To what extent was Italy politically and economically united, 1896-1914? Despite official unification in 1870, Italy still remained somewhat divided, especially so under the Liberal government, 1896-1914. Attempted reforms to ease political and economic divisions had limited success, such as the voting reform of 1912 to introduce universal male suffrage (which increased the popularity of socialism) and modernisation in industries such as steel and hydroelectricity (which consequently widened the North/South divide). Italy still remained partially divided, which prevented total unification, both politically and economically. Firstly, Italy was only partially politically united, namely due to a number of liberal policies.
This proved a problem for the newly formed government as Italy was a predominantly Catholic country and many Italians were devoted to the Pope. The power of the Pope at that time was huge and though there would have been a few who didn’t listen to the pope, many would have done. The lack of support from the church was a significant weakness in the new liberal government and increased the government’s already minimal respect. Additionally the North South divide was influential on the lack of success for the liberal government. Italy was divided in terms of wealth; the south was poor and the north wealthy.
There were virtually no coal supplies, prices increased, some industries hit and the domestic production was only one fifth of what was needed. This hit the Italian people hard and did not improve their standard of living. In fac, it made it worse. One of Mussolini’s economic policies was the ‘battles’. There were four main ‘battles’; The Battle for Grain, Battle For the Lira, Battle for Births and Battle of the Marshes.
Under Napoleon there were only three states and three rulers, before this Italy had been broken up into 9 Major states, a few other smaller ones existed but these were less powerful, each with their own separate ruler and laws. The congress of Vienna decided to return Italy back to its former state as a country made up of separate states. This though made it harder for ultimate unification of the Italian states, as it gave the older rulers a taste of power again; making them less likely to give up the power they had lost once before. Another problem for a unified Italy was the fact that these individual rulers each reacted to Napoleonic rule in their own way. Some countries were reactionary, Piedmont, Modena, The Papal States and Naples, trying to erase all memory of Napoleonic rule and changing everything back to the way it had been before, even though it could be argued that Napoleonic rule improved conditions for the majority of people in Italy, the lower classes especially.
It could be argued that Mazzini’s ideas were the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815-48. A key point to this reason is that Mazzini’s ideas held no interest to the majority of the Italian population. One of Mazzini’s beliefs was that ‘every man is equal’ and is a reason why he was very unpopular with the middle, upper and aristocratic members of society as they did not wish to lose their power influence or money. This made it difficult for Mazzini to obtain national unification as a majority of powerful and influential people in Italy were against his ideologies; this meant that the progress of national unification was very slow as a large amount of people opposed his views. He also wanted a strong central government and believed this could be achieved through a series of revolutions.
The king at the time of Mussolini’s coming to power was King Victor Emmanuel III. He was an unremarkable ruler who achieved very little. He was the one who gave into the terms and conditions of the people of Italy, due to factors, which got to him, such as fear of a civil war, socialism and his sense of insecurity. Only the king had the power to appoint the Prime Minister, so it was in Mussolini’s favor to force it upon him. By the autumn of 1922, Mussolini was in contact with most major politicians of the formation of a new government that would include the fascists.
The system of land distribution was unfair and most peasants received 4% less land than they had rented before, many received much less. In reality they had less land than when they were serfs. This was seen as unfair as they believed that, because they had worked the land for generations, it should now belong to them. The Mir still restricted peasants’ movements and as consolidation and enlargement of property was difficult, there was little incentive to improve the land and adopt modern methods, resulting in a decline in productivity The huge redemption taxes also meant that the peasants had to sell many of the crops they needed to eat and the Mir kept the peasants tied to their commune and still controlled by rules. Peasants felt disappointed and disillusioned and many rioted.
Others that can be considered to be the reason for slow progress are the nature of the states at this time with reactionary governments and their leaders, regionalism, lack of mass support and Mazzini’s ideas. It can be inferred that the main reason for the slow progress of national unity was due to the powerful influence of Austria. Austria, especially Metternich, the Austrian chancellor was very powerful during this time. Therefore, it was hard for Italian states to progress and make their own decisions as Austria had a great influence over them. This can be supported by the fact that in the northern states of Italy, Metternich had a lot of influence over the Italian rulers; not only this, but Austria had influence over southern states as well, for example in Sicily Ferdinand I married the daughter of the Austrian ruler but only to discover that the marriage enabled Maria to dominate not only the marriage but the direction of government policy as well.
It aimed to satisfy many of the people who were being left out of politics and either forgotten about or just not cared for by the rich elite. These groups were however not constricted to the debt ridden agrarians, wage earners, currency reformers and residents of Western mining states. (Fink 216) This attempt to branch out to many different concerned interest groups was the only way this party was able to become as powerful as it did. “In no national election from 1872 to 1888 did the combined votes of all alternative parties top 4 percent of the total. The People’s Party offered the best and perhaps the last chance to convert antimonopoly sentiment into a winning strategy.”(Fink
Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area. This meant that even more power would be given to the government with the titles the men already had before being elected. Not only did the power of the government make the anti-federalists nervous, the lack of a bill of rights kept them agreeing with the constitution. They wanted a set rights guaranteed so that the central government didn’t have all the power that the anti-federalists were afraid of. The anti-federalist’s opposition to the constitution was