The choice of which period of history one wants to concentrate on is usually dictated by the developments of the present. The emphasis given by the Italian media to the ten-year anniversary of the death of Bettino Craxi‘s, one of the longest serving Prime  Ministers of Italy, who was also condemned for taking bribes and escaped to Tunisia to avoid prison, is no exception.

Very different opinions have been expressed about Craxi’s legacy. The editor of TG1 news controversially compared him to Pope John Paul II for his role in defeating Communism, the President of the Italian Senate, Renato Schifani, suggested he was a “scapegoat”, while the former judge and current leader of the Italia dei Valori, Antonio Di Pietro, said he was simply a “criminal”. The President of the Italian Republic wrote a letter to Craxi’s widow underlining the complexity of Craxi’s character. The foreign press is showing much less sympathy for Craxi’s posthumous rehabilitation, even accusing Italy of having a short memory.

Italy’s memory may not be that good, but the understanding of the importance of the battle over Craxi’s legacy displayed by all the political actors certainly is. It is no symptom of excessive presentism suggesting that the huge controversy generated by this particular anniversary is, in fact, the first round of the one battle politicians, journalists and historians will fight for many years to come: the one over the legacy of Silvio Berlusconi.

The links between Craxi and Berlusconi are very many, indeed. Craxi essentially allowed Berlusconi to create his media empire, created a personalisation of politics which Berlusconi only magnified and formed a political class which was then transfused into Forza Italia. A positive historical judgement over all these and other elements would certainly be a strong premise for a good judgement over the Berlusconi years.

There is, however, also a slightly subtler point. For both Craxi and Berlusconi, people’s judgement seems to shift quite dramatically if one looks at their relationship with the law or at what they did as politicians and Prime Ministers. Prioritising the former means emphasising their shadows, while concentrating on the latter can make their lights emerge.

This does not mean that everyone will be convinced that the two were exemplary in government and criminals away from it. Those in favour of Craxi and those for Berlusconi (these are often two overlapping sets) will underline the faults of those who took them to trial, while those against them will point at the damages their government action has produced. However, it will be a battle of perspectives, the “political” one versus the “personal and moral” one, to determine the judgement of the many. Such a battle, as it is clear from these days, has only just begun.