ABSTRACT: By challenging the idea that the single individuals can do nothing to oppose the course of things imposed by all the dominant political Churches in Italy, Marco Pannella (1) teaches us instead never to give up, to do something, perhaps even with the risk of making mistakes. But he is not mistaken, Calogero (2) says, when he goes on a hunger strike in order to "reinstate" the republican legality.

(PANORAMA, 4 July 1978)

Soon I too will attend Marco Pannella's press conference; but in the meanwhile, I'd like to give my general opinion of him. His single stances and initiatives can be more or less sensational: and, generally speaking, precisely owing to an intrinsic defect in certain aspects of the doctrinal foundation of our culture, it causes little sensation. But one thing that does (or should) cause a sensation is his general attitude vis-à-vis life, which is a quarter of a century old, from when he was a boy to now.

NEVER GIVE UP

To say the thing in brutal terms, in a country of priests such as Italy, Marco Pannella is the most coherent of heretics. This should not sound like an offence to all those (who are, even today, probably the majority of men and women of the entire world) who have a genuine religious spirit and who belong to one or the other of the many existing churches. Simply, I want to underline the fact that in our country, an idea prevails over every divergence of ideologies and philosophies and faiths: the idea that a single individual can do nothing or almost to oppose the state of things, whatever the supreme power that governs him.

First of all, there are the Catholics, who, faced to the fundamental dilemma of every religion, suspended between the two poles - total fortuity of the events and individual responsibility of each individual - forget that the deepest truth of the Christian religion consists in the acknowledgment of the right and of the duty of one's conscience, in the fact of never relying exclusively on the presumed almighty power of God, but of accepting or opposing the course of the events according to whether this seems right or wrong to one's individual conscience. The formula "may God's will be done", which can be of consolation after the death of a beloved one, thus becomes the banner of the "ignava ratio", of the lazy acceptance of any event.

Then come the Marxists, for that aspect of their behaviour for which, from their political and cultural centralized hierarchies, they are increasingly lead to study a non-existent Marxist philosophy in order not to split into factions, discussing his more concrete ideological and political indications; and thus they find Hegel, who, with the worst part of his brain, theologizing on the Spirit of the World, and saying that therefore "everything that is real is rational", keeps them convinced of the theological rationality of all that is ordered from the party's headquarters.

In third row, after these dialectics of materialism, come the dialectic survivors of the idealism of Croce (3) and Gentile (4): far richer, in comparison, in terms of new ideas and indications, but unfortunately they too slaves to Hegel's idea of the Absolute Spirit, the author of the history of the world through his delegates who are the so-called "cosmic-historical" protagonists of it. True that, in the face of the unexpected fascist results of these and other conceptions of the kind, a genius such as Croce woke up in time to urge, in a famous work, to never wonder generally "where the world is heading", but always wonder individually where the asking person himself should go, following the sovereign answer of his conscience. Later on, however, faced to the need for a cooperation between liberals and Christian democrats, he wrote another work called "Why we cannot but call ourselves Christian": and the praises lasted universally throughout the country, despite the fact that this was the most ambiguous and

confused of all of his countless - and in most cases admirable - works.

Lastly, scattered in the empty spaces of these three major intellectual fronts, there are the followers of the goddess Science: those who are convinced that "scientific" notions are totally separated from "non-scientific" ones, and that only these should rule mankind, or rather, first of all tell us, being "human sciences", "what man is", because, if they didn't tell us, how would we know that none of us should claim for himself more than what he can claim for another person? This is the most recent form of the contemporary conformism; and although it is quite fashionable, it is certainly not the less obsolete of the four.

In the middle of this immense army of lazy-bones, each waiting for someone else to do something, or tell them to do something, what a surprise if someone impatiently gets up and shouts "enough! I prefer making mistakes but doing something, now, at least for myself!"

This is what Marco Pannella is in our sleepy country: a worthy follower of Aldo Capitini and Dino Dolci; and if he sometimes makes mistakes, there are times in which he makes no mistakes. As to the introduction and maintenance of the possibility of divorcing in Italy, he has shown more political flair than all the operators of Italian politics, including the Pope, who might have spared the Almighty a poorer figure than the one of the national soccer players abroad.

Nor is he wrong, generally speaking, when - as he did today in his press conference (during which he spoke for an hour and a half, with incredible energy, despite almost a month and a half of uninterrupted fasting) - he reproposes the same vast range of political-constitutional requests to the entire Italian political and intellectual class which he already proposed in the past. They are too many to be listed, even simply with their titles: on the other hand, it is to be hoped that at least this time, radio, TV and newspapers and Italian political magazines will feel ashamed of their silence and of their censorship, and will inform their readers, possibly drawing the courage from the reception of the radicals at the Quirinal (after Mr. Leone (5) finally lost his patience in front of the usual arrogance of Parliament and of its parties, who got hold of a power of constitutional control which does not belong to them).

A SPLENDID FORMULA

This is the problem, ultimately. On concluding his press conference, Pannella aptly defined the bulk of his proposals as a "package of requests to reinstate the legality, which does not imply victories of no one against no one".

Here is a splendid formula, more organic and solid, to define that "democratic constitutionality" which all States of the world need, if they don't want to end up crushed by fascist generals or communist generals. When I heard it, it reminded me of this: - I can rightly be proud of being, for the new democratic constitutionality, a "vox clamantis in deserto", if this "vox ieiunantis in deserto" - so much younger and stronger than mine! - operates in the same spirit (but in fact, there was no desert in this case: the room was full and acclaiming).

Translator's notes

(1) PANNELLA MARCO. Pannella Giacinto, known as Marco. (Teramo 1930). Currently President of the Radical Party's Federal Council, which he is one of the founders of. At twenty national university representative of the Liberal Party, at twenty-two President of the UGI, the union of lay university students, at twenty-three President of the UNURI, national union of Italian university students. At twenty-four he advocates, in the context of the students' movement and of the Liberal party, the foundation of the new radical party, which arises in 1954 following the confluence of prestigious intellectuals and minor democratic political groups. He is active in the party, except for a period (1960-1963) in which he is correspondent for "Il Giorno" in Paris, where he established contacts with the Algerian resistance. Back in Italy, he commits himself to the reconstruction of the radical Party, dissolved by its leadership following the advent of the centre-left. Under his indisputable leadership, the party succeeds in

promoting (and winning) relevant civil rights battles, working for the introduction of divorce, conscientious objection, important reforms of family law, etc, in Italy. He struggles for the abrogation of the Concordat between Church and State. Arrested in Sofia in 1968 as he is demonstrating in defence of Czechoslovakia, which has been invaded by Stalin. He opens the party to the newly-born homosexual organizations (FUORI), promotes the formation of the first environmentalist groups. The new radical party organizes difficult campaigns, proposing several referendums (about twenty throughout the years) for the moralization of the country and of politics, against public funds to the parties, against nuclear plants, etc., but in particular for a deep renewal of the administration of justice. Because of these battles, all carried out with strictly nonviolent methods according to the Gandhian model - but Pannella's Gandhi is neither a mystic nor an ideologue; rather, an intransigent and yet flexible politician - h

e has been through trials which he has for the most part won. As of 1976, year in which he first runs for Parliament, he is always elected at the Chamber of Deputies, twice at the Senate, twice at the European Parliament. Several times candidates and local councillor in Rome, Naples, Trieste, Catania, where he carried out exemplary and demonstrative campaigns and initiatives. Whenever necessary, he has resorted to the weapon of the hunger strike, not only in Italy but also in Europe, in particular during the major campaign against world hunger, for which he mobilized one hundred Nobel laureates and preeminent personalities in the fields of science and culture in order to obtain a radical change in the management of the funds allotted to developing countries. On 30 September 1981 he obtains at the European parliament the passage of a resolution in this sense, and after it several other similar laws in the Italian and Belgian Parliament. In January 1987 he runs for President of the European Parliament, obtaini

ng 61 votes. Currently, as the radical party has pledged to no longer compete with its own lists in national elections, he is striving for the creation of a "transnational" cross-party, in view of a federal development of the United States of Europe and with the objective of promoting civil rights throughout the world.

(2) CALOGERO GUIDO. (Rome 1904 - 1986). Italian philosopher. Developed a moral philosophy characterized by a strong ethical and civil commitment, based on the "principle of dialogue". Author of "Lezioni di filosofia" (1946-47), "Logo e dialogo" (1950) and of several articles on the weekly "Il Mondo". Among the founders of the Radical Party.

(3) CROCE BENEDETTO. (Pescasseroli 1866 - Naples 1952). Italian philosopher, historian and writer. After a short period in which he was attracted by the ideas of Marx, together with Giovanni Gentile he was responsible for the idealistic and Hegelian revival of the end of the past century. Antifascist, fundamentally a liberal-conservative, after the war he joined the Liberal Party and was part of one of the first governments formed after fascism. During fascism, he had a great influence on important sectors of the youth. As a philosopher, he has a claim to fame for his studies of aesthetics and logics as well as for his reform of Hegelian dialectic. Author of important historical works ("Storia d'Europa nel secolo XIX", "Storia d'Italia dal 1871 and 1915", etc), in which he supports the liberal development of Europe before the war, versus the "crisis" of post-war totalitarianisms.

(4) GENTILE GIOVANNI. (Castelvetrano 1875 - Florence 1944). Italian philosopher. Together with Benedetto Croce he developed the theory of Hegelian neo-idealism, contributing to the Italian philosophical revival. He joined the fascist party and provided the regime with ideological bases. Detained important roles until the mid thirties. The mastermind of the reform of the schooling system. Was killed by the partisans during the Resistance.

(5) LEONE GIOVANNI. (Naples 1908). Prime Minister (1963-'68), then of the Republic (1971-'78), was forced to resign after being implicated in the Lockheed scandal, following the referendum on public funds to parties, promoted by the Radical party.