ABSTRACT: The interview is the occasion for an overall analysis of the political situation of the moment and of the Radical Party's prospects. Political elections were held recently, and in a few weeks citizens will be called to vote on the referendums promoted by the Radical Party on nuclear energy and justice.

(Radical News N.200 of 31 August 1987)

Q: A debate is opening on the party's prospects, on the Congress, the refoundation. There seem to be few steadfast points.

A: On the contrary, I think the political points are very clear. Or perhaps they are all in movement, but they are extremely clear: it is on these points that we need to open the debate, asking each of the 10.000 members to give their opinion on Radical News. For example, one point which doesn't seem very clear is the date of the Congress, and it isn't an irrelevant point. But the cause of this uncertainty is the radical policy. Unprecedented facts are taking place. For the first time since the war, Italians will be called to vote in Autumn, and for the first time, a republican legislature opens with a law-derogation which places the decision on crucial issues into the hands of the citizens, through a referendum. The juxtaposition of the date of the referendums and of the radical congress deserves an analysis on its appropriateness. It is a delicate decision, which I cannot and do not want to take alone. In any case, the facts that are taking place, with the upsetting of the electoral seasons, is a sign of t

he times. Everything is changing, even customs consolidated during forty years.

Q: Let us start from the up-to-dateness of the referendums on Justice and Nuclear energy. Once again, the electorate is called to express itself on a series of radical referendums.

A: Once again it strikes me as superficial: referendum and institution of the referendum of 1987 have very little in common with the previous referendums. It is no chance that they are summoned in this unritual way. The referendums of the past were spaces of freedom conquered from the regime; these ones are the expression of the deep crisis of the system. Institutions which have become increasingly dependent on party power are on the verge of a paralysis. There is no political majority, there is only a partyist majority which rules, divides, uses and uses itself, without governing. There is a government whose declared objective is that of administering the status quo, and that nonetheless will not even succeed in doing that. There is a Parliament which at least for the coming twelve months - as the Prime Minister candidly admitted - will not be able to do its work, which is that of issuing laws. It will simply be called to ratify the decrees of the Goria (1) government, which, in addition to its own, will ne

ed to repropose the decrees of Fanfani (2), who in addition to his own reproposed the decrees of Craxi (3)...In other words, we are faced to a paralysis of the political system and of the institutions.

Q: However, the one on the rules of the game is the only serious debate of Italian politics...

A: Everyone talks about it, but there are no real projects in sight. The truth is that the system needs to be radically reformed. In any case, it is in this situation that the question of the referendums explodes again in a totally new way. By opposing the civil and progressivist referendum majorities, which have been the only factors of change and movement from the '70s to date, De Mita (4) and the PCI have cleared the Chambers and held the elections. The new wind of 14 June and the value assumed by the stone of the referendum in the pond of party power have defeated them. And now here we are again, voting in November.

Q: A paralysed system, a Parliament deprived of authority, an impotent government. How come the Radical Party in July asked to take part in the game? Isn't this a contradiction?

A: It is the exact opposite, it is the same analysis. Pannella's initiative was immediate: only the participation of radicals and greens in the government could have represented the new fact of 14 June. Failing this, and even apart from the electoral figures of the parties of the old majority, only a slightly rancid five party coalition was possible.

This is what they chose, but the "radical method" applied from '81 on in forming the governments has been the only new event of the crisis. No one was shocked, the idiocies about the spare tires of the five party coalition were set aside, but many were embarrassed, starting with the socialists. We will repropose this embarrassment at the first occasion. You see, the point consisted in the radicals participating in the government or in the radical referendums: the day after the elections, the so-called "reformist challenge", since everyone was talking about it, was forced to come to terms with one of these elements.

At least, unless a project for a democratic transformation of the political system is achieved. But even in this case, I fear they will find us lying in wait..

Q: In the meantime then, the referendums. Precisely for all that has occurred in these months, for the way things have been going, a victory is almost taken for granted. Are we heading toward a general consent of ayes?

A. I don't believe so, not for the moment at least. The radicals, those who have promoted all the referendums by creating different coalitions on each of them, are burdened by a huge responsibility. Without an exhaustive information and a democratic debate, it will be impossible to win. But it is that which we need to guarantee, apart from the merit of the referendums. I repeat: Dc, Psi, Pci and all the other parties claim to be reformist. They know perfectly well that the reformist challenge, the political game, can be played neither in the government nor in Parliament. If, therefore, they are not talking pure nonsense, they need to start off from the referendums; the question is not only that of abolishing a series of norms, but of answering in political and legislative terms the more general questions they evoke. Abolition of the committee of inquiry, responsibility of the judges, the powers of Enel, local governments and regional governments on nuclear energy, are nothing but starting points not for post

-referendum junk laws, but for structural reforms on the administration of justice, the rules and the behaviours of the political class and the citizen-State relationship, the programs regarding energy, development, the protection of the environment, which affect the entire community. Popular vote and subsequent legislative activity on the themes of the referendum will characterize the coming political year. A person who is a true reformist will have all the occasions to come in the forefront. If the ayes win, we will be fully entitled to say that the radicals - as a true government party, not a party of power - are increasingly capable of influencing the life of society deeply. But we should go beyond that: referendums are a precious occasion, and the institution of the referendum assumes, in this situation, a strength and effectiveness far greater than in the past.

Q: Do you think it could be used again in the coming months?

A: Yes. It is neither prohibited nor recommended, but there is no doubt about the fact that abrogative or consultive referendums could be held on themes such as health, information, environment, electoral system, constituent powers of the European Parliament. Or at least, we need to be aware of the fact that in the absence of referendum projects we will bring about neither choices nor reforms and even less will we have coalitions, progressivist majorities. At least the radicals have proven capable of doing this. The difference between the radical referendums and the Catholic ones or the ones promoted by the PCI lies there: their referendums have lost in the country, and have divided their own political families; ours convince and often win for everyone, albeit after many years and at the price of being lynched.

Q: Let's talk about the Congress proper. The debate, the prospect circles around three words: refoundation, transnational, transparty...

A: Yes, too many big words that create suspicion. In the meantime, at a second look, it is not a question of refoundation. The problem, if anything, is another one. Will we have the strength to achieve the foundation of a completely new party, with new political theories and a new praxis, with a new adventure, a new "utopia"? Because if this were not the case, we would go toward either a marginal correction, or toward some contingent political choice anointed by the sacred oil of the statutory refoundation. The radical statute can be neither a copy of the existing one nor the description of the process of formation of the one we hope for. In other words, we should be capable of simulating and foreshadowing the party which is already operating in an Italy which has radically changed its political system and in the United States of Europe. I wonder whether the time is ripe for such an operation, whether it is apt for this moment, or whether we should wait, while confirming the route and the direction we have c

hosen...

Q: In any case, the new radical dimension, chosen and confirmed when the party was saved with the 10.000 members, is precisely the transnational and transparty one. Clearly it cannot be postponed.

A: Yes, adding to this that it must become a reasonable and practicable political project in the coming twelve months, or at the most in the next two years. Words are not enough, therefore, they could become ambiguous. To say the truth, in the evolution of the radical policy of these years, those two words indicate a great tension: that of turning the radicals into an association, the group of people, the "people", the part (in the constitutional meaning) of the new Italian and European institutions. Versus all the parties-State a new "party of the State", capable of giving this country another political system, since this one doesn't work any more, and at the same time creating new supranational institutions. The party aware of the fact that two hundred years after the single revolution of history - the separation of the powers and the birth of the modern democratic State - powers, states and laws cannot be national, or else they become, as such, caricatures, they are impotent in tackling the modern problem

s of the people, of the requirements of a different civilization posed by the internationalization of the economy, of development, of security, of information. Now, this great ambition still lacks a political means. This is what we must achieve as a priority, bearing in mind that "and" between transnational and transparty; in other words, we need to operate for both things together, a democratic reform in Italy and a European federalist reform. Two objectives which must be made compatible in terms of activity and energies, because choosing one of the two fronts would mean altering a policy. All this is very difficult, but it is a difficulty which we are forced to by things.

Q: A danger re-emerges: reducing the idea of the transnational and European party to a nice word, the ornament of a party which operates increasingly and exclusively on a national scale.

A: The problem is which point of view you start from. I start from the belief that the radical policy has won, and has opened major paths, because the 14th of June has marked the beginning of a truly new stage of Italian politics. If this isn't true, we need to drastically change politics, make traumatic choices and explore totally different horizons. But if it is true, relinquishing this policy now would be a serious mistake. At least as bad as not understanding that the transnational dimension isn't the party's boast, but a need.

Q: The reality, however, is that of a Radical Party with a million votes and 2.6%. 0.4% more compared to 1983, with the vote strike. It hasn't exactly been a success.

A: Thank you very much! That is the objection of a person who cannot see the moon because he is too intent on watching the finger that's pointing at it. Between '83 and '87 there are slight differences. The Left with the exclusion of the PCI (from the PSDI to the Greens) globally passes from 18 to 24% of votes. The DC loses its centrality for good, reaches its minimum ever and the line of its secretary is beaten. The electoral defeat marks a process of crisis in the PCI, which needs to be carefully examined. The political system reveals its limits and shortcomings, and the unwritten rules that prevailed for 40 years are now upset. The superfluous parties appear as such to everyone; the leaderships of the DC and the PCI, the centres of the system, cannot mutually count on each other, and their old parties either renew their policies drastically or they decline. The parties with a winning policy, including us, are doomed to fail if they don't decide to really assume the challenge of the transformation of the p

olitical system. The vote is freer, increasingly less ideological. All the subjects touched on by the radicals are or can become up-to-date again....In my opinion, these are not irrelevant differences, and without radical politics they would still be in the realm of dreams. But if this is not a time of struggle for a democratic reform, I would like you to name one. Obviously, there is no radical miracle. But to a certain extent, we deserved that 2.6%.

Q: Deserved it? Weren't you expecting a better electoral result yourself?

A: I agree, I'm forcing it. Obviously it is a forced result: the conditions of the political and electoral competition are not democratic, a party which is not of settlement and power can hardly survive, and eliminating the radicals, settling certain accounts and closing the game with them, was and still is something palatable to many. But there are also subjective aspects which it would be a mistake to forget. In order to make our policy won, we could not concentrate only on the Radical Party as such, but on different forces; we needed more than a key of our piano to play our music. Moreover, the result is also the consequence of the party's model: if, since 1980 we had installed the party in traditional terms and filled local, provincial and regional councils with radical councillors, the Greens wouldn't have even been born. Instead, they have characterized the 14th of June and upset the frontist and transformist operation of the PCI's "grab-all" lists. The combination of these factors produces that 2.6% w

hich, albeit in the presence of a major policy, has been deceiving. But the alternative was a Radical Party with a bit more votes, without the affirmation of the radical policy. NO: it wasn't worth it, and one cannot have everything and the contrary of everything.

Q: Nonetheless, in addition to this we have had the cases of Cicciolina (5) and Bertuzzi.

A: Accidents and mistakes occur to people who do a lot, produce a lot, struggle a lot. But apart from these two cases, they are extremely marginal events for the radical policy, irrelevant in terms of our itinerary. The true mistake would be that of going back, following models of traditional parties, or racing ahead, thus thinking that we can dodge the difficulties of reality.

Nor can we sit still.

Which for me means that this radical policy needs to be accomplished to achieve the reform of a political system which is not democratic, has nothing to do with the Constitution, is an oligarchic tyranny. Moreover, it is evidently obsolete with respect to the development of the country over the past 40 years, to people's changing life style. It is like a steam train in the age of satellites. We need to knock it down, prevent counter-reforms from being launched instead of a democratic reform, despite the 14th of June, to maintain the status quo pretending to change something.

Q: In other words, an extreme assault on the uninominal system, the Anglo-Saxon system of voting?

A: Not only. Perhaps we are very deficient as regards public debt, the corporative jungle, the two-face medal of ever more powerful financial trusts and black labour market. It is a vase whose Pandora is the partyist system. In institutional terms, the alternative to party power can be achieved only through the Anglo-Saxon system of voting. Those who propose barrages on the German model or double ballots to impose forced coalitions, pursue a single objective: leave the apparata and the power of the party oligarchies untouched; and they do so knowing that the only reform to be achieved is precisely the reform of the parties, which are forced to renew themselves radically with the English system of voting. On the other hand, Popper's arguments are very solid, and Bobbio's (6) last perplexities are very pale. The doctrine itself points out the paths that lead either to the true proportional system or to the true majority system. The opponents are those who would like to pass from a bad proportional system to a

fake majority system.

Q: Martinazzoli (7) has launched the idea of consultive referendums on the electoral system and the institutional reforms.

A: In itself it is not a bad idea. Especially if it is the offspring of the awareness that in this situation, DC and PSI cannot carry on with agreements reached in the secrecy of a room.

Q: However, the lay parties, the socialists, the so-called forces of "critical democracy" do not favour the uninominal system. DP strongly adverses it, the greens are silent. Can the radical party succeed alone?

A: I believe the battle for the Anglo-Saxon electoral system, if it is the object of a true radical campaign, is extremely popular for citizens, and obtains the unconditional support of all the circles that are still free from the blackmail and ties of that which appears as a regime. The resistances all come from the political caste. As far as the Greens and DP are concerned, soon they will have to acknowledge that in this system no "revolutionary" or environmentalist demand can really assert itself, but only a space of survival to cover the share of that political demand. Thus, it is a system which does not fear to multiply the parties, but these friends and companions will have to choose sooner or later. I hope DP will not accept to live passively, and the greens cannot go on forever like Gaston, the lucky cousin of Walt Disney's stories. As for the socialists, they are faced to a choice. They hadn't obtained a similar electoral result for decades: either they invest in a great policy, or they use it simpl

y to accumulate dividends of hegemony, disguising an exasperated use of tactics with facade battles. I hope they will decide for the first hypothesis, and will invest their force in a democratic reform of the system. As for the referendums, however, the condition to succeed is an extremely determined Radical Party, capable of starting this battle in all fora.

Q: This isn't exactly a declaration of confidence toward the "area of 20%" which has emerged from the elections of 14 June.

A: On the contrary: it is a declaration of great and serious confidence. I believe in the project of the lay, socialist and libertarian force. I also believe that never before have there been the conditions for this to come true. Nonetheless, I do not mistake the old "terzaforzismo" (8) worthy of a republic based on party power with the reform that is necessary, nor have I ever believed in the "two times", in other words, creating vast common parties with the purpose of conducting politics...If we have the courage to carry on together the battle for the democratic reform, if the liberal and socialist forces will be the protagonists of this, we will experience the birth not of the third, but of the second or first force. The time is ripe. Apart from this challenge I see no common paths, which do not render a bad service to themselves and to the country. Sporadic common battles maybe, but not common politics.

Q: While there are the bases for a reform of the political system in Italy, those of the transnational party are on the contrary lacking. A part of the motion could even remain incomplete. It has been said that the radical party without thousands of members in Europe would be altered. What is the situation like?

A: That is definitely our weak spot. However, at the last federal Council, while being aware of the difficulty, and having good justifications not to do so, I have asked for its full confirmation. It has been a choice of method, a linkage. For years we have been talking of a European party, and we could make it into an Ithaca, a lucky island with safe ports which remains eternally on the horizon. The danger is that of creating an abstraction, which clearly weakens a "transnational awareness" which is still inadequate among ourselves. This is why we are here and we have posed this difficulty to the party. We have not removed it, starting to tackle an objective, starting small but essential initiatives such as, for example, the printing of material on the party in several languages. In other words, the best way to think is by doing things. From now on and until the Congress, we will work on a series of possible enrollments, on the basis of the heritage of the radical campaigns. We cannot rule out significant e

nrollments, but obviously activism and good will are not enough.

Q: The Radical Party, it is now a question of months, needs a Statute and a transnational project. By September they should be introduced to the Council and the Federal Assembly. Where have we got?

A: It is the work of pioneers, which commits the committees which have been appointed with a great effort of reflexion. I believe we need to start from a model and a method. The model cannot be territorial, and should rule out privileged places. The question is producing a policy in which each European citizen can play a leading role; on the other hand, a transnational policy either exists or it doesn't exist; if it exists, you can carry it out in Paris or in Taranto, or else it doesn't exist. As far as method is concerned, it should be entirely included in the idea of nonviolence, which at the moment is too often reduced to a copy of the '70s, without a real creativity and without a new content, without all the good and intelligent things that arise from ourselves as a profound need and which becomes predominant when it needs to be transmitted to others. Precisely because radical policy and method have represented a model during these ten years, and not just in Italy, there is a great radical "vulgata" whic

h is even vulgar at times. The transnational party and the transnational policy need a new nonviolence. The campaigns are all there: often the problem is how we conduct them....

Q: Are you referring to campaigns, single questions, or to a more global project?

A: A series of campaigns which have just been launched represent a real heritage of intuitions, as well as our essence, our identity. For example, federalist conscientious affirmation, human rights and the free circulation of people and ideas, the struggle for extraordinary intervention and the safety of human lives. These are campaigns within the reach of everyone, in their personal and political dimension. There are comrades who after Olivier Dupuis mean to make this extremely responsible choice of refusing the military service as national service, in other words inadequate, impotent with respect to any modern conception of peace and international security. Think of what it would mean to have spearheads in each European country, willing to face prison, launching an appeal to conscientious affirmation for a European peace policy based on the right to life and on a new conception of international law. The same can be said of the campaigns on human rights and the campaign against world hunger, despite the fac

t that we need a constant institutional referent both in national parliaments and in the European one. A global political project, however, is necessarily linked to the institutional issue, to the fact of attributing constituent powers to the Parliament of Strasbourg and to the foundation of the United States of Europe. In other words, a federalist project which presumes the existence of a European military organization, intransigent and determined, essential to defeat the shortsightedness of bureaucracies, apparata, national and nationalist leading class through civil and awareness-raising campaigns.

Q: How can the Radical Party concretely operate in this direction, with the energies it disposes of and its scarce financial resources?

A: A major European campaign is necessary in order for European citizens to receive two voting ballots in June 1989, at the third direct election of the Parliament of Strasbourg. One for the vote proper, and the other for the consultive referendum on the constituent powers to attribute to the new Parliament. Moreover, it is necessary to create a transnational coalition of forces which, regardless of their ideological and political origin, pledge in front of the public opinion to pose as the first and prejudicial point of activity of their representatives the problem of the constituent powers, of the new treaty, of the rupture with the unanimity formula, thanks to which Europe is paralysed in every political choice (and therefore as a political subject) because no decision is possible without the consent of each member State. If we lose this occasion at the third direct election of a Parliament which, without powers, is doomed to become a useless wreck, the fate of the United State of Europe is marked. Spinel

li (9) fiercely tried to influence the political élites to achieve his dream. Obviously it takes more, it takes a party of the United States of Europe.

Q: Is it in this sense that there have been talks of the new Radical Party as the "Party of the Congress"?

A: It is a term taken from the Anglo-Saxon world, which well suits the yearly basis - it too pragmatic and Anglo-Saxon - of the congress deadline. A party of the Congress was Gandhi's party, the Congress is the U.S. Chamber. However, I would avoid undue historical comparisons between federalist parties and processes which are historically different, such as the European one to be built. The different Indias, ethnic and religious, were the protagonists of a struggle against Colonial imposition, but the federalist dream soon disintegrated with the birth of various national states. In the U.S., the federalist process was born out of different needs and premises: obviously it is easier to be a federalist when in front of you you have 5.000 kilometres of fields and an ocean. Switzerland has its federalism because it has so to say transnationalized its banks. The European federalist option is much more complex, even if imposed by dangers and needs which are unprecedented in the history of mankind and of the people

s of the continent.

Q: A bulk of activity which is out of the reach of the radical energies and resources emerges between the commitment for the "democratic reform" and that for the transnational party. Isn't is vital to establish a priority?

A: To me all this is a priority, otherwise it is worth very little. If the energies are insufficient, it means we need to seek other energies: on the other hand, they were already inadequate for a party of a few thousand members, all the more so now, with respect to the direction which the "party of the 10.000 members" has taken. We will not solve our difficulties by "cutting politics". We need to devise a true association of ideas, a party of small clubs which - unlike today - should be permanently connected, both among them and through a very solid and equipped central organ, capable of conveying ideas and information. We can devise new organs, diversified functions, different uses and investments of the financial resources which reflect this political project, paradoxically even a "double party" could be envisaged...but the political project is one, and we win it or lose it all together. This is my opinion at least, but then pre-congress debates and congresses are made to confront the various opinions. An

d we need to hear that of the greatest number of members.

Q: In other words, according to you it is necessary to fully confirm the radical policy of these years.

A: No, we need to accelerate it and develop it. Do you want a piece of advice from a radical? Change the team which does it, not the politics which has been done and which can be done.

Q: In a word, what should the 1988 of the radicals consist of?

A: For me it is the "year of the reform", with the party of the new referendums, of the Anglo-Saxon vote, of a series of important transnational campaigns and of the consultive referendum for the United States of Europe. The party of the new institutions, in Italy and in Europe. The reformist challenge lies here. This is the testing ground for the many charlatans of reformism and the hustlers of old institutions, old policies, old ways of conceiving politics. Being a radical is difficult. This is precisely why it is worth the effort and the joy of being one.

Translator's notes

(1) Giovanni Goria: Italian political exponent, Christian Democrat. Former Minister of Treasury and Prime Minister.

(2) Amintore Fanfani (Arezzo 1908). Italian politician, professor of economic history, eminent personality of the Christian Democrat Party which he was secretary of from 1954 to 1959 and from 1973 to 1975. He gave a strong corporative impulse to the party with the use of public industry as a key element of economic development. Prime Minister (1958-'59; 1960-'62; 1982-'83), foreign minister on several occasions, president of the Senate from 1958 to 1973 and from 1976 to 1982.

(3) Bettino Craxi (Milan 1934). Italian politician. Socialist, deputy since 1968. Appointed secretary of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) in 1976, he operated important changes in the party's phisiognomy, turning it into the core of a wide project of institutional and other reforms and of unity of the socialist forces.

(4) Ciriaco De Mita (Avellino 1928). Politician, Christian Democrat, deputy as of 1963. Minister on several occasions, secretary of the Christian Democratic Party in 1981 and Prime Minister in 1988, he was the protagonist of a vicious controversy with Craxi and the socialists and of attempts to "open" to the Italian Communist Party (PCI). Forced to resign by the conservative Christian Democrats, the so-called "dorotei", he has become President of the DC. Leader of the left-wing current.

(5) Cicciolina (Elena Anna Staller). (Budapest 1951). Best known as Cicciolina, porn actress, elected member of Parliament in 1987 on the radical party ticket.

(6) Norberto Bobbio (Turin 1909). Italian jurist and philosopher. Theorist of the bases of the juridical science from a standpoint which is very close to juridical neopositivism, exponent of a liberalism which perceives the rigorous respect of the procedures as the very basis of freedom. Senator for life. Writes for "La Stampa".

(7) Martinazzoli: Italian polician. Christian Democrat. Former Minister of Defence.

(8) Terzaforzismo: expression which designates the attempt, carried out between the mid '50s and the early '60s, to create a solid liberalsocialist political force, capable of opposing the communist and Christian Democratic poles, by merging lay and socialist forces and parties.

(9) Altiero Spinelli ( Rome 1907 - 1982). Italian politician. During fascism, from 1929 to 1942, he was imprisoned as leader of the Italian Communist Youth. In 1942 co-author, with Ernesto Rossi, of the "Manifesto of Ventotene", which states that only a federal Europe can remove the return of fratricide wars in the European continent and give it back an international role. At the end of the war he founded, with Rossi, Eugenio Colorni and others, the European federalist Movement. After the crisis of the European Defence Community (1956), he became member of the European Commission, and followed the evolution of the Community structures. In 1979 he was elected member of the European Parliament on the ticket of the Italian Communist Party (PCI), becoming the directive mind in the realization of the draft treaty adopted by that parliament in 1984 and known as the "Spinelli Project".