• 

Many see it as the height of irresponsibility

ROME – Italians usually greet their periodic political crises with cynical resignation. But when, on January 13th, the ministers from Italia Viva, a splinter group led by Matteo Renzi, pulled out of Italy’s left-populist government, stripping it of its parliamentary majority, the reaction of many was outrage.

Polls suggest Mr Renzi’s tiny party has the support of only about 3% of the electorate. Its leader’s approval rating is among the lowest of any prominent Italian politician. By contrast, the prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, has far and away the highest.

But Italia Viva’s senators are enough to make the difference in the upper house. Mr Renzi said his followers would not obstruct two urgent pending bills. It is clear, however, that Italy now faces yet another bout of political instability—and, this time, in the midst of a pandemic and just as it is about to submit to Brussels its plans for spending its share of the EU’s recovery funds. “With 500 dead in the country today because of the coronavirus, Renzi can’t find anything better to do than bring down the government on a whim,” railed one irate Twitter user.

The withdrawal of Italia Viva leaves Mr Conte with the backing of the centre-left Democratic Party (PD), the ideologically heterogeneous Five Star Movement (M5S) and a small, radical left-wing party. The M5S said that pitching into a political crisis at such a time was incomprehensible. Andrea Orlando, the deputy general secretary of the Democrats, called it “a grave mistake—we shall all for pay for it”.

Mr Renzi, a former prime minister who abandoned the PD in 2019, was harshly critical of Mr Conte at a press conference to announce the resignations. But he was careful to leave open several possible solutions to the crisis, even including a reshuffled government under the same leadership.

Since Mr Renzi began his offensive last month, critics have argued that his aim is to become the kingmaker of Italian politics. He maintains he is acting for the good of the country. He claims that Mr Conte has kept too much power to himself, citing the prime minister’s control of the intelligence services in particular. He has challenged Mr Conte’s reluctance to tap the EU’s bail-out fund, the European Stability Mechanism, for cash to boost Italy’s health services. The EU’s pandemic recovery funds are yet another bone of contention: Mr Renzi has objected vigorously to the government’s plans for spending the money, estimated at more than €200bn ($240bn).

Francesco Grillo, whose think-tank, Vision, has prepared a study of the recovery funds, says that in this respect Mr Renzi has a good case. The government’s blueprint contains “no real view of where Italy wants to be in five or six years’ time, nor a clear roadmap to show how it intends getting there,” he says. It allocates almost a quarter of the loans and grants it expects from the EU to tax breaks. These are intended to encourage investment that will make Italy “greener” and “smarter”. But, argues Mr Grillo, those criteria are loosely defined and not part of an overall strategy.

The direst outcome to the mess would be an election amid a possible third wave of the pandemic. On current polling, that would deliver power to a hard-right coalition that would doubtless want to re-write Italy’s recovery-fund proposal. But few in parliament are keen on a vote, not least because the next election will be held under new rules that will reduce the number of seats by around a third.

A more sanguine view is that an assortment of independents and renegades from other parties could be assembled to join forces with the remaining parties in the coalition to support a new government, led either by Mr Conte or some respected establishment figure. That, however, risks producing an even more fragile, and perhaps disreputable, majority. Parliamentary turncoats expect to be pampered and rewarded for their support. They are like extra-marital lovers, a politician famed for his party-hopping warned Mr Conte: “You have to give them dignity, bring them out into the open and recognise their value. Otherwise, they say good-bye.”

By The Economist