ABSTRACT: Marco Pannella begins a hunger strike April 16 in protest against the exclusion of Radical Party and civil rights movement news by the national radio and television network. He demands a "symbolic" compensation for damages in the form of a half hour radio and television program dedicated to the PR and the civil rights movement. In this article Marco Pannella writes that without information, without the possibility for knowledge, there is no possibility of choosing, of judging, of voting. Thus universal suffrage becomes a fraud. In order to fight all this, to re-establish the right to information, to live in a democracy and not surrender oneself to its death, one is obliged to risk one's life. Therefore the announcement of this total hunger and thirst strike in the case that this demand for "compensation" is not immediately accepted. The proposal to the PR, the PDUP and the Avanguardia Operaia (Workers Vanguard) to present themselves in two important electoral constituencies "the one under the aegis

of the other and vice versa" in order to reduce the risks of not reaching the necessary minimum vote for sharing in the division of the remains. (ripartizione dei resti).

(Notizie Radicali - April 1976 - from "Marco Pannella, Writings and Discourses, 1959-1980", Gammalibri, January 1982)

The knowledge of political groups and the proposals that they offer is the foundation of the people's power. Without the possibility of knowledge there is no possibility of choosing, of judging, of voting. Universal suffrage becomes a fraud. Without the possibility of the alternation of new political forms, without equality, at least formally, the political game cannot be made democratically legitimate.

In their unanimity, the seven "official" parties, like so many factions of a single, imperfect, one-party regime, hold constitutional legality hostage, as well as the rights of the citizens and the minorities, to their exclusive profit.

For twenty years they have had the exclusive domination of public information and have divided it up by agreement. The Constitutional Court has decreed the absolute unconstitutionality of this situation. They have made and are making the Parliament a constantly greater source of violence and discrimination.

They have given themselves public financing that they divide up proportionally and, all told, kill the institutions by doing violence against those who threaten to worm their way in and upset their pacts and their equilibrium.

They impose aberrant discrimination such as that in the "short electoral law" on all new groups who intend to become candidates for universal suffrage.

Fascism denied citizenship and real political rights to whomever did not belong to the single PNF (National Fascist Party) (even at that time elections were held!); now they are denied to whomever is not a part of the seven parties that have constituted themselves the official groups of the regime.

A regime is being imposed that is founded on privilege and that denies the equality of all citizens before the law.

Faced with this picture of violence that destroys the very law and the fundamental democratic rights, it is not possible for a pacifist to give way without denying and betraying the values that he believes to be essential for everyone.

It is necessary to succeed in affirming something, if it were only a principle; a principle of something different, opposite, not an abstract ideological position.

I think that there is a cause and effect relationship when there is a massacre of institutions and persons which in our country is constantly occurring in an ever more dramatic way. When the fundamental laws are being destroyed by the very people who administer them, the society has no other choice than a lethal recourse to violence in every field and in every clash.

In such a situation the citizens cannot be made to respect any laws because they lack all confidence in them.

Now the regimes has violated the democratic processes for twenty years and is violating them in recent years with ever more arrogance, self-certainty and scandalous behaviour. Not only does the regime violate the rights of political minorities, but most of all the rights of the citizens as a whole to to know, to choose and to deliberate, thus denying the very basis of universal suffrage, of the power of the people, of democracy , of the social treaty.

Already in 1972 the Radicals in particular had to boycott the elections and burn their ballots in the name of respect for the

Constitution and the honesty of the political and electoral processes. After two years the Constitutional Court upheld their action in a sensational judgement; in spite of this they have been put on trial and harsh verdicts are still possible as a re- sult of that episode.

Therefore I will join in the collective hunger strike the Radicals begin on April 16 to obtain the recognition of their rights so infamously denied.

But I don't want nor can I limit myself to this. It seems to me urgently necessary (in all conscience, I repeat: necessary) that those in power at least admit to having seriously erred, that they make at least formal public homage to the principles to which they never cease paying lip service even while in practice they deny them and strike them lethal blows. To the principles, on the other hand, which are the basis of their formal legitimacy.

In particular I demand that, quite apart from and independent of the normal recognition of the present rights and of those relating to the probable elections, a radio and television program of at least half an hour be put at the disposal and under the direction of the civil rights movement and the Radical Party during prime time.

It is a question of asserting the concrete principle of a partial, almost symbolic, compensation for damages due to the Radicals and the citizens after years of illegal censorship, of anti-constitutional exclusion from use of the RAI-TV. It is the formation of a juridical and moral as well as political principle.

For at least two years the Radical Party has been proposing a political alliance to the Socialist Party. For six months it has stipulated it officially and on all possible and appropriate occasions. It is a legislative program to propose to the entire left as a basis for an alternative government of opposition and the inclusion in this program of the objectives now contained in the "Freedom Charter" have been requested with daily tenacity.

Once again at the PSI Congress, the National Secretary of the PR, Gianfranco Spadaccia, officially reaffirmed that the PR was not interested in the simple election agreements presented by De Martino (a Socialist leader) but at most could take them into consideration as the natural consequence of a much wider agreement. In two years and up until the other day, no reply, not even preparatory, not even unofficial, not even from a PSI leader in his own name, reached the PR regarding this regard, in spite of the common positions on abortion that were evolving. Even less after the Congress that yet, in its final motion, had approved in principle the idea of an agreement between the two parties.

No one can say that this was an accident or an oversight. Evidently the Socialists in their own house did not even want to face a debate on the problems necessarily raised by the Radical's proposals.

One example of an encounter that was thus avoided will be enough: the PR is for the abrogation and against the revision (which is to say the confirmation) of the Concordat between Church and State. The PSI is silent and thus confirms its official alignment with the neo-Concordat position of the PCI and the DC.

And again: the Radicals had declared that they considered necessary an immediate decision on the project to collect one million signatures for legislative initiatives for the application of the Constitution and for democratic reforms. The PSI refused to give the request the slightest consideration.

In these conditions, and as far as can be verified up to now, believing that it would be good and still possible, however improbable, to agree on a common platform of general political struggle with the PSI (which proposals would however have to come from the PSI, if they have any), the Radicals will have to go the road that was clearly and loyally indicated two years ago: to present themselves in the elections with their own lists.

This, in all conscience, is also my belief. Thus, if no new facts intervene to make us change our minds, I affirm that I have no intention of conducting a campaign in competition with the PR and add that I am preparing to support them.

Already the campaign of terror has begun against the risk of the dispersion of votes that Democrazia Proletaria (Proletarian Democracy) and Radical Party lists would cause. Even if they should reach significant figures on a national level - we are told - there is still the possibility that they would not reach that minimum figure necessary to gain seats in Parliament.

One must be quite clear and honest on this point.

These risks are even greater for the PSDI and the PLI which are in an advanced phase of liquidation despite the obvious attempt currently being made by the national press to attribute charismatic and life-saving talents to Sen.Giuseppe Saragat and Valerio Zanone.

These parties only survive because of the money their supporters contribute and their share of the public information loot from the radio and TV racket that holds constitutional legality hostage. In short they are nothing but appendages of the regime without corresponding support and struggles in the real country.

No one can say the same of the Radical Party and of the civil rights movement that it represents, nor for the forces that converge in the Democrazia Proletaria.

The Radical Party with the League for Divorce, the MLD (Women's Liberation Movement), and the LOC (League of Conscientious Objectors), despite the ostracism of the regime, has led majority fights imposed on the rest of the left, etc.

We assume that its popularity is great, certainly greater than that of the regime's so-called lay parties. But since we have never cried victory before having won, we intend to maintain the maximum prudence and responsibility.

Indubitably, then, many voters can be influenced against the PR and Democrazia Proletaria because of what happened in 1972. The PSIUP (proletarian unity party) and il Manifesto, who despite counting between them something like thirty members of parliament ending their terms, did not reach the minimum quota and so dispersed a million leftist votes. Having foreseen this eventuality, the Radicals preferred to promote an election boycott, denounce the unconstitutional monopoly on the use of the RAI-TV by the regime racket as incorrect and a serious falsification of the election battle. In the face of Il Manifesto's decision to enter the lists, I proposed giving them external support on the condition that they include in their lists the conscientious objectors and the proletarians in uniform locked up in military prisons. Our comrades of Il Manifesto, convinced that with Valpreda as a candidate (Pietro Valpreda, who spent many years in prison before being absolved of having supposedly committed a terrorist bo

mbing, ed.) they had warded off the risk, refused without further ado, with the unfortunate result that we risk having to pay for it still today to some degree in terms of doubt and uncertainty among the voters.

Therefore it is opportune and necessary to avoid the risk that the Radicals and the DP should have to pay in any case, by winning a smaller vote than otherwise, for speculations on the existence of this risk, even if we are almost certain that it doesn't exist.

It is true, certainly, that in the constituency of Milan last year the Democrazia Proletaria won 90,000 votes. But it is also true that just exactly the votes won by the Socialists showed how the tardy request of the Radicals to converge their votes on the Socialists was not consistently followed: this was at the time of the Socialist vote on the "Reale Law". The subordinate indication in favour of the AO was probably better followed.

In Milan as elsewhere, the presence of the Radicals can nevertheless have an effect on the left-wing Communist vote: to what degree in either direction is unpredictable, and it would be hazardous to try with excessive conviction.

For this reason I propose that the PR, the PDUP, and Avanguardia Operaia, enter the lists in two constituencies to be chosen from among Rome, Turin, Milan and Genoa and each of them present themselves under the aegis of the other. In that case we feel that there would no longer be an objective risk of an electoral success that could also bring about this eventuality that otherwise does not exist. In the two constituencies the winning of the minimum vote would be almost a mathematical certainty.

I hope that this proposal appears to be what it really is: a responsible contribution to the success of the only alternative parties that are actually running in the election with any hope of winning the voters approval. I hope it will not be considered a proof of weakness by those to whom it is addressed, anymore than was the proposal advanced in 1972.

I furthermore maintain that this proof of responsibility and awareness on the part of the Communist left and the Socialist libertarian left of the PR can constitute another important element of strength and attraction for the people.

The requests that I first indicated - the half-hour of TV and radio time as compensation - were made to the protean forms of power, irresponsible and inaccessible to any ordinary actions. I make them in the name of dignity of everyone and of non-violent principles and ideals - libertarian, lay and Socialist which are mine, which are ours.

Otherwise, on April 26, I will go from the usual hunger strike (three cappuccinos a day), despite the fact that I have been medically warned against it, to a much more rigorous fast of only water. And if by April 30 these objectives have not been reached, I will not swallow even that much: a total fast to the very end, until justice is done.

I have learned from this regime, form the frightful complicity that I have found in our files, that which others learned under Fascism: that to live it is sometimes necessary to risk one's life - or else one surrenders to death, and not only to one's own death.