Silvio Berlusconi’s place in history has long been guaranteed. Regardless of how one may judge his legacy, he remains one of the most extraordinary characters of our era. A related, much harder question, however, concerns the type of character he will be remembered as. He could be catalogued as an Italian anomaly, a contingency due to a number of factors which are unrepeatable in other countries. Alternatively, one could try and identify some of his traits in other present and future political leaders of other countries of the world. A substantial personal wealth, a strong influence on the media, and links with the world of sports (or football, if one wants to be more precise) are three obvious candidates for such an identification.

Paul Ginsborg, in his valuable analysis of the Berlusconi phenomenon, suggests the names of Thaksin, the previous Thai Prime Minister, or the one that of Bernard Tapie, a French entrepreneur who was jailed when he was slowly emerging as a possible political leader for France. In an interesting pamphlet, Pierre Musso has underlined links with Szarkozy, while, despite their many differences, links are also being drawn between the usage Obama and Berlusconi make of media.

Since last week, a new protagonist has joined the list of those who could be possibly compared to Silvio Berlusconi. He is Sebastian Piñera, the fourth richest man in Chile, who has now been elected President of the country. Because of his stakes in both the media and the football industry of his country and because he has succeeded in pulling together quite a large right-wing coalition, the first right-wing Chilean President since the Pinochet days has been related to Berlusconi by both foreign and Italian media (extraordinarily, papers from both the right and the left seemed to agree).

Andreas Oppenheimer, a commentator from the Miami Herald, however, seems to oppose this comparison, finding five motives why Piñera is not the South American Berlusconi. It is a piece worth reading, particularly for the ability to identify differences where the similarities would seem even too evident. It shows how, even though it is important to look at comparative elements, the devil, as usual, lies in the details.