5

How was Silvio Berlusconi in power for 9 years and 54 days with all his corruption?

6
  • 1
    Which would you rather have, a "corrupt" politician who runs things in an efficient manner (the better to line his pockets), or an honest politician who screws up everything through well-meaning but poorly thought out acts?
    – jamesqf
    Oct 8, 2017 at 17:31
  • 3
    @jamesqf, the second one.
    – user4514
    Oct 8, 2017 at 17:37
  • 1
    So you're a masochist, eh? I think most people would chose #1.
    – jamesqf
    Oct 9, 2017 at 18:49
  • @jamesqf, two more people agreed with me.
    – user4514
    Oct 9, 2017 at 18:51
  • @jamesqf That's not a choice anyone faces, certainly not in Italy or with Berlusconi.
    – Relaxed
    Dec 25, 2017 at 19:18

1 Answer 1

6

This problem is far from being an Italian specific one. In my native country similar questions were asked when some mayors were reelected while being in jail waiting for corruption related trials.

Your question assumes that being corrupt is a stigma that will prevent one to be (re)elected, but reality is much more complex than that. Oskar Kurer argues about this paradox in a dedicated chapter here:

Why do voters support corrupt politicians? This question is of vital importance if it is believed that corrupt politicians are often widely popular and that corruption has a detrimental effect on development. The answer to the question shows that democracy is not necessarily a palliative to corruption and that reducing corruption may require political changes that go far beyond the administrative reforms of the "good governance" variety.

[...] unpopular corruption and popular corrupt politicians. Despite the apparent aversion to corruption, many voters do support Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Chart Thai in Thailand, the PRI in Mexico and the Congress Party in India.

Some of the reasons that might explain the paradox are:

  • "helping people" - these politicians are perceived as "helping people". Many might perceive them as corrupt, but at least they do things for the people.

  • perception of missing alternative - corruption-free policy package is "not on offer" or it perceived as such

  • self interest - some voters might think that corruption helps them to trick the system (e.g. pay some money to an official that shortcuts the bureaucracy)

4
  • PPP in Pakistan, BAL in Bangladesh, Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, ... ... ...
    – user4514
    Oct 8, 2017 at 6:25
  • @anonymous - yes, there are plenty of examples. I found both the question and the referenced article interesting because similar questions are asked for years in my native country (Romania): why do we see the same mayors and parliamentarians, even though some of them were convicted for corruption, money laundering etc.? And the paradox is clear: the polls indicate that National Anti Corruption Department is the most trusted institution and the Parliament the least and still, many of Parliamentarians are being reelected after being convicted for corruption.
    – Alexei
    Oct 8, 2017 at 6:30
  • "Missing alternative" could be broadened to "Perception of missing alternative": a cynicism which assumes that all politicians are corrupt. That may even be a reason to vote for the incumbent, on the grounds that they've already made some money and so will be less hungry for more than a newly elected replacement. Oct 9, 2017 at 10:29
  • @PeterTaylor - yes, I have made the change. Besides the "all politicians are corrupt" argument, some do not make the effort to look up for alternatives. This is a great handicap for small parties that cannot match the financial power of great ones and are forced to have small campaigns, mostly online ones.
    – Alexei
    Oct 9, 2017 at 10:33

You must log in to answer this question.