ABSTRACT: Radical non-violent action is never clandestine. It presumes the assumption of responsibility on the part of those who practice it. It implies the identification of a counterpart, of a juridical instrument and of the possibility for changing an institution. It affirms that the means must presage and determine the ends. But only information can see to it that non-violent action is transformed from mere personal testimony into a concrete political struggle, just as only civil disobedience, giving substance to one's own ideas, can ensure that the "rational madness" of the Trans-National Radical Party becomes a concrete juridical step and does not remain only a theoretical intuition.

(Acts of the conference "The Radicals and Non-Violence: A Method and a Hope", Rome, April 29-30, 1988)

I only want to express a few considerations, also with regard to the particular moment the Radical Party is going through - reflections that not only regard the absolute value of non-violence, but the need of using this tool precisely in this phase of the party's existence.

A fundamental part of the entire non-violent panoply and of all the forms non-violence can assume - which struck me greatly and involved me deeply especially at the beginning of my Radical activity - is the civil disobedience formula. Or better, the "practise" of civil disobedience.

The second element, to which I will return and which is fundamental for all non-violent or even libertarian action, is the indispensable role of information. Because only information can ensure that non-violence can pass from being a fact of individual testimony and become a concrete value of political struggle. Non-violence as the Radical Party understands it, does not regard the individual's testimony just because the ambitions of a group of individuals calling itself the Radical Party is another kind of ambition. It is an ambition on the level of values and of authentic politics.

Beginning with the role of civil disobedience which I intend to emphasise, you all know that Gandhi enunciated five basic elements for non-violent action:

The first, obviously is to abstain from physical violence;

The second, which Gandhi called the "disposition to sacrifice", is what the Radicals have translated into the formula of "giving substance to one's own ideas"; it is therefore the assuming of individual responsibility - for example, the responsibility of having to take the consequences of having publicly violated a law, having publicly declared it, and even demanding the application of the law in one's own case first of all.

With regard to this I have a vivid memory of the abortion campaign. The first meetings of the CISA [Centro Italiano Sterilizzazione e Aborto] and the Party were regularly preceded by a bizarre telegram to the police: "Today at 3 pm in Corso di Porta Vigentina 15/a a group of parsonages intend to violate article this and that of the penal code in effect; we ask you to apply the law which involves the arrest of said persons so that the offence foreseen in the law is not perpetrated", etc. etc.

The third element of which Gandhi spoke is the respect for truth. And on this score there is not much to be said, because if it is true - and it is true - that the means presage the ends, the civil pact of truth is an indispensable presupposition of non-violence.

The fourth element indicated by Gandhi is what he called the constructive commitment and the last element is the gradualness of the means.

Just because it is not a question of individual testimony but of a political campaign, both the escalation of the means and the various phases of the struggle must be accurately programmed. Non-violence is not to be identified with spontaneous action, but must provide for the time of each phase of the campaign itself. Since active non-violence is above all a kind of dialogue, it must also take into account the time necessary for the adversary to reflect (please note that I speak of "adversary" and not certainly of "enemy"). If there must be dialogue then the adversary must be granted his own time for reflection which necessarily has a different rhythm than ours.

I was speaking then about this aspect of civil disobedience, what Gandhi called the "disposition to sacrifice" and that we manifest as the assumption of responsibility. First of all that implies the fact that non-violent action is never clandestine, never secret, but by its very nature is public, is declared. One takes responsibility for it, for example the violation of a law with all the consequences that ensue so that the law will be changed in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution or the great human and civil commitments made on an international level.

There is in this another implication that regards a Radical attitude which today is universally recognised but at the beginning was judged to be one of our "quirks": when we affirmed in general that a law, however bad it might be was still better than a non-law. This evidently implies the identification of a counterpart and a juridical tool, and it further implies the possibility of a change within the institutional framework, expressing in any case the will to discipline a determined sector in order not to leave it to the mercies of the law of the strongest or the law of the jungle.

The second point that I want very much to underscore is the role of information in non-violent actions and practice. We well know that the difference between a libertarian and an absolutist - Stalinist or whatever - is that the libertarian does not believe the truth to be deposited in a more or less restricted group of people. The role of information in the opening of a debate on a proposed theme is the only way for avoiding a talk among experts, or among clerics, or the depositories of revealed truth, but among citizens. The theme is offered for public debate and to public opinion which is then called - in the logic of the Radicals, but also in that of the institutions - to express itself and take a stance with regard to the problem whose terms are known and public.

I will give a practical example. In 1977 the first position of the Radical Party on nuclear energy was not at all an anti-nuclear one. I recall perfectly the page of advertising entitled "HELP" that followed a conference that said more or less "I know that I don't know and for that very reason it is not possible to make a choice and even less possible to delegate to others one's choice on an issue whose terms are unknown to us in a situation in which the debate in the country is not open".

This is the affirmation of the principle of knowing in order to deliberate and the passing of the rolls of politicians or experts, who presume themselves entitled to be in possession of the truth and hence to decide, to the rolls of free citizens.

I also want to say something about my reflections on the period that Angiolo Bandinelli recalled when we our popularity was particularly low, the period that is of the Red Brigades whom we termed our "assassinating brothers".

I have here, among the documents of the Satyagraha Group, an article that Marco Pannella wrote in 1978 when Adelaide Aglietta accepted jury duty in the BR [Red Brigades] trial. I do not think I have to tell you what historical period that was when Adelaide accepted such a job in a trial that was held up for months because citizens could not be found who were willing to be jurors... At the time Adelaide was party secretary and so could have asked to be exonerated, but she didn't. Perhaps here we get close to that "spirit of sacrifice" of which Gandhi spoke. But aside from all mysticism, I think that this example given by Adelaide really put its mark on our party's history in terms of daily practices as well.

In that article Marco wrote: "Those who think that the non-violent are inert or unarmed are making a mistake. There is one thing at least which profoundly unites non-violent and violent politicians: both the one and the other believe that the historical and social period in which they are living demands that they literally give their substance to their hopes and ideals, that they consider their lives to be on the line and to draw the consequences. It is a kind of integrity that unites them. But the former believe that the means foreshadow and determine the ends, and since they are libertarians and Socialists life is sacred for them, especially the lives of their enemies; the latter believe that the ends justify the means, go onto the same battlefield as their adversaries and they too raise the banner of killing and of just and sacred war."

This is what Marco wrote. This seems to me to be very important, the readiness of the non-violent to give substance to his ideas, to give his own substance. The violent at times is also a suicide, but in reality he disposes of the body of his adversary as well as his own, whereas the non-violent disposes only of his own body. That is why we say, taking up the thought of Gandhi and "modernising" it a little, that the means in the last analysis are everything.

What the means are the ends will be. If the end is to build a society ever more just and human, the means cannot be a violent one, cannot be lying and killing, because the means used foreshadows the type of society that one is going to construct.

The dynamics of history itself have shown that a violent revolution that arose from unquestionable historical motives, just because of its violence does not succeed in arresting the course of lying and death after it has established itself.

This is not an ideological position, it is a discourse on method. And the history of the various liberation movements, both of the right and the left, is there to prove it.

In drawing up the sum of these considerations, I have been thinking in recent days of that great, epic event which was the Salt March conducted by Gandhi. That non-violent action was perhaps possible just because it happened in India where the English colonialists - aside from all lying and oppression - had nevertheless imposed a legal system, or at least institutions. Furthermore Gandhi's support, which was decisive for the success of his initiative, was made up of hundreds of thousands of people who followed him step by step. But also, and above all, by the "Times" journalist who played a fundamental role in altering international public opinionon the events which would never have led to the independence of India if they had remained closed up in the local situation.

Perhaps in other conferences or in other moments of reflection, we will have to open a debate on the role of national states, on independent states aas a myth or an ideology, on the right to self-determination and so on... values which have often been made into ideologies and on which we ought perhaps all to meditate once again.

To conclude and to get to a topical fact which closely concerns us: the Radical Party has decided to be or to reform as a trans-national party. This is not an escape route, it is not due to the fact that in Italy there is too little or no democracy. If we were to go and look at the data on the status of democratic and political life in other European countries, I am afraid that many other peoples would have to flee from their various countries, and to tell the truth I have no idea where we all could go for refuge. Our reasons are different. They regard the fact that the sphere here is too restricted to allow for the solution of important issues of our time. It is pointless to list them from ecology to unemployment to the problems of hunger and security. Our analysis is that the sphere of national decision-making is inadequate for solving the problems.

Hence there is need of an association of citizens called the Radical Party who share these opinions and feel the necessity of giving new thrust to a debate - European at the least - which for the moment is at a total standstill. The economic aspect of [a united] Europe has been accomplished, everyone is talking of this unified market by 1992, but what this is going to mean with regard to the economic consequences for the citizens of the various countries is known to very few people. On the other hand, the whole question is in any case blocked when it comes to European institutions and that is to say democratic control, the role of the [European] Parliament and its powers with respect to the Council of Ministers, etc.

So there is much work to be done. Our "rational madness" has been to invent the trans-national party, something which no one has ever done before so that there are no models to follow. But for the rational madness not to become absurdly ambitious there must be people to give substance to this party, share-holders who are willing to run the risk of the undertaking. I do not think the idea of the trans-national party came to us alone because we are more ingenious than the others. It is much more probable that others have also thought of it but they have done nothing about it because the difficulties are so many on the operational level, the political level, and even on the juridical level in many cases. A trans-national party with a party secretary of Italian nationality is something unforeseen, unrecognised, and even in certain legal systems expressly forbidden.

In Spain, for one example, one cannot register a political symbol signed by a responsible executive who is not a Spanish citizen. In Portugal it is against the law to be a registered member of two parties. In Turkey it is forbidden, and harshly punished, to belong to international organisations even if it were only the league for the protection of the colours of butterflies... Those five or six members of the Radical Party we have in Turkey are risking six months to two years in prison (Turkish prison, if you get my point) if they should only come out with a leaflet with Radical Party written on it.

What does this all mean? It means that a trans-national law will have to be written, and excuse me if this strikes you as being a trifle.

Naturally we could think up tricks and subterfuges, but we don't want to: the first move of the Trans-national Radical Party must be precisely to affirm that this is what it wants to be and so not to accept any underhanded methods. It would be easy to create the Turkish, Spanish, Greek, or Portuguese Radical Parties. But this would resolve nothing, because the various party internationals already exist and are pretty useless - Socialists, Communists and Christian Democrats. What we want to affirm is another principle: that above and beyond the frontiers, the nationalities, the flags and the religions, the citizens have a fundamental right to organise freely to pursue common goals.

At this point I think that to go from the abstract slogan "trans-national party" to a concrete juridical passage we most probably will have to return to Gandhi: we will have, as he said, to graduate the rhythms, the means and the actions, have recourse to civil disobedience and be disposed to sacrifice with all the implications we well know, and so on. And all of this not even in order to create the trans-national party but only to affirm it, affirm its legitimacy.

And this is where non-violence, aside from its historical roots, aside from the values it represents and all the other implications, will have to find - I think - an immediate application: already just in order to affirm the legitimacy of the trans-national party of citizens before even beginning to build it.