ABSTRACT: Nonviolence is an essential trait of the Radical Party in its liberal approach toward the modern State, the National State; precisely here lies the difficulty of the radicals: while in the seventies the National State, the national laws, could represent the radicals' interlocutor and objective, now the major issues of our time call for a European interlocutor. However, there still is no European institution capable of producing Law on such issues, thus enabling a confrontation between conscience and supranational State.

(Papers of the meeting "The radicals and nonviolence: a method, a hope", Rome 20-30 April 1988)

I will not restrain myself, out of fear of being rhetoric, in thanking the persons who organized this meeting, and Bandinelli (1) who delivered the report, because I think it is a really important fact, and I will try to witness this by giving a contribution, both for the organization of the Meeting and for the printing of the papers, which I believe is in the intentions of the organizers.

I think that if Lorenzo started his speech by expressing his inadequacy with regard to this issue, then I believe I should start with a demonstration of even greater inadequacy....it is unquestionable that here in this room we are experiencing a fact of extreme, total minority, hearing the reports of Angiolo and of Lorenzo, who gave us an account of all these years; I really think very few people could feel some kind of identification with the things said. I fully share Angiolo Bandinelli's report, not only as far as nonviolence is concerned, but also as an essential fact of the radical party, of the existence, of the fundamental reasons of the radical party as such, of the "radical party of nonviolence" in the sense of a liberal approach toward the modern State: a State - as Angiolo correctly said - which is totalities, as totalities as it is by now completely impotent as National State. I think here lies one of our greatest difficulties; it may be that our current problems consist in our incapacity but per

haps also in an objective contradiction we are confronted with. While in the seventies, the National State could be an interlocutor as regards campaigns such as the one for divorce, abortion, civil rights, for the present time Angiolo aptly raised the problem of who the radical party's counterpart might be.

In the seventies, with respect to those facts we wanted to highlight, to that relation between facts of the conscience and State, which were divorce, abortion, civil rights, the interlocutors were the National State and the national laws: and through those laws, or through the challenging of those laws, or the exercise of disobedience to those laws, we could try to affirm our values, our facts of conscience. But now, in the face of the issues which we are increasingly forced to raise, which are the major issues of our time - starvation, the problems of the environment, the problems of the administration of the economy, the questions of the Law, of political democracy, of the certainty of the law - we have problems which are re-emerging not by chance, and which cannot be achieved in the framework of the national States, because while the national State is an inadequate container, incapable of solving the problems of our time, it is evident that all the more so it cannot be the container, the means to affirm,

political democracy and the certainty of the law. The problem, therefore, the vicious circle we are in is precisely this: that we are seeking an interlocutor; at this moment we are trying to create our interlocutor, the European dimension which can become European law, which can become out interlocutor: the subject, the new State, the dimension in which to raise our problems. It is a huge, a terrible difficulty. This is the contradiction: we are faced to serious difficulties precisely because there is no European law on the various problems we raise, because there is no law to challenge, on which to exert civil disobedience, on which to base this conflict between conscience and State Bandinelli was referring to.

And, in the face of this objective difficulty, which proposals can we advance? The only dimension which is to some extent adequate is simply that of challenging the national dimension, the national "social pact"; and therefore the only nonviolent means would be perhaps that of not paying taxes to the national State; not paying them not to dodge them, but to devolve them - for example - to the European community. I realize it is an inadequate means, because then there is the problem of how and when to do such thing; I ignore what means could be adequate, but clearly this is the extreme limit we have reached.

I just wanted to advance this remark, I ignore how adequate or how much it adds to the speeches delivered before me, which have covered practically all the aspects of the problem, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I have nothing else to add, except this remark which I expressed and which I considered necessary.

Translator's notes

(1) BANDINELLI ANGIOLO. (Chianciano 1927). Writer. Former member of the Partito d'Azione; secretary of the Radical Party in 1969, 1971 and 1972; he was also treasurer of the party for five years. In 1979 local councillor in Rome, deputy in the ninth legislature. For many years, editor of several radical publications ("La Prova Radicale", "Notizie Radicali", etc), author of essays and articles relative to the history and the theory of the party, many of which are contained in the book "Il radicale impunito". Writes for newspapers and magazines and for Radio Radicale with notes and editorials.