ABSTRACT: On the eve of the Congress, the secretary of the Radical Party outlines the ideological premises of the radical position. Laicism as the conception of a State in which men of different faith and position can solve the problems of coexistence; laicism to deny that it is the task of the parties to interpret and implement a religious or philosophical creed; profession of "Westernism" and opposition to Marxism and to the political systems which were inspired by Marxism; aversion for the conservative idea according to which the defence of freedom corresponds to the defence of the institutions in which the ideal of freedom has found its expression in a given historical moment or - even worse - of the positions of privilege acquired in the countries characterized by political democracy; active commitment alongside the underprivileged social classes which ask for security of existence and access to culture, alongside the peoples that demand complete equality with the white race, alongside the countries tha

t want to free themselves from the colonial yoke, along with the women who demand equality between the sexes; opposition against all dictatorships.

(RADICAL TRIBUNE, pamphlet for the 2nd National Congress of the Radical Party "The Radicals for the defence of the lay State and for the social progress of the country", Rome, Palazzo Brancaccio, 26, 27, 28 May 1961).

Quite a many friends have expressed the justified wish, on these pages, that the 2nd Congress of the Radical Party do not simply discuss contingent problems of political positions, but that it make an effort to achieve a statement of the ideological premises of our political position. I too believe the moment has come to do so; and, to open the discussion, I will express the points which seem to me most interesting.

1) It is correct to identify the essential reason of our position in laicism, provided the word laicism is given that broadness of meaning which it has for us. Laicism is not just the separation of the State from the Church; it is our way of perceiving the State and consequently individual freedom. The State is not the accomplishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, nor is it the projection of a philosophical thought; it is the organization by means of which men of different faith and of different position of thought solve the problems of their coexistence.

2) Just as it is not the task of the State, it is not the task of the parties to interpret and implement a religious or philosophic creed. In this sense, ours is not an ideological party. But it is a party firmly linked to certain principles which belong to the State and to the parties precisely because they tend to solve the problems of human coexistence.

Such principles can be summarized in the ideal of freedom such as it has developed throughout three centuries of thought and struggle. An ideal of which the most advanced form of application historically achieved, even if imperfect and subject to constant revision, is represented, for us, by those countries of the Western world which are the spearhead of our civilization.

3) Our profession of "Westernism" implicitly contains our opposition to Marxism and to the political systems which it has inspired.

We are not Marxist because of our cultural formation, even if we do not ignore the contribution of the Marxist philosophy to modern culture; we are not Marxist because of our laicism, because Marxism tends to establish a State based on a philosophic creed; we are not Marxist because the relations of human coexistence cannot find a solution in Marxism which is in conformity with our principles.

4) The fact that we are not Marxist, and that, on the contrary, under many aspects we oppose Marxism, is not enough to determine the position we mean to occupy in the conflict which divides humanity today. If we do not accept, for our country, the line of development which has lead to the formation of the political system which is currently applied in the Soviet Russia and in the other States that take the name of popular democracies, this is not because (or not only because) we condemn the ideological premises of that system. Aware of the complexity of the relationship between thought and action, between the conscious will of the people and the historical events which they contribute to, we choose to keep away from that theological or mythological anti-communism which is so common in the climate of the Cold War.

5) Our refusal of a communist solution is based also on our cultural formation and on our positions of principle, as well as on a historical judgement. While we are willing to acknowledge all that is historically irrevocable in the Russian Revolution, as in other revolutionary moments inspired by it, and we do not deny the liberating meaning which the former and the latter may have had, in the conditions and in the time in which they took place, we are convinced that the ways of freedom in the countries in which the democratic institutions and the capitalist system have achieved their highest point of development, giving rise to those forms of life in which the Western civilization identifies itself, are other. And we are equally convinced that this civilization can, all the while remaining faithful to its inspiring principles, ensure the peaceful development of the part of the world in which it is allowed to form itself.

6) Opposed to the policy of the blocks, and faithful to the cause of peace, we do not refuse to recognize that today the world proceeds along two different lines of development. It is a matter of faith for us that they are meant to meet, because we believe that, under the current circumstances, the best way which each person is offered to contribute to the development of our society is that of following that one, between the two lines along which development unravels itself, which best responds to his cultural formation, to the principles in which he believes, to the circumstances in which he operates.

7) In the conflict which divides humanity, and which we, more than others, would like to consider as a pacific competition, we take sides for that which is referred to as the Western world. But in this world we occupy a position which distinguishes us from other forces that operate in that world and which opposes us to them.

We are firm opponents of the conservative conception according to which the defence of freedom corresponds to the defence of the institutions in which the ideal of freedom has found its expression in a given historical moment, or - even worse - with the defence of the privileged positions which individual or group interests have guarantied themselves also in the countries which represent the most valid expressions of modern democracy. We know that the ideal of freedom offers new problems every day to those who believe in it; we know there are no institutions capable of breaking the struggle for freedom; we know there are no individual or group interests which, apart from momentary and occasional coincidences, can identify their cause with the cause of freedom.

8) We are on the contrary convinced that the Western civilization today is faced to a turnabout. With the advent of the masses, be they in the shape of underprivileged social classes who want to take part in the benefices of civilization, or in the shape of entire populations condemned by the backwardness of their countries to a primitive life, the problem of freedom has assumed a new dimension. Communism is one answer to the questions raised by this new situation: an answer which we reject, because it involves a sacrifice of the ideal values which we want to remain faithful to. But we cannot deny that the Western world, for its part, will not be capable of giving an effective answer to those questions if it remains attached to positions of political, social and economic conservation, if it will not be capable of facing a process of deep revision of its institutions, of alterations of the relations of force which are the foundations of its social life.

9) Therefore, we believe that the defence of the Western world from the external forces that threaten it should necessarily be accompanied by a struggle against the conservative forces which - in most of it - still occupy a position of predominance and which, if unopposed, would cause a process of rapid and inevitable decay in our civilization.

This approach of ours causes us to find ourselves often at the opposition, alongside all the men and the groups which,

in other Western countries, share our way of thinking. We firmly believe that the possibility for this opposition to become determining for the orientation of the main countries characterized by liberal democracy is linked to the destiny of that form of life which is called the Western civilization.

10) The above statements prove how difficult, and at the same time how very worthy of our efforts, the task which we take on us is. Being radicals, in this sense, means accepting a challenge which the reality of our time seems to offer us; it means deciding to prove that the problems of freedom can be solved only with freedom.

Whatever the solutions we should come to, on the basis of such premises, in each of the fields which we will be called to operate in, it is a question which can be answered only by a comprehensive, programmatic debate. But those premises draw the general line of our action. Whatever the problem they are called to tackle, the radicals will always side with those who demand more freedom, versus those who deny it, even if the refusal is justified by the intention of saving that little freedom which already exists. They will side with the underprivileged classes, which ask for more security of existence and free access to culture; with the coloured populations which claim full equality with the white race; with the countries that want to free themselves of the colonial yoke, with the women who demand a more widespread acknowledgement of equality between the sexes. They will oppose all dictatorships, especially when the latter, disguised as something different, will claim to be defended in the name of freedom. Th

ey will work for the construction of a State which is truly a home for all, free from confessional bonds and from the pressure of economic power. They will advocate the broadest freedom of culture, in all its expressions. They will look favourable on any effort aiming at freeing marriage and the family from the distress of a legalistic and conventional morality, to make the family into the centre of a freer and sincerer moral life. It is an extremely demanding position, which requires imagination, integrity and courage - the qualities which are the premises of our name Radicals.

LEOPOLDO PICCARDI