As the new editors of Modern Italy for the period 2015–2019, we are very conscious of the high bar set by our predecessors, Philip Cooke and John Foot. Together they guided the transition to ScholarOne's manuscript flow system, increased the journal's already dynamic range of publication, and further enhanced its international reputation among scholars of Italy as well as the academic publishing industry. They achieved all this during what their 2010 editorial rightly described as a ‘critical time for Italian studies in the UK’. We thank them and their editorial team warmly for handing over to us, and to ASMI, a journal in excellent form, despite the very real challenges of the times.

Love him or loathe him, Silvio Berlusconi is widely assumed to be Europe's most remarkable politician of recent decades, one who has not only affected the nature of electoral competition or the shape of the party system in Italy, but one who has influenced the country's political agenda to the extent that he himself and his role in politics have for long periods been the most important issues around which party competition has taken place.

Silvio Berlusconi impacted massively on Italy's party politics. He restructured the right via Forza Italia and the People of Freedom co-creating a bipolar party system whilst championing a radical personalisation of politics. The new party system appeared to rotate around him, creating an unusual version of ‘moderate pluralism’. Thus, whilst there was government alternation, there was also gladiatorial confrontation more typical of ‘polarised pluralism’. More effective as an electoral mobiliser than a government leader, Berlusconi's fourth government collapsed in the face of the 2011 economic crisis. His party, whose institutionalisation had been prevented by the extreme personalisation of his leadership, began to fall apart, whilst voter disillusion boosted support for a new party, the Five Star Movement. By 2014, it appeared that Berlusconi's major legacies were the rise of Matteo Renzi, the new Prime Minister and leader of the Democratic Party; his failure to construct an enduring, moderate conservative party; and the exceptional success of the Five Star Movement.

This essay empirically evaluates three aspects of Berlusconi's legacy for Italian political communication: his pioneering of political marketing and modern electioneering; his ability to appropriate and popularise his particular rhetorical formulae; and his approach to increasingly relevant digital media. Berlusconi skilfully imported professional televised-centric campaigning in Italy, opening a wide competitive gap that his centre-left opponents took two decades to close. He also managed deeply to influence political discourse by spreading his signature catchphrases among most journalists and politicians, including his opponents. He was, however, less innovative, and generally outperformed by his main competitors, in the use of digital media to inform and engage voters. These findings suggest that Berlusconi's impact on Italian political communication has been massive, but his legacy may be less lasting to the extent that media and electioneering are evolving towards models that differ from those dominated by Berlusconi.

In this article, I explore the conditions of the media in Italy by taking into consideration a variety of elements: the context of media legislation and media concentration that have favoured the interests of Silvio Berlusconi, and the role of progressive agency (media professionals, citizens' groups) as they worked within those constraints to keep alive the flames of democracy during the ‘Berlusconi era’. This perspective is intended to provide an alternative interpretation to what has become the prevailing view of contemporary Italy: an ‘abnormal’ country; the ‘Sick Man of Europe’; worse yet: a country of ‘servants’. The framework of analysis includes the influence of the media-magnate-turned-politician on media legislation and the television sector, but also evaluates the important roles that media professionals and citizens have played to improve pluralism. The article argues that despite extreme levels of media concentration and an unprecedented conflict of interests, a commitment to engage in political discourse has continued to characterise Italy's political culture. This commitment has been expressed by a multiplicity of actors, from journalists and media professionals to citizens' organisations and media activists.

A distinguishing feature of the Berlusconi era has undoubtedly been his personal conflict with the judiciary. Therefore, this article explores the impact of Berlusconi's 20 years in politics on the Italian judicial system. The main argument developed in this analysis is that, thanks to a strong institutional framework built with the 1948 constitution, the Italian judiciary continued to guarantee an effective mechanism of checks and balances. In spite of reiterated attempts by the centre–right majority to modify judicial procedures and organisation to advantage Berlusconi in solving his judicial troubles (ad personam laws), the judiciary was, in the long run, successful in restraining these actions. In fact, several of the ad personam laws were abrogated by rulings of the Constitutional Court, or made substantially ineffective in the implementation stage. Moreover, no substantial reforms of the judicial system have been accomplished, although they were frequently announced. Nevertheless, it may be argued that Berlusconi's anti-judicial rhetoric has had a significant impact on public attitudes towards the judiciary, and contributed to exacerbating the polarisation between two opposite views of the justice system in Italy. The persistent anti-judicial message affected public opinion and was deeply incorporated by centre–right voters, creating a real cleavage on the issue of justice. Moreover, this huge conflict on the justice issue increasingly distracted the attention of political actors from the real organisational problems of the system of justice.

This article considers the changed role of the Italian presidency and the impact and legacy of Silvio Berlusconi on this. After consideration of some of the methodological difficulties raised by these issues, the article looks at the role of the presidency up to 1992, when the presidency was interpreted in narrow terms set by the framers of the 1948 constitution and by the predominance of the party leaders of the period over the political direction of the State. The article considers how presidents from Sandro Pertini (1978–85) on, sought in different ways to expand the political role of their office. The article analyses the different ways that Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi and Giorgio Napolitano used their formal and informal powers both to maintain the status of the office and to promote political goals, and concludes with an assessment of the likely long-term impact of these changes and of Berlusconi's role in them.

This article explores the ways in which Silvio Berlusconi might figure in collective memory. It approaches this from a number of angles. First, consideration is given to the way political figures of the past have resonated culturally and the role of institutions including the mass media in this. Second, Berlusconi's own efforts to situate himself in relation to a shared past are explored, with reference to the place of three nostalgic appeals that figured with varying intensity at different points in his career. Third, Berlusconian aesthetics are investigated to explore the relative roles of kitsch and glamour. It is shown that kitsch gained the upper hand and that this also manifested itself in the monarchical aspects that his personality cult took on. Finally, Berlusconi is considered as a possible subject for a biopic and a discussion is offered of the way his life and career might be presented in different variants of this genre. Overall, it is suggested that expectations that he will be damned by history fail to take account both of the way he imposed himself on the collective consciousness and of the generic requirements of the mass media.

Cristina Dallara: Powerful resistance against a long-running personal crusade: the impact of Silvio Berlusconi on the Italian judicial system

Il conflitto tra magistratura e politica ha rappresentato uno dei tratti caratterizzanti del ventennio berlusconiano. L'articolo si propone, pertanto, di analizzare l'impatto e l'effetto di tale conflitto sul funzionamento del sistema giudiziario italiano e sul lavoro dei magistrati. Sebbene il tema sia complesso e oltremodo difficile da operazionalizzare fornendo chiare evidenze empiriche, l'analisi qui proposta consente di affermare che gli effetti concreti sul funzionamento del sistema giudiziario italiano non siano stati dirompenti. La magistratura italiana, grazie alle forti garanzie di indipendenza e al solido impianto istituzionale previsti dalla Costituzione del 1948, è riuscita a “resistere” ai frequenti “attacchi normativi” (provvedimenti e proposte di riforma) messi in atto dalle coalizioni di centro-destra per ridurre l'autonomia del potere giudiziario e per garantire scudi processuali per il premier (leggi ad personam). Vari provvedimenti sono stati abrogati dalla Corte Costituzionale o significativamente depotenziati nella fase di implementazione, grazie all'autonomia organizzativa dei magistrati nell'esercizio delle loro funzioni. Inoltre, sebbene costantemente presente tra gli obiettivi dei vari governi Berlusconi, nessuna riforma organica della giustizia è stata portata a compimento. La riforma Castelli del 2005 è stata, infatti, drasticamente modificata con il cambio di governo del 2006. Il conflitto tra magistratura e politica, personificato da Berlusconi, sembra invece aver esercitato un'influenza notevole sull'opinione dei cittadini in merito alla fiducia nella magistratura. La conseguenza piò chiara del ventennio berlusconiano sembra essere ravvisabile nella crescente polarizzazione dell'opinione pubblica su due opposte visioni di giustizia (magistratura politicizzata vs magistratura imparziale). La giustizia, infatti, rappresenta oggi un vero e proprio cleavage della società italiana. Tale cleavage ha sicuramente avuto l'effetto di distogliere l'attenzione dai reali problemi organizzativi del sistema giudiziario, con cui si scontrano i comuni cittadini.