The arrival of Mr Frattini - Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs - in Paris is curiously matched by a week of  public discussions focusing on media, democracy and the “Italian anomaly”. The organizer is France’s leading multidisciplinary research group on contemporary Italy, GREPIC. A few days after the unofficial screening of “Videocracy” - a documentary film directed by Swedish-Italian Erik Gandini which denounces the cultural brutalization of Italy operated by (Berlusconi’s) new media regime - Italian specialist Marc Lazar organized a debate on “Television and politics in contemporary Italy”. As guest speakers, Pierre Musso - French philosopher and professor of communication studies, author of Télé-politique, le sarkoberlusconisme à l'écran - and Sofia Ventura - Italian professor of political science. Mrs Ventura is active within FareFuturo, a liberal-conservative think tank lead by Berlusconi’s (un)friendly ally, Gianfranco Fini. She is also best known for having publicly voiced - through her article Donne in politica: il velinismo non serve - her rage over reports that Berlusconi's party was lining up a troupe of TV showgirls as candidates for last June's European Parliament elections.

Even though the speakers did not agree on the cinematographic interest of “Videocracy” - Mr Lazar loved it, Mrs Ventura found it rather simplistic and Mr Musso did not even bother to watch it - they all agreed on its positive contribution as a vector to reflect on politics from a psychological perspective. According to Sofia Ventura, there are simultaneously a set of social and political issues of extreme relevance within the italian media-political regime. As far as society is concerned, she evokes the construction of a new image of the Woman and the Worker. All women shown in “Videocracy” and “Il corpo delle Donne” (Women’s Body) - another recent documentary-film examining the way in which contemporary Italian TV depicts women - are mute (besides being half-naked). Their existence is shown as being merely functional to men. Besides, “working” has lost its ancient identity-shaping function: success in life is now measured in terms of gains and popularity, as the value of “effort” is not socially appreciated. Concerning politics, Ventura fears the direct adoption of TV practices. Such fear is well represented by Noemi Letizia’s (Berlusconi’s post-teenage friend) doubts on whether to pursue her career within TV or within the  Parliament. No worries for her: Papi will chose for her what to do. As for Italy, Mrs. Ventura asks herself:  can we still draw a line between TV and political practices, or have these two merged in a hybrid cultural cauldron?

With a little dose of sarcasm towards political scientists and their (mis)understanding of media, Pierre Musso questions the concept of Telecraty, which he finds rather simplistic. The philosopher's understanding of Berlusconi is rather fascinating, as he tries to embrace the complexity of the phenomenon. According to him, Berlusconi reflects four dimensions: a symbolic one - being the Manager-president of the new Firm-state; an ethical one - promoting a Cult of Work; a political one - bi-personalizing the Italian political arena; and a scenographic one - adopting communicative techniques from the Enterprise and the Media. Echoing Umberto Eco’s distinction between Paleo-TV and Neo-TV, Mr Musso argues that, since the creation of  Telemilano in 1974, Berlusconi has constructed a “Neo-TV Empire” of the Talk Show. If in the Talk Show the anchormen dominates the scene, in the Political Show, Berlusconi-anchorman fixes the agenda, has a loyal audience and builds its success on a triptych borrowed by the neoliberal state: competition, elimination and compassion.

Going beyond the Italian case, we see that the Berlusconi phenomenon is part of a more global tendency  within mediatized politics. However, even if Pierre Musso’s idea that “nowadays, government is built on seduction” is, in itself, a seductive one, we cannot neglect the importance of other factors structuring the relationship between media and politics in contemporary democracies, and in the Italian case in particular. For example, how does his analytical framework take into account the absence of Italian center-left forces and their difficulties in constructing a valid alternative to Berlusconi’s discourse? How does it understand the success of the North League, a crucial force in his coalition, which is rather built on a pragmatical and anti-appearance credo? And, most importantly, how does it interpret the shift from competition to protection, that has characterized Berlusconi’s government since 2008? Communication techniques are certainly a powerful tool in the hands of government Leaders. However, politics deals with a complex object, society, whose problematics are increasingly structured by supra-national forces. Thus, the notions of cause and effect within Berlusconi's discursive and political strategy might be blurrier than what Musso suggests.

Cecilia Rubiolo is a graduate student at Sciences Po Paris. Her studies focus on politics from a multi-level perspective (urban/global, in particular). She is also interested in the role of ideas behind policy-making.