandals.”

However, notwithstanding recent allegations made against him by both the judiciary and the media at home and abroad, Berlusconi has, it seems, not only to have managed to remain relatively popular despite his long stint in power, but has managed to transfer this into electoral gains at one of the worst times in living memory for the global economy. What are the reasons for his continued success, what lessons could be learned for other long serving world leaders, and what might in indicate for Brown’s chances in the upcoming election?

Berlusconi makes gains in regional polls (source: BBC)

Similarities and Differences

Crisis manager

There are some similarities between Brown and Berlusconi which imply that Brown has a better chance in the upcoming election than might appear at first glance. The first is that despite all the talk of change, in times of crisis people are often reluctant to cause further disruption with a change of leadership, especially if the leader in question has dealt with the crisis relatively well. While Britain has been one of the worst hit by the global recession in terms of impact on GDP and its fiscal position, it has, in terms of government policy at least, responded well. Brown emerged from the crisis as somewhat of an economic guru, made competent decisions regarding the reaction to the financial crisis and led the world in the formation of a global stimulus package. Although Britain has dramatically increased its debt, its relatively lower level of debt in comparison to its European counterparts prior to the crisis means that its overall level is not significantly better or worse than its European counterparts post crisis.

Italy has done relatively well in the crisis for more or less the opposite reasons; while its reaction to the crisis in terms of policy ideas and stimulus packages has been weak due to its relatively poorer fiscal position, its economy has fared much better than expected. This is due to two reasons: firstly, its industrial structure, mainly composed of small to medium sized enterprises has less of a tendency to lay off workers during times of economic hardship, and secondly, its banks are relatively smaller than those of other developed nations, and with a financial sector more entwined with the local economy than the national or international one, global financial crises have less of an impact.

Even Italy’s larger banks are more retail orientated than their main competitors, and hence are less reliant on the wholesale money markets for finance, and less likely to indulge in the collateralized debt obligations that led to the financial struggles of many banks – not a single Italian bank collapsed, and government assistance was thus limited. Many economists argue that, in terms of public debt, Italy is a case apart as its public debt weighs less heavily on markets because the majority of it is owned by Italians whose high levels of savings and low levels of private debt result in an overall level of debt (both public and private) being more or less equal with other nations – a similar case is observed in Japan (see“Slow and Steady wins the race?”)

Supporters of the government would argue that the dampened impact on Italy’s economy has allowed its budget balance to be lower than its European counterparts (see below). However, opponents argue that this limited stimulus is a consequence of the already high level of public debt. In other crises Berlusconi was seen to deal extremely well with the Earthquake crisis L'Aquila, so much so that the minister in charge of the rescue operation was requested by the Haitian government to assist in the rescue strategy of their disaster. In addition, Berlsuconi too has seen to have done well, for example the rescue of Alitalia and the Naples rubbish crisis.

Budget Balances in Europe (Source: The Economist)

Showman versus Statesman

A clear difference between Berlusconi and Brown is their level of showmanship. However, by an ironic contrast, Berlusconi's high level of charisma works well in the Italian political context, whereas Brown's lack of it seems too to work to his advantage somewhat in Britain. In Italy, Berlusconi is often referred to as un-presidential , but the opposition parties, with weak leadership and a much more tenuous coalition than Berlusconi's, have failed to capitalise on his failings in the public domain by offering few policy ideas of their own, and have instead sought to capitalise on his private failings. Furthermore, it seems that in Italy it is much more important to be popular at home, than it is to be seen as popular abroad. One of the main draws of Belusconi is his ability to communicate his policies to the general public in layman's terms. Contrastingly, his opponents suffer from an overly intellectualised approach to communication. This may be one of the main reasons that Berlusconi, despite the fact that Italy is notorious for government instability, the global recession and the numerous accusations put against him, has managed to remain in office for so long. In The Berlusconi Show recently broadcast on the BBC, many talk about Berlusconi's ability to be a man of the people, the way he can communicate with the electorate on "their level", and the respect he has earned from the population for holding the country together.

In Britain, Brown, unlike Berlusconi, is seen to have very limited charisma. However, in a different cultural context, this too works to his advantage. Cameron and his shadow cabinet are regularly tarnished with the accusation of “style over substance”. The PR strategy of the Tories isn't working, and the public aren't buying their overly manufactured attempt at a squeaky clean image as much as they must have planned in Central Office. The Conservatives made some very poor judgements during the financial collapse, most notably their initial opposition to a banking sector bailout despite international consensus on such measures. More recently, many have poked holes in their plans which promise to cut the budget without cutting front line public services, “fencing off” certain areas of public expenditure from cuts and instead promising to cut the deficit through "efficiency savings".

Many have warned that such efficiency savings proposed by the Tories are planned too early and would threatened the recovery. Recently, as highlighted by the Guardian in April 2010 “Gordon Brown's handling of economy is backed by 77 leading economists... who have signed a letter, which was organised by Labour, opposing Conservative plans for an extra £6bn efficiency savings before April.” This is much more significant than the 100 businesses that the Conservatives rallied to oppose Labour's National Insurance rise - those businesses have a vested interest in saying so, the economists that support Brown do not. The argument seems to centre around a combination of maintaining the current level of taxation in the future by reducing spending now (the Conservative option), or maintaining spending now financed by raising National Insurance in the future (the Labour option). Labour, not the Conservatives, seem again to be in line with international opinion on this issue, agreeing that the recovery is too tenuous to be put under threat now by withdrawing government support.

The Man and the Media

Another area of common experience between Brown and Berlusconi is the large level of media criticism they have received in relation to scandals and sleaze. In Italy, scandals against Berlusconi have had a limited impact as The Economist wrote in November 2009 “The disclosure of the 73-year-old Mr Berlusconi’s still unexplained relationship with a teenage girl, his nights spent with women allegedly paid to give him sex, and above all his treatment of his now estranged wife, Veronica Lario, have shrunk his stature in the eyes of many erstwhile admirers (though not as many as non-Italians might imagine).” This is in part due to the fact that in Italy there is more of a distinct separation in the electorates mind between the public and private lives of political figures than in other developed nations.

In Britain, the scandals against politicians, most notably the expenses scandal, have managed to spread almost equally amongst the political parties with as much mud sticking to Brown as Cameron. There is similarity in consequence for the two leaders whom despite sleaze and media scandal have both, for different reasons, managed to come off relatively unscathed. The main difference is Berlusconi’s high level of control over the Italian media, especially television where the majority of Italians obtain their news coverage, which has allowed him to dampen the full blow of critics – a weapon that Brown does not have.

Often down, but not yet out

So what might these similarities and differences between the two men indicate for Brown’s chances in the upcoming election? Berlusconi has demonstrated that in the right circumstances, incumbent governments can overcome criticism of stagnation and the corresponding demands for change. He has also shown that during a crisis the electorate often prefer experience and trust policy over rhetoric, and highlighted how a personality suited to the cultural context can create a significant and long-lasting advantage. Moreover, he has illustrated that it is possible to survive a barrage of media assaults amidst allegations of sleaze and poor governance. The circumstances are different in Britain, and different for Brown, but if the Berlusconi experience is anything to go by, Labour’s chances may be better than you may at first think. The Tories shouldn't count their chickens just yet.