Why Italy cannot be ruled by fair governors

Karl Popper used to define democracy as that system where government can be easily replaced without bloodshed. According to this definition Modern Italy is surely a democracy. However there is probably something not working well in Italian democratic system. Many Italians share this belief and foreign press, especially the Economist, has been writing a lot about multiple faces of this problem.

Is Italian press truly free? Are Italians correctly informed about what happens in their country? Can they freely express their political will without bias? Many more questions could be asked about this theme and far more than a single article space would be needed to discuss them. Let’s focus on one single sentence: Italy cannot be ruled by fair governors.

The main reason is that private interests of some Italians and wrong understanding of some others conflict with the needs of the country. As a sort of opposite of invisible hand, the individual Italian, believing to pursue his own interest, causes damage to the whole country and therefore to himself too. For example Meritocracy is most of what Italy needs. However no meritocratic reform or policies could be well accepted by the voters. Let’s detail why.

Meritocracy should mean at least three things.

1. Ordinary law enforcement, such as
   1. Jail of convicted people;
   2. Fine or prison for tax evasion;
   3. In brief no law violation should be tolerated;
2. Standard market competition, for example
   1. Removal of law limitation of the number of competitors in such jobs like notary, pharmacist, taxi driver, and so on
   2. Remove administrative enter barriers to many kind of job or commercial activity
   3. Remove most of the existing labor market burdens
3. Bringing efficiency in public administration, namely
   1. allow firing those people that violate law and commit severe abuses
   2. give a reward to positive performance as well as penalty to negative ones

Voters that would not accept meritocratic reforms can be divided in three main categories.

Category one includes people that consider meritocracy a threat to their own interests namely

• professionals like notaries and pharmacists that benefit from law limitation of number of market competitors
• public administration employees that benefit from highly tolerant regulation enforcement (including sometimes severe law violation)
• people used to tax evasion (they are more than a non Italian can expect)
• more in general people afraid of ordinary law enforcement

Category two includes people not understanding or not willing to recognize meritocracy’s benefit including

• employees that are not able to realize the zero sum game that will transfer onto them the burden of tax unpaid by others
• people resigned to the idea that the status quo cannot be changed and it is useless even trying
• people that simply do not want or find worth spending time in considering the problem

Category three includes people that consider a political party just like a soccer team, something you choose with heart more than with brain or a passion you may even inherit from your father.

Only people belonging to category one get a tangible benefits from lack of meritocracy, however they are able to determine political results using the cooperation of categories two and three. Collaboration of category two is based on resignation, lack of will or time to become fairly informed and so on. Category three gives its support on a non rational base, its members prefer to believe in biased news or improbable announcements more than consider facts objectively.

In conclusion, Italy cannot be ruled by fair governors because a lobby is able to determine political results and the interest of this group conflict with those of the entire country. These lobbyists are helped in pursuing their own interest by others that do not understand or do not want to see the global damage to the country.