It is sort of impossible to establish exactly how much influence the people had.

First, at least, we should try to establish what kind of influence we are talking about.

Direct, legal influence: the sort we have in a democratic system. I can write to the major, to a senator, to the president; I can vote, write to a newspaper – hopeful that the government will not be the one to decide whether the letter gets published; I can talk to my coworkers, I can write on an internet forum, etc.

All of this was pretty much absent: the idea of a common man having direct influence on the government is in fact rather new, if you move beyond the basic principle of representation. Even before Fascism, the relation between the citizen and the State was essentially one of subordination: a petition, a letter, was not a mean to influence the government, but a mean to solicit a favor, ask for a subside, denounce wrongdoing.

When taken frontally, the State did not react well. To a news reporter – denouncing to the Prime Minister Giolitti that he had been expelled from Libya, for reporting the true number of dead during the war of 1912 – the statesman, famous for his policy towards universal suffrage, answered that the order had came from him, as spreading news against the State, was a dishonor to the Nation.

This attitude of course persisted during Fascism, when the letters take a more subservient tone. Citizens could ask, not demand. In fact it became common practice for Italians to write to Mussolini himself, asking for help: either a small amount of money, or a job if unemployed (from October '36 to October '37 Mussolini received 123,047 request for an economical contribution and 77,578 for a job). In the last years of the Regime – as the number of requests became too high to handle properly – every petition was met with a small sum of money (50 to 100 Lire – 1 lira was roughly the price of a pound of bread); more was handed out after further analysis.

The structure of the letters was quite consistent too. The person stated their name and general occupation, whether they had a special relation with the Party, or if they were veterans, or even if they had been members of the Socialist Party under Mussolini's tenure; then explained the reason for their request: whether they had lost their job, or they had suffered injury or illness.

Apart from this, very little remained. Italians had been called to vote in 1929: to say if they approved the list of representatives chosen by the Regime or not. 98.43% of the voters approved. While the plebiscite showed a good level of consensus towards the Regime, this was not a realistic mean to influence the Government as no alternative was offered, nor was this a secret vote.

In fact the usual way people have to attempt an influence on the government, i.e. joining or creating a political party or a political association, had been forbidden by law since 1926. Other means of association – such as strikes – had been forbidden as well.

Fascism encouraged people's associationism; but only within the boundaries of fascist associations. This was true both on and outside of the workplace.

Of course, there was a way to get noticed when a good number of workers were disappointed. This nonetheless did not happen usually under initiative of the workers, as there was almost no way to push demands up. It happened under initiative of the State.

The Fascist Regime had absolute need to keep a decent level of consensus and satisfaction among the general population and, through a period of economical difficulties that were for the most part payed by the working class, it was of primary importance to be aware of any noticeable discomfort. The various heads of the fascist trade unions, the functionaries of the party, the political police and the regular one, all worked together to monitor the humor of the people: to establish if the discomfort had economical or political reasons, if there was someone to single out as responsible, if the situation was fixable trough assistance measures, such as subsidies for unemployed or charity for impoverished.

The attitude of the Regime was to prevent the need for a complaint as well as providing no proper means to complain. In a way, you couldn't speak, but they sure were listening.

There is indeed a countless number of reports of the public safety dealing with the feelings of the people towards the Regime. In this way, if no direct influence was possible, there was a continuous indirect influence, a constant need to meet at least the most basic demands to prevent a fall on morale that would expose the weakness of the Regime construction. An obstinate attitude that probably went even beyond the legitimate fear of opposition.

We have spoken a bit about legal means; let's now review briefly the means of group pressure, legal and illegal.

First, obviously, as the Regime strove to keep the people content, so it had to do with the various groups of influence. For example, as I noted before, the economical difficulties were essentially accounted by a reduction of the buying power of the working classes, with Fascism somehow favoring the heavy industry. But in this regard the Regime did not work very differently from the previous and perhaps the post-fascist state, as means of influence by large economical groups are to be expected.

The liberal point of view would perhaps be that Fascism actually extended the parcellization of the political sphere that had tainted the last years of the liberal state, by allowing for the existence of explicit feuds under Mussolini's benevolent outlook, that existed on the various plans of economics, infrastructure, foreign policy and so on. The perception of the Fascist Gerarca was often accompanied by the traditional accuses of corruption and self serving behavior that follow every political man; of course there was no accountability in front of “the people”. Nonetheless the existence of corruption is at least proved by a number of inquests and sentences for corruption – so that we can be sure that such way of influencing the Regime existed, at least up to mid level.

Of course there were other two interest groups within Italy: the Church and the King\the Military.

The Church of course had means and power to influence the government, even at times going in open opposition to it; so, if you were a Catholic, and you agreed more or less with the official stance of the Church, your opinion was somehow represented in front of the government. At the same time, the Regime was extremely careful in establishing the feelings of the Catholic population, to gauge whether they disconnected from the Church itself or if they allowed the Regime to take a firmer stance; so, here again, your opinion didn't matter but someone was listening to it.

As for the King, there was very little to do for a citizen to influence the King; and realistically Victor Emmanuel did often not listen even to his closest advisers. Pending your agreement with the King, he certainly had influence on the government; but for the most part he acted the part of the silent – and concerned at times – observer.

This is a short review of – I hope – what you were looking for. The idea of influence of the “people” on a government is both vague and complex; so if you were looking for something more specific, feel free to ask in detail.

For sources I used the usual: De Felice's Mussolini and Vivarelli's Il fallimento del liberalismo