ABSTRACT: An essay on the nature and historical roots of the new Radicalism and a debate on the Radical problem with contributions from: Contributions by Gianni Baget-Bozzo, Giorgio Galli; Francesco Ciafaloni; Domenico Tarizzo; Ernesto Galli della Loggia; Brice Lalonde; Ugoberto Alfassio Grimaldi; Giuseppe Are; Alberto Asor Rosa; Silverio Corvisieri; Ruggero Orfei; Sergio Cotta; Federico Stame; Paolo Ungari; Giuliano Amato; Fabio Mussi; Giulio Savelli

(SAVELLI Publishers, October 1978)

Introduction (1375)

PART ONE

I. Politics and Society

II. The Accusations Against the Radicals (1377)

III. The Radicals As A Two-Front Party (1378)

IV. Radicalism And Socialism (1379)

V. Radicalism Or Marxism, Co-existence Or Techno-Fascism (1380)

PART TWO

A Debate On The Radical Problem (1381 - 1397)

Why I Dissent From The Radicals

By Sergio Cotta

("Argomenti radicali", no.6, February-March 1978)

There is one point on which I do not agree with the Radicals: their conception of a political party. In an authentic democracy it cannot be a marriage of oligarchy and bureaucracy, a power machine which is used as a cover, too often in a mystifying way, by generic and abstract ideologies (who is it that does not say he is in favour of justice, well-being, etc.,etc. ?). And this is the degeneration of the party-power system brought to light more than half a century ago by Roberto Michels. (Incidentally, I don't understand then how the Radicals were able to place such "hopes", as the hon. Mr. Pannella said, in the Communist Party which is the most oligarchic and bureaucratic of Italian parties.) A democratic party, on the contrary, must be an organisation open to people, individuals as well as groups, capable of understanding needs and opinions, in which the free debate of ideas is and proposals is the condition for reaching consensus and convergence on political action.

For this reason I am in favour of recourse to the referendum. Whether it wins or loses (I was among the losing promoters of the divorce referendum, and I don't regret it), it constitutes a precious occasion for a serious taking stock of personal conscience which is much more of a commitment than any vote for a party in an election, a vote which too often ends by being a simple proxy. But for that very reason I am against a slew of referendums that risks dissolving this precise stock-taking into a general and fanciful gesture of protest, hence not constructive. A referendum must serve to construct democracy - in other words, personal responsibility for the public cause.

Having said this much, I remain far from the Radical mentality and their ideas. I will limit myself to two examples of an initial agreement that changes into total disaccord.

"Point one". Even though not considering myself a pacifist in the specific sense of the word, I am distinctly opposed to violence (like the Radicals), above all because of my Christian faith, but also because I have indelible memories of violence from my participation in the Resistance as a partisan combatant. But for me, violence is to be overcome by daily digging into one's conscience and using one's energy in the difficult job of eliminating it from one's feelings, ideas, words and behaviour, in order to be as much as possible a witness to the spirit of peace. It would be too comfortable to imagine that violence is only a trait of the adversary, of whoever has the turn of playing the eternal "Fascist".

Without this commitment, the abolition of military service (not to mention of war) remains a formalistic way of discharging onto society and the institutions a problem that, on the contrary, it is the duty of each of us confront and resolve.

In this spirit I do not share, and consider rather to be something very serious the violent use of the word which, in my opinion, the Radicals indulge too often. In our mass "civilisation" words excite violence just as much and even more than many acts. More generally I mistrust the "political use" of non-violence which frequently is transformed into psychological violence: in a democracy (differently from the case in totalitarian regimes) a hunger strike can coerce the legitimate rights of others. In a word, it is not enough to be non-violent in order to be pacifists and bringers of peace.

"Point two" is on dissent: the concept of liberty. I do not consider to be true liberty the kind where everyone behaves as he likes and according to his lights, or to be more precise the liberty of those who take it to be the measure of their self-realisation.

This liberty is nothing but the "power" of which Nietzsche speaks. It is a savage liberty which one obtains and keeps by suffocating the reasons of others and making dialogue impossible. There is no true liberty without respecting the other as a person, without understanding that we are free "together" and for that reason "obliged". The realisation of oneself must necessarily pass by way of this fundamental relationship with the other. That is why I reject so-called "sexual liberation" which I consider a reciprocal struggle to enslave the other, and it is hardly necessary to say that men and women for me have equal personal dignity.

But the case in which my dissent is the most clear cut is that of abortion which I consider not liberty but tyranny. In this case, in fact, the very life of an innocent and helpless human being depends entirely (and so is in thrall) on the free decision of another who is not even always and necessarily the woman (so that there is a double enslavement). In its claim to be a generalised liberty, abortion provokes the death not only of the unborn child but of human liberty.

These are several of the main reasons, unembellished and briefly stated, why I dissent from the Radicals. I have used very simple words without worrying about subtleties and possible opposite deductions which they might give rise to, because I believe that simplicity is the best way of establishing relations with people.

----------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSLATOR'S NOTES

* Qualunquisti/qualunquismo - a much-used term in Italian political parlance referring to an attitude of mistrust towards political parties and the party system in general.