Well, hunger strike is not a sacred taboo in the Radical Party. The danger of this last stand means of non-violent protest action becoming a part of the usual Radical ritual rather than serving historical and political necessity has been averted.

Marco Pannella, Giovanni Negri and Luigi Del Gatto have in fact proposed that a "major debate" be opened inside the Party on this subject. It is certain that they have done so because they realized that this means, like all the other means of Radical protest action, would lose all effectiveness should the adversary succeed in disarming all its counteractions. It must thus be "modernized" in order to be able to cope with new areas of conflict and overcome the new "enemy" defenses .

That debate had already begun when very serious events occurred involving the improper use of that form of non-violent protest, questioning even the possibility of using it again.

The most dramatic one occurred in 1978, when Irish activists (IRA) let themselves starve to death as a result of a political action and a procedure which was decidedly outside the policy of non-violence.

However, apart from that episode, we also became aware of the fact that the excessive use of the hunger strike, as a last stand means of dialogue, of a general method of protest, had led to its being brought in line with other, not necessarily non-violent, methods of protest. The hunger strike has thus lost part of its force and credibility, as well as the effect it should have, emotionally and intellectually, on public opinion.

The hunger strike, a non-violent protest action, should command respect and attention--above all, in those who do not share the ideas and political opinions of the individuals conducting it. It should, thus, command respect for the consistency of those who do not ask for the enforcement of its "law", but "only" the application and respect of that law which the adversary himself proclaims as universal and on his right to participate in the democratic process in modifying the Law.

The average citizen, then, must take the position that, although he does not approve the practice of that non-violent protest, "he is ready to die to defend the right of anyone else to practice it".

Non-violent action is in fact the highest expression of tolerance and respect for the legal principle.

The non-violent activist does not intend to overwhelm his adversary, nor does he wish to impose upon any class or ethnic group the domination of his own; he simply wishes to attempt to bring into play the rules of tolerance and guarantee the democratic process.

The historical objective of non-violence is thus that of destroying the conviction that justice, liberty and self affirmation must go on paying the same inevitable price of violence, war and environmental devastation it had in the past.

Protest through hunger-striking instead asks for only solidarity with his own cause, with the condition of the marginated, exploited or unemployed, without proposing a new law which would have a general value and interest. He asks for and obtains consensus only from those who already support the political issues underlying his protest.

The hunger strike is often used as an instrument of blackmail: I will let myself die if you do not provide me with a home, or if the judge does not grant me the benefit of house arrest.

In these cases, the use of non-violence is instrumental, determined only by the impossibility to use other means rather than by the conviction of the duty to expel from political confrontation all forms of violence and the attempt, using every available means, to achieve dialogue with the adversary in the interests of all.

It is obviously preferable that the marginated fasts rather than shoot. But the excessive and improper use of hunger-striking has the effect of diminishing the force of non-violence, making it impossible for anyone to utilize it with any success.

It is also for this reason that the doubt has arisen within the Radical Party as to the effectiveness of this means in the current political confrontation.

All this is dealt with in the document prepared by Panella, Negri and Del Gatto, in which they ask for a "radical reconsideration of this last stand means, its rules and methods".

Thus, a revision or reviewing of the foundations and practice of hunger-striking is necessary if it is to be restored to its "identity" as a traditional form of political protest.

I fully agree that it is necessary to modify "practical" methods so as to include medical control and assistance, as well as the urgent necessity to create new rules for any future hunger-striking in order to prevent burdening the promoters of non-violent actions also with the responsibility for and conditioning resulting from the state of health and degree of conviction others. This is the direction of the proposal which would see to it that the joining of other individuals to hunger strikes occurs only after a certain and previously specified number of days or weeks, thus creating a form of non-violent escalation.

So, it is still necessary to specify whether hunger strike and fasting are synonymous or whether they are two separate things.

But the issue which I feel is most urgently in need of a solution is feasibility of hunger-striking in a society substantially deprived of the right to be informed.

The "movement of hunger-striking"--writes Luigi Manconi--"becomes manifest in its image as an act of a fasting, a body losing weight, weakening and becoming dehydrated. But if this concept and this image are not transmitted to the outside...?

Certainly hunger-striking must also serve to break the conspiracy of silence. Manconi reminds us that some Radical protest actions are in themselves "means of communication which transmit messages to the outside".

However, when the margins for contradiction and of the good will of the media are as limited as they are in Italy and many other Western countries, a doubt arises: is it legitimate to run the risk that indefinite hunger-striking--even if conducted in the most clear respect of the rules of non-violence, even if its foundations and method have been revised--if its only possible outcome is death or renunciation?

The proclamation of an indefinite fast can be suspended, taken up again, or even clamorously defeated without the method's force being compromised; it cannot, however, begin and end in silence, in indifference, in a vacuum. In these conditions, it signifies disarming it, depriving it definitively of its non-violent character.

These observation will certainly lead to the adopting, as a high-priority objective of democratic non-violence--of new constitutional regulation of the fourth estate. However, how is it possible to conduct this campaign if that media power prevents de facto the exercise of any political opposition which is not falsified or reserved exclusively to the accomplices of the regime?

Therefore, if the method of non-violent hunger-striking is to be restored and utilized again, it is necessary to discover an opening, if one still exists, in the media system which would permit it to be shown in all its dramatic force.

Thus, the attempt to break down this reserve.

We have for twenty years sustained that the faster is not a fakir who must exhibit his dietary performance in a particular place where he may be observed by the public. Those who believe that person hunger-striking cheats will continue to believe it, even if he is put into a hermetically sealed glass cage.

Thus, we have fasted without essentially modifying the rhythm and the habitual scenes of our existence.

However, I now believe it might be useful to reconsider this principle. It might be more effective to fast in an accessible and set location--not so much to render the action credible, so much as simply to prevent its being ignored. The hunger-striking protestor must be noticed, despite the attempts of the mass media to obscure or alter his image, and the public must be allowed to receive the dramatic message implicit in the "diminishing of his body". The hunger-striking protestor must be allowed to conduct his non-violent action in the heart of political power where his presence alone has weight and is judged unbearable and even provocative by the adversary.

Twenty years ago, we would have said without hesitation that such a place was Parliament. And it was right there, directly in front of the Italian Senate, in the "Corsia Agonale" that the first hunger strikes in favour of divorce were conducted. The senators were made to feel, almost physically, the breath on their own necks of the Italian Divorce League activists, feel their presence and pressing observation, since the activists were camped in a trailer a few dozen meters from the seat of the Senate.

Today, power is concentrated elsewhere; above all in the public and private television networks, in the large multinational corporations, in the economic potentates who have taken for themselves all the power of information, in the corporation/political parties...

This is certainly not the time to specify alternative locations for hunger-striking. On these pages, in future Radical Party debate, we will add new suggestions and observations--that debate which was opened with the document prepared by Marco, Giovanni and Luigi.

I leave it to our colleagues who will assume the responsibility of considering the methods for taking up hunger-striking once more on the issue of the right to be informed to evaluate more in detail the few points which I have outlined here and those which will follow.