2L - The political system and Giolittianism: the role of the monarchy
Giovanni Giolitti tried to preserve the monarchy and liberal state by managing parliamentary alliances and admitting some new social demands. This lesson examines the institutions he worked through, his reforms, and the limits of a political system dominated by elites.
Crown, Parliament and ministers
Liberal Italy combined an elected chamber with a king who retained important constitutional powers. The Statuto Albertino provided a hereditary monarchy and two parliamentary chambers: the Chamber of Deputies, elected under the franchise laws, and the Senate, whose members were appointed for life by the king from specified categories. Legislative power belonged jointly to the Crown and the chambers. Civil liberties existed, but were subject to laws and could be restricted.
Constitutional monarchy
A monarchy whose government operates within a constitutional framework. In Liberal Italy the framework left the king substantial powers; it did not reduce him to a ceremonial figure.
The king appointed and dismissed ministers, could dissolve the elected chamber, commanded the armed forces and had authority over war and treaties. Article 5 reserved executive power to him, while treaties imposing financial burdens or changing state territory required parliamentary assent to take effect. In practice, governments also needed parliamentary support, particularly to pass legislation and obtain money. Constitutional wording and parliamentary convention therefore worked together, sometimes uneasily.
Victor Emmanuel III succeeded Umberto I in 1900. His appointment of Giuseppe Zanardelli as prime minister in 1901, with Giolitti as interior minister, helped open a period of less repressive responses to labour disputes. This was a political choice by a monarch with discretion, not a direct election of Giolitti by the population. The Crown could provide continuity above changing cabinets, but its reserve powers also meant that a crisis might be settled through royal decisions rather than a stable parliamentary majority.
Consider the difference between government instability and regime instability. A ministry might resign while Parliament, the Crown and constitution continued to operate. Liberal Italy could experience repeated cabinet changes without immediate collapse. The danger grew when important groups ceased to trust the system through which a new cabinet would be formed. The role of the monarchy must therefore be assessed through what the king could do and how his choices affected confidence in constitutional government.
The liberal oligarchy and trasformismo
The liberal ruling group dominated government without forming a single disciplined national party. It consisted of parliamentary leaders and local notables—men with property, professional status and influence in their constituencies. Despite the labels “Left” and “Right”, many liberals agreed on the monarchy, private property and the basic constitutional order. Disagreements often concerned methods and alliances more than wholly opposed programmes.
Oligarchy
Government dominated by a relatively small, influential group. The term describes the concentration of effective power in Liberal Italy even though elections and parliamentary debate existed.
Trasformismo was the practice of constructing shifting parliamentary majorities by drawing support across established groupings. A government might win over a deputy through a policy concession, an appointment or benefits for his locality. It could avoid a sharp division between two competing national programmes and give ministers flexibility. However, opponents could see it as private bargaining that weakened accountability: voters found it difficult to identify who was responsible for a consistent programme.
The interior ministry and prefects could influence elections, especially where voters depended on local patrons. Officials might support friendly candidates, apply pressure or tolerate intimidation. Giolitti became exceptionally skilled at managing this machinery and maintaining personal relationships in Parliament. Criticism of his methods was therefore not simply a complaint that all compromise was immoral; it concerned unequal access to state power and the distortion of electoral choice.
This system had strengths while politics was largely managed by small groups of notables. It became harder to sustain when unions, socialists, Catholics and nationalists mobilised supporters around organised identities. A socialist deputy accountable to a party programme could not always be absorbed by an individual favour. The same economic changes that expanded the resources of the state also generated groups that challenged its narrow political base.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account