CAN HE KEEP ON SURVIVING?

Can he keep on surviving on less than a handful of votes?   YES   Will the opposition manage to unite?  NO   What is clear is that Italy does not need a political crisis right now. What do you think?  An Electorate gets the politicians it deserves

no barely Italy has a continual political crisis - from 1860 onwards, mainly because it isnt a country.  IMO as soon as the onorevoli have got their 3 years service, and therefore 8000 euros pension a month, for life - they will be happy to vote down the government, but as usual they look after themselves before anyone else.  Vergogna.   EVen though he has 'confidence' he wont manage to pass any laws. It makes Reagans lame duck presidency look positively vibrant. 

  He must be doing something right, otherwise why would the Italians keep voting him back in?

You assume that Italians vote for Berlusconi - Italy has a flawed democracy that comes below Estonia, China and just above Botswana in the world listings.   The government is not answerable to the voters, and the voters dont really vote for an MP, votes are bought and sold, as are MPs and cushy jobs.  When the incumbent PM can spend 3 times as much on his election campaign as all the other parties, and owns the majority of TV and other media, is it any wonder that he 'wins' ?

I think that he is probably very good for the tourist industry as he keeps Italy in peoples minds!

After years of Blair and Brown (not to mention Lord Prescott, Lord Mandelson and the Miliband show) I can't believe anyone can criticise any other country's political setup. If that is the result of a non-flawed democracy and an enlightened electorate, I give up.  

Democracy is by definition flawed - to quote dear Winston - it's the least worst option. So on that basis I'm not sure Italy's system even counts as a democracy - especially if it comes below China in any listings!!

As we all know, in ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, women, foreigners, and slaves were denied the vote. People of power or influence weren't concerned with the rights of such non-citizens. It was more of an aristocracy (the power of the best, or those who consider themselves to be the best...) It looks as if things have not changed much in the past 2,600 years......

I have to take issue with you Gaia on ancient Greece.  it was not an aristocracy but a democracy in that every free citizen had an obligation to be part of the democracy for a fee of 3 obols a day, when they were drawn by lot.   Slaves and women you are right could not vote, but all men had to by law.   Things changed when the Romans took over, and it all went downhill from there! SirTK - I could happily criticise the UK system but I am not eligible to vote in the Uk, and don't live there.  I live and pay taxes and vote in Italy.

Sorry, Ram, but I have to disagree regarding Athenian "democracy" and figures back this opinion which is not only mine. During the 4th Century BC there would have been some 300.000 people in Attica. Of those, citizen families, the only ones who enjoyed "democracy" or the "people's power" would have amounted to some 100,000 and of those, only 30,00 would have been adult males entitled to vote. Slaves accounted for most of the other inhabitants. Not all of the people entitled to vote would exercise their rights. Slavery was widespread and there were plenty of "mettics", the descendants of citizens and slave women, who were not entitled to any citizenship rights. Anyway, the so called "democracy" was replaced by an "aristocracy", which, at least was not so hypocritical...