Napolitano and Berlusconi, the 2011 coup was a real coup. Why Casini is wrong

There is now a veritable literature on the fall of Berlusconi’s government in 2011, made up of opposing reconstructions between those who maintain that that autumn Napolitano carried out a coup d’état and those who are convinced that, by appointing Monti, the Quirinale saved Italy from non-compliance. . Both opinions are legitimate, but it is unacceptable that now, with the deaths of Berlusconi and Napolitano, it is said, as Pierferdinando Casini did in an interview with La Stampa, that the Cavaliere was even “relieved” at having been forced to resign. And the proof would be in the fact that Berlusconi then supported the Monti government and then Napolitano’s re-election. But in both cases the motivation must be sought in the sense of national responsibility that the president of Forza Italia has never failed to maintain in his thirty years of political career.

In reality, Berlusconi always stated that in 2011 there was a specific desire to remove a democratically elected prime minister who defended his country’s interests and opposed those of Germany, and he was convinced that then there was a real attack on Italian national sovereignty. . Furthermore, there are many reliable testimonies that confirm this: Obama’s Treasury Minister, Timothy Geithner, wrote, for example, that that autumn he had received pressure from high-ranking European figures to convince the American president to join “a conspiracy”. He called it exactly that, in his memoirs published in May 2014: conspiracy. To this proposal he responded: “We cannot have his blood on our hands”, we do not want to get his blood on our hands. «And that blood – observed Berlusconi – was mine».

The reconstruction of the Cavaliere was always very precise on this point: it opposed in every way the austerity policy that Merkel and Sarkozy wanted to impose on Italy, to the point of wanting it to be placed under the administration of the International Monetary Fund. «I did not intend – even if left alone by the Head of State – to renounce our sovereignty, out of respect for our people and for reasons of national dignity. However, just a few days after the G20 meeting in Cannes, where I was subjected to enormous pressure in early November, I was forced to resign. I did this because I preferred to retreat rather than cause irreparable damage to Italy, which was at gunpoint.

A weapon coldly constructed to allow external and internal, extra-democratic powers to take command of the ship.” Clearer than that… Furthermore, even the former Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, in his book «The Dilemma», said that Monti had in fact been appointed prime minister during the G20 in Cannes by Merkel, Sarkozy, as well as bureaucrats from Brussels and the International Monetary Fund.

Berlusconi was convinced that he had suffered two coups d’état: the first in 1994, when Scalfaro informed Bossi that the prime minister who had been in office for a few months “was at rock bottom” and that the Milan judges would certainly condemn him for the investigation notice he received at the G8 in Naples, and that is why he had to break the center-right alliance “so as not to end up there too”. This is the true genesis of the “turnaround” that led the League to abandon the government and support Lamberto Dini’s technical executive. The Knight, rightly so, did not accept. And he blamed Scalfaro for being the architect of “a fraud”, of “unacceptable oppression”, of a “coup d’état”. Accusations that led to him being investigated for contempt of the President of the Republic. The investigation has been closed. But Berlusconi never rejected his accusations. So much so that, many years later, he implemented what behind-the-scenes experts described as his revenge: a no to the bipartisan election of Scalfaro as president of the Senate in 2006.

Napolitano was more skillful and diplomatic than Scalfaro, but he never made any concessions to Berlusconi: on February 6, 2009, he refused to sign the Eluana decree, approved by the government to block the sentence that gave Beppino Englaro the possibility of letting his daughter die. her daughter, taking away her artificial feeding. The Prime Minister responded firmly: “Without the possibility of resorting to decree-laws, I would go back to the people and ask to change the Constitution.” On 7 October, Berlusconi attacked the Quirinale following the rejection of Alfano’s decision by the Constitutional Court. Of Napolitano, he said: “You all know which side he’s on.” On December 10, he launched a double attack on the Consulta and Napolitano, speaking at the EPP congress in Bonn.

“The Council – he said – is no longer a guarantee body, but a political body”. And he added: “We have had three leftist presidents of the Republic.” Napolitano responded with an official statement: “It is a violent attack on the guarantee institutions desired by the Italian Constitution.” But it was the truth. Then, on March 31, 2010, Quirinale returned the labor law to the Chambers, which, according to the opposition, made it possible to circumvent article 18 of the Workers’ Statute on dismissals. Napolitano expressed his “serious doubts”. Not only that: while the controversy over the Monte Carlo house was spreading, Napolitano defended Fini from the attacks of the majority and the “Berlusconi press”: the Head of State asked to put an end to the “highly destabilizing campaign” that aimed to delegitimize the President of the Chamber. However, never a word when the destabilizing campaigns involved Berlusconi. But it was precisely in the autumn of 2011 that Napolitano threw away his mask: Berlusconi governed for three years, after winning the 2008 elections by a landslide and triumphing in the 2010 regional elections. It was the Quirinale that overthrew him, that decided not letting the people vote for the Italians under the snow, to bring Monti’s project to life, in strict compliance with the dictates of European technocracies. Already in the summer, Napolitano was thinking of Professor Bocconi as his successor at Palazzo Chigi, a circumstance confirmed by Monti himself. The testimonies provided by Alan Friedman leave no room for different or minimalist interpretations. And certainly he was not respectful of the Constitution and the vote of the Italians to pre-ordain a government that would have disturbed the outcome of the elections, when the storm of the spread had not yet reached Italy.

Source: IL Tempo