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)

Pannella's Politics

By Giulio Savelli

("Agenzia democratica", June 27, 1978)

Some years ago the Radicals, in our opinion, played a positive role in Italian politics. The political struggle in Italy is marked by a particular twist: it all takes place on the level of government formulas and almost not at all on the political contents of those governments. At that time the problem seemed to be whether to keep the centre-left formula alive or to consider it passé and go on to a new formula, more centrist for some, opening up more towards the Communists for others. But no one seemed interested in deciding what concrete legislative provisions the governments of the one sort or the other ought to take, what political, fiscal, financial, foreign, social or civil policies would ensue from the victory of one coalition or the other.

In a situation of this type, the important contribution of the slender band of Radicals was to set up, lead, and ultimately bring to victory a single, specific battle - the battle for divorce - and to do so, perhaps for the first time, by trying to gather and bring out fundamental needs of the people independently of the subtle balances and political games which escape - as well they should - most people.

The success of the Radicals' battle for divorce is all the more amazing if one remembers that it was started, as we have mentioned, by a tiny group of people rallying around Marco Pannella and, if not in the face of hostility, certainly in the face of the indifference and disbelief of the lay parties, unconvinced that in a country with a Catholic majority there would be an audience for liberal civil rights issues.

The Radical Party, for its part, guessed that even the mentality of the Italians must have changed in some way after the great social transformations that took place in the Fifties and Sixties. Therefore it took up, first of all, with the Italian League for Divorce, the people directly suffering from the lack of adequate and modern legislation on marriage (the so-called "marriage outlaws"). Next it gathered in those who, though not personally involved in the problem, understood the civil importance of that battle in an Italy which was moving towards integration in Europe but which was very retarded (and still is) on the level of customs and mentality. Finally, almost against their wills, the parties had to get moving and obtained an unhoped-for victory, not without some difficulty of course, which was confirmed by the subsequent [counter] referendum that was unexpectedly promoted by regressive forces who had badly underestimated the country's degree of maturity.

From this battle we hoped that the Radicals would have learned to proceed on civil rights issues and with the method of accenting the contents rather than the political balances. And some subsequent indications coming from the Radical Party seemed to flatter us in these hopes. After the referendum on divorce, which had not been started by the Radicals, they seemed to understand before and better than the other parties - often in the face of explicit hostility from the other parties, and not the smallest ones, in fact - the importance of that constitutional institution which for 25 years the Parliament had prevented from being dutifully actuated. If I remember well, the Radicals were the first to raise the abortion question in Parliament immediately after the divorce victory, thanks to the collaboration of the Socialist deputy Loris Fortuna who had been the father of divorce law, then by means of a referendum proposal to which a large weekly, "L'espresso", also made a decisive contribution. On the great

civil issues of divorce and abortion the Radicals seemed, justifiably, not to fear the direct opinion of the public in the first case, and to solicit it in the second case, thus breaking a political practice which is certainly legitimate in parliamentary democracies, and above all in those with a proportional electoral system, but which cannot be carried to the point of neglecting the deep aspirations of the people. Subsequently, however - and paradoxically, precisely by means of the abuse of the call to referendums - the Radicals abandoned their original political approach and regressed to favouring political combinations rather than contents. How else, in fact, interpret the decision to call the people to vote on as many as eight referendums, to which one must add the one already under way on abortion? The very concomitance of the two referendums, which we are not against on principle, did however undoubtedly have the effect of making them weigh on each other, to make the answer to one condition the answ

er to another, as we have tried to show ("AD" no. 18, June 15); what would have been the effect of a simultaneous pronouncement on nine referendums?

The meaning of the Radicals' referendum actions was perfectly clear to the Radicals themselves. Explicitly, in fact, they asked the signers to put their names to "eight referendums "against the regime"". Among these were several that could in no way be reduced to a single argument, such as the one that would have abrogated a dozen articles of the penal code whose intention was to repress crimes not in the least different from each other; it was proposed to abrogate the law on insane asylums, which, despite having social relevance, regards mental patients for whom it is reasonable to suppose that no norm could do without the technical opinion of the doctors; it was proposed to abrogate the military codes with the effect that, since several crimes of a specifically military nature could not be used to indict civilians, the limiting of indictments to the civilian aspects of penal law would make soldiers into civilians in uniform and thus would be tantamount to abrogating the army; etc.

Thus the battle was no longer a question of contents but of political groupings. And the Radicals had chosen to be grouped with the opposition to the "regime", necessarily meaning by that, despite the apparent maintenance of a "constitutional" issue, the democratic-parliamentary regime as it is foreseen in our Constitution. This last statement of ours may seem excessive and above all unfounded; it may give the impression that we are almost trying to put the Radicals' intentions on trial. That is anything but the case. We entirely exclude their "intentions" from our analysis which, on the contrary, we have no difficulty in presuming to be different from the probable effects of a success in their undertakings.

But quite aside from their intentions, a political line such as that promoted by the Radicals tends to make the Italian state impotent, which even now cannot be accused of being excessively efficient. This unstabilising aim of the did not go unnoticed for long by the leaders and activists at the extreme ends of the political spectrum who, full as they were of reservations and true hostility for the Radicals when they seemed to be the most sensitive and decisive wing of the liberal-democratic ranks have now suddenly converted into the most enthusiastic supporters of the Radical line.

Nor, to tell the truth, have the Radicals done anything to distinguish themselves from these newly acquired allies whom they would have every reason to keep at a distance if they truly were worried about constitutional and democratic issues. Quite the contrary. Extremists of both ends are equally offered flattery and blandishments. Uniquely among Italian politicians, Pannella is disposed to consider Almirante a valid partner for political dialogue and even to recognise his democratic credentials (cf. "AR" no.7, June 2). Ambiguous positions on the Red Brigades and the "autonomi" (1) have the aim of winning them the sympathies of the leftist extremists; theatrical displays of opposition to the "regime", from the abuse of obstructionism, to unjustified hunger strikes, to gagging on television, to the violent and aggressive manner in regard to all the parties of the political range serve Pannella for winning consenses on either the right or the left among all those who are against not the government or the

majority, but the system - the democratic system, of course.

To conclude, the Radical Party, which first appeared on the Italian political scene as the most firm supporter of liberal democracy of the Anglo Saxon type and in opposition to our native distortions of the correct functioning of the institutions, has suddenly converted to an extremist, not to say subversive, political line.

We believe it is possible to say how this could have happened: all numerically small groups have the tendency to fall under the spell of their leaders' personalities. The Radicals have fallen under the spell of a lively and unpredictable personage such as Marco Pannella. We think, however, that this process of overturning a political line cannot have been entirely painless and that a good number of Radicals from the time of the divorce referendum ought to have, at least instinctively, developed significant reserves towards the present line of Pannella and the Radical leaders.

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

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.

1) Autonomi - rebellious left-wing youth movements with no clear party connections were generally gathered under this rubric.