What do you think?
Rate this book
Silvio Berlusconi: Television, Power and Patrimony
Silvio Berlusconi, a self-made man with a taste for luxurious living, owner of a huge television empire and the politician who likened a German MEP to a Nazi concentration camp guard—small wonder that much of democratic Europe and America has responded with considerable dismay and disdain to his governance of Italy.
Paul Ginsborg, contemporary Italy’s foremost historian, explains here why we should take Berlusconi seriously. His new book combines historical narrative–Berlusconi’s childhood in the dynamic and paternalist Milanese bourgeoisie, his strict religious schooling, a working life which has encompassed crooning, large construction projects and the creation of a commercial television empire–with careful analysis of Berlusconi’s political development.
While highlighting the particular italianita of Berlusconi’s trajectory, Ginsborg also finds international tendencies, such as the distorted relationship between the media system and politics. Throughout, Ginsborg suggests that Berlusconi has gotten as far as he has thanks to the wide-open space left by the strategic weaknesses of modern left-wing politics.
Paul Ginsborg, contemporary Italy’s foremost historian, explains here why we should take Berlusconi seriously. His new book combines historical narrative–Berlusconi’s childhood in the dynamic and paternalist Milanese bourgeoisie, his strict religious schooling, a working life which has encompassed crooning, large construction projects and the creation of a commercial television empire–with careful analysis of Berlusconi’s political development.
While highlighting the particular italianita of Berlusconi’s trajectory, Ginsborg also finds international tendencies, such as the distorted relationship between the media system and politics. Throughout, Ginsborg suggests that Berlusconi has gotten as far as he has thanks to the wide-open space left by the strategic weaknesses of modern left-wing politics.
195 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 13, 2022
A left-wing look at Berlusconi; there's much repetition with his historical study Italy and Its Discontents: Family, Civil Society, State . That was quite phenomenal, this is rather disappointing.
June 22, 2025
Whilst obviously very out of date in several places, does hit on how the Berlusconi project was one of the first major manifestations of anti-politics candidates running against established conservative parties from the right a la Trump or Farage, benefitting hugely from how politics has disintegrated into just another form of showbusiness in most of the Global North. Berlusconi might be gone, but we live in a world where his particular strain of conservative politics (and tendency to mainstream far-right positions) has come to dominate exhausted neoliberal projects which have little new to offer voters bar the promise their own lives may not get any better, but those of the people around them can get worse.
April 23, 2016
Ginsborg tells the fascinating story of Silvio Berlusconi's rise to power from ordinary roots to the Prime Minister of Italy (it leaves off at 2004, unfortunately). Though it is really the story of how charismatic individuals, whether in media or in politics (or in Berlusconi's case both) persuade us, distracting us from terrible, structural problems they claim to fix. We see ourselves in them, and the fashion-conscious, high-tech consumerism they represent. It is amazing to read that some of Berlusconi's biggest supporters were women with cash reserves taking their cues from the kind of cheap, televised entertainment he provides.
Democracy works best when its power is diffused through institutions. History shows that if power can actually be located it will be stormed. It is this diffusion of power that makes democracy look messy. Contrary to this are the minutemen and women who need personalities, current affairs, conflicts, dramas mini and macro, verbal duels. The stuff of reality television. You tell it like it is to whoever needs to hear it. Sometimes they actually respond. Change in democracy is slow for a very good reason. But all these problem-solvers do not want to hear it.
Play it safe and aim for high profits. Pay fierce attention to levels of audience share, and mark your progress. If the people have insatiable acquisitive tendencies why should they be denied? Somehow the media and the kind of talk that corresponds to it is equated with democracy now, while the kind of work which requires research, town meetings, voting and non-violent change in power, observation over time instead of following the trends, is not considered democracy anymore. At least not to those who find the Berlusconis of the world so fascinating while followers of the magnates claim, loudly, that "the media" is the problem.
Almost on cue the book ends with Berlusconi getting a face-lift.
________
On a side note, this survey of Italian politics and culture feels like it has been covered well in Ferrante's novels. Here is much of the detail she dramatizes including the shadiness and corruption. Remarkably, this excellent historian almost feels redundant when compared to an artist covering the same territory. Why should this surprise me?
Democracy works best when its power is diffused through institutions. History shows that if power can actually be located it will be stormed. It is this diffusion of power that makes democracy look messy. Contrary to this are the minutemen and women who need personalities, current affairs, conflicts, dramas mini and macro, verbal duels. The stuff of reality television. You tell it like it is to whoever needs to hear it. Sometimes they actually respond. Change in democracy is slow for a very good reason. But all these problem-solvers do not want to hear it.
Play it safe and aim for high profits. Pay fierce attention to levels of audience share, and mark your progress. If the people have insatiable acquisitive tendencies why should they be denied? Somehow the media and the kind of talk that corresponds to it is equated with democracy now, while the kind of work which requires research, town meetings, voting and non-violent change in power, observation over time instead of following the trends, is not considered democracy anymore. At least not to those who find the Berlusconis of the world so fascinating while followers of the magnates claim, loudly, that "the media" is the problem.
Almost on cue the book ends with Berlusconi getting a face-lift.
________
On a side note, this survey of Italian politics and culture feels like it has been covered well in Ferrante's novels. Here is much of the detail she dramatizes including the shadiness and corruption. Remarkably, this excellent historian almost feels redundant when compared to an artist covering the same territory. Why should this surprise me?
May 12, 2023
Before the Finnish parliamentary election this year, a shocking statistic came out: 32,5% out of 15-25-year-old Finns who were frequent users of TikTok were projected to vote for the True Finns - a far right party which had veered toward extreme xenofobia and the economic right wing from its original, more authentic populist position along with the rest of the European populist right during the continent-wide peripety of the late 2010s. This phenomenon was oft noted, seldom theorised, and a bad fit to any priorly available historical narratives. Such inability to find historical analogues is not specific to Finland. Even as with Trump's wielding of Fox News and social media, and with the UK-Conservatives' troubled, though mainly amicable, relationship with the Murdochian print press, many had drawn parallels to the Nazis and Mussolini's skilled use of radio, few went for the more recent, and in many ways more obvious, analogy with Berlusconi.
This is the void I wished to fill for myself with the present book, which I gathered is the best of its kind on Berlusconi. It goes together with Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, in the sense of being a book which does see its hype, but can far too easily be dismissed as a kind of overly zeitgeisty meme. But, against such reactions Ginsborg notes:
This is both an incicive point about the political logic of Berlusconi's rule, which Ginsborg runs through the mangel of Weber's concept of patrimony as a politico-economic category lifted from the ancient world, and most likely an important element of any viable explanation of the scorn in which many historically inclined leftists hold alarmism about political figures like Trump - beyond the question of historiographical malapropisms, like calling Trump a fascist (which, roast the doers of as much as you want).
But, if the form of Berlusconi's power was patrimonial, what was the currency of the pater's property? Television, still a rather new phenomenon in its more hectic form in the 1990s, was the crux of Berlusconi's business empire, which ranged from ownership of AC Milan to real estate and a chain of supermarkets. Many a European right-wing Demagogue no longer fit the bill of the patrimonial property owner, but many of the factoids about the media-power around Berlusconi certainly ring a bell:
The man who owned most of the channels Italians spent an average of nearly a sixth of the hours of the day ogling at was, of course, Silvio Berlusconi. Like the Daily Mail in the UK, which to this day retains a dominantly female readership, Berlusconi's television empire caught the stay-at-home Women of Italy's more conservative gender strata, a whopping 42,3% of Women who watched more than 3 hours of television a day voted for his Forza Italia in the 2001 elections (98). The laying out of such statistics bares quite a lot of similarity to the contemporary discussion of the importance of social media, and can be important to bring to mind in considering how "unique" our own dreadful conjuncture really is.
Some aspects distinguish the contemporary social media -driven right wing aspirants from Berlusconi though. While the "global television oligarchy" of Berlusconi's time (Murdoch is a constant presence in the book), are distinguished according to Ginsborg by "fierce attention to levels of audience share, insatiable acquisitive tendencies; limited and conformist cultural frameworks" (104) the contemporary attention economy politicians have a much more contrarian bent. And even if the contemporary drive to maximise engagement is analogous to the television era's audience share fixation, this media strategy is much more participatory than that of television. More important than audience numbers for a simple broadcast become the dispersal of memes and engagement, driven through more and more by culture war struggles, which drive up engagement by both the right-wing riling up new complaints about Peppa the Pig or whatnot (this was seriously one of Giorgia Meloni's primary grievances in her campaign speeches), and to "left-wing" reaction to it.
So while it is most likely important to analyse Berlusconi quite a lot and I am definitely quite stricken by this book, the differences are at least as important.
This is the void I wished to fill for myself with the present book, which I gathered is the best of its kind on Berlusconi. It goes together with Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, in the sense of being a book which does see its hype, but can far too easily be dismissed as a kind of overly zeitgeisty meme. But, against such reactions Ginsborg notes:
The temptation exists, and more than once in the twentieth century liberal and conservative European public opinion has succumbed to it, of not taking seriously personal projects for political dominion.
This is both an incicive point about the political logic of Berlusconi's rule, which Ginsborg runs through the mangel of Weber's concept of patrimony as a politico-economic category lifted from the ancient world, and most likely an important element of any viable explanation of the scorn in which many historically inclined leftists hold alarmism about political figures like Trump - beyond the question of historiographical malapropisms, like calling Trump a fascist (which, roast the doers of as much as you want).
But, if the form of Berlusconi's power was patrimonial, what was the currency of the pater's property? Television, still a rather new phenomenon in its more hectic form in the 1990s, was the crux of Berlusconi's business empire, which ranged from ownership of AC Milan to real estate and a chain of supermarkets. Many a European right-wing Demagogue no longer fit the bill of the patrimonial property owner, but many of the factoids about the media-power around Berlusconi certainly ring a bell:
By 2002 average daily viewing time per individual in Italy had reached three hours fifty minutes. In 1988 the equivalent figure had been nearly one hour less. Italians watched more television than any other nation in western Europe (106)
The man who owned most of the channels Italians spent an average of nearly a sixth of the hours of the day ogling at was, of course, Silvio Berlusconi. Like the Daily Mail in the UK, which to this day retains a dominantly female readership, Berlusconi's television empire caught the stay-at-home Women of Italy's more conservative gender strata, a whopping 42,3% of Women who watched more than 3 hours of television a day voted for his Forza Italia in the 2001 elections (98). The laying out of such statistics bares quite a lot of similarity to the contemporary discussion of the importance of social media, and can be important to bring to mind in considering how "unique" our own dreadful conjuncture really is.
Some aspects distinguish the contemporary social media -driven right wing aspirants from Berlusconi though. While the "global television oligarchy" of Berlusconi's time (Murdoch is a constant presence in the book), are distinguished according to Ginsborg by "fierce attention to levels of audience share, insatiable acquisitive tendencies; limited and conformist cultural frameworks" (104) the contemporary attention economy politicians have a much more contrarian bent. And even if the contemporary drive to maximise engagement is analogous to the television era's audience share fixation, this media strategy is much more participatory than that of television. More important than audience numbers for a simple broadcast become the dispersal of memes and engagement, driven through more and more by culture war struggles, which drive up engagement by both the right-wing riling up new complaints about Peppa the Pig or whatnot (this was seriously one of Giorgia Meloni's primary grievances in her campaign speeches), and to "left-wing" reaction to it.
So while it is most likely important to analyse Berlusconi quite a lot and I am definitely quite stricken by this book, the differences are at least as important.
April 5, 2026
«Ogni tempo ha il suo fascismo. A questo si arriva in molti modi, non necessariamente col terrore dell'intimidazione poliziesca, ma anche negando o distorcendo l'informazione, inquinando la giustizia, paralizzando la scuola, diffondendo in molti modi sottili la nostalgia per un mondo in cui regnava sovrano l'ordine.»
Primo Levi, Opere, Einaudi, Torino 1997, vol. I, p. 1187; Id., Un passato che credevamo non dovesse ritornare piú, in «Corriere della Sera», 8 maggio 1974.
Scritto nel 2003 dal politologo inglese Paul Ginsborg allo scopo di analizzare la vittoria elettorale del centro-destra del 2001, letto oggi questo libello fa capire che l'umanità non impara dai propri errori e il popolo italiano è sempre lieto di confermare che questa teoria è vera. Il povero Ginsborg, ossessionato dalla figura di Berlusconi, di quasi dieci anni più vecchio, morì un anno prima del Cavaliere, rientrando nel conteggio degli acerrimi nemici che ha "seppellito".
Ironico ed avvilente (e viene fatto notare dall'autore stesso) che il saggio in oggetto in Italia sia stato pubblicato da Einaudi, casa editrice allora (e ancor oggi) appartenente alla famiglia Berlusconi.
Il Cavaliere poteva permettersi il lusso di lucrare sui propri oppositori, mantenendo intatta la sua forza elettorale, dai tanti soldi che aveva.
Tutti quelli che, come Ginsborg, in quegli anni speravano di vedere un giorno la fine dell'impero berlusconiano, ora che è finito sanno che anche senza il suo strapotere non è cambiato molto. Che quindi il male non era Silvio, ma la gente che lo sceglieva, che - morto lui - ha scelto altri meno importanti, meno totalizzanti ma facenti esattamente ciò che faceva lui.
Primo Levi, Opere, Einaudi, Torino 1997, vol. I, p. 1187; Id., Un passato che credevamo non dovesse ritornare piú, in «Corriere della Sera», 8 maggio 1974.
Scritto nel 2003 dal politologo inglese Paul Ginsborg allo scopo di analizzare la vittoria elettorale del centro-destra del 2001, letto oggi questo libello fa capire che l'umanità non impara dai propri errori e il popolo italiano è sempre lieto di confermare che questa teoria è vera. Il povero Ginsborg, ossessionato dalla figura di Berlusconi, di quasi dieci anni più vecchio, morì un anno prima del Cavaliere, rientrando nel conteggio degli acerrimi nemici che ha "seppellito".
Ironico ed avvilente (e viene fatto notare dall'autore stesso) che il saggio in oggetto in Italia sia stato pubblicato da Einaudi, casa editrice allora (e ancor oggi) appartenente alla famiglia Berlusconi.
Il Cavaliere poteva permettersi il lusso di lucrare sui propri oppositori, mantenendo intatta la sua forza elettorale, dai tanti soldi che aveva.
Tutti quelli che, come Ginsborg, in quegli anni speravano di vedere un giorno la fine dell'impero berlusconiano, ora che è finito sanno che anche senza il suo strapotere non è cambiato molto. Che quindi il male non era Silvio, ma la gente che lo sceglieva, che - morto lui - ha scelto altri meno importanti, meno totalizzanti ma facenti esattamente ciò che faceva lui.
February 23, 2015
Excellent and very thoughtful analysis of Berlusconi and placed in the context of deeply rooted and very Italian phenomena
The Key message of this book is to provide a biographical summary and analysis of Berlusconi's rise to power and his political project: a conflicting clash of patrimonial, populist and neoliberalist tides that Berlusconi endorses
Key ideas:
- Berlusconi is a self made enterprenuer who used borderline legal(and recently condemned illegal) practices to raise capital for his enterprises
- He seeks to extend his "clan" not just to his close advisors, but to the whole of Italy
- He advocates the breaking down of the juridicial system, or the merging of private and public interests, and massive deregulation
- He is an elite salesman, and PR master, which he based his political career on
Key takeaways:
- Berlusconi is a by product, fulcrum and conductor of pre established deeply engrained cultural norms in Italy
- Italy is heavily reliant of patrimonial, patron client relationships
- Youth are drawn to the Berlusconi figure, but his Americanized style of politics actually takes away agency from youths who do get involved in his party
- Berlusconi always surrounded himself with close friends and advanced them into politics
- Negative freedom is a huge element of Berlusconi: freedom to do as you wish, and that individuals best regulators of their own interests
The Key message of this book is to provide a biographical summary and analysis of Berlusconi's rise to power and his political project: a conflicting clash of patrimonial, populist and neoliberalist tides that Berlusconi endorses
Key ideas:
- Berlusconi is a self made enterprenuer who used borderline legal(and recently condemned illegal) practices to raise capital for his enterprises
- He seeks to extend his "clan" not just to his close advisors, but to the whole of Italy
- He advocates the breaking down of the juridicial system, or the merging of private and public interests, and massive deregulation
- He is an elite salesman, and PR master, which he based his political career on
Key takeaways:
- Berlusconi is a by product, fulcrum and conductor of pre established deeply engrained cultural norms in Italy
- Italy is heavily reliant of patrimonial, patron client relationships
- Youth are drawn to the Berlusconi figure, but his Americanized style of politics actually takes away agency from youths who do get involved in his party
- Berlusconi always surrounded himself with close friends and advanced them into politics
- Negative freedom is a huge element of Berlusconi: freedom to do as you wish, and that individuals best regulators of their own interests
September 7, 2009
Silvio Berlusconi is a scary, scary man. He is as dumb as Dubya but with a lot more control of his country's media. I now understand why all of the Italians I know who reside in America think I am crazy for ever wanting to live in Italy. Our government might be corrupt on several levels and damaged in many ways, but at least in 2009 we still have some checks and balances that disallow the type of omnipresent power that this man in Italy. At least for now . . .
April 23, 2014
Too many grammar errors, it's not linear, it repeats itself out of order, & reads like a propaganda book.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews