ABSTRACT: What kind of structure should such a radically different political body like the democratic, nonviolent, transnational Radical Party have? And what kind of rules should this unique Party abide by?

(THE PARTY new - N. 7 - May 1992)

The Statute which has governed the Radical Party's activity since 1967 represents a model for the relationship between the individual and political life which functioned for Italian society at that time.

For example, the Party's system of rules is not provided for: decisions taken at a Congress, or by the Federal Council, are only binding for the executive bodies and the different associations, not for individual members, who maintain a completely free position and are free to choose whether to take part in the initiatives undertaken by the Party, and are under no obligation to the RP (and, vice versa, cannot count on "automatic" support from the Party for any position they might assume). The Radical Party does not wish to defend, or be responsible for, individual conscience, and the rules of its Statue prevent the Party from becoming a kind of sect which represents its members one hundred percent, or presumes to express the political commitment of its members, and vice versa. Any decision is a "Party decision", binding for the Party, but only if it is approved by 2/3 of the congresspeople, in other words, when almost complete agreement is reached. This means that the Party will only be able to commit itself

in certain areas each year, and cannot take a position on the remaining issues. The Radical Party is a political instrument, not an "ideological church". It is an organization where people who are often very different can each be themselves, and associate to develop their capacity to pursue common goals.

Should we still hold an annual Congress?

It is obvious that the above characteristics of the Radical Party, its being an organization which allows people to band together but remain free, must be strengthened now that it has become a transnational, cross-party force. However, the problem is how to organize the actual decision-making. It is not feasible for the transnational Party to invite every single member to an annual Congress for many reasons, some of which are financial and others linked to our having to ensure that all members have an equal possibility of taking part in decision-making.

We have to make a choice. Do we hold an annual Congress? A Congress for delegates only? Or should we set up a form of permanent debate between members and the different associations, so that at the Congress - even if only a few delegates are present - the general opinion of the members regarding the various proposals is evident?

How do we associate within the Party?

The transnational Party is a political instrument with direct membership. Up until now, we have avoided organizing ourselves on a territorial basis, national or otherwise, and have tended to adopt the formula of organizing the Radicals in groups according to a particular "theme", each group being transnational where possible. Should we continue along these lines? And if we do, how can we satisfy - if we want to give each member the opportunity to take part in organized political activity - the essential need of Radicals to meet and work together in their own territory, without running the risk of creating "national Radical Parties"? At another level, we also have to resolve the way in which other organizations, and also national parties, might establish - in particular areas, or right across the board - a federative association with the Radical Party.

The financial question

The aspect of financing is linked to another fundamental question: how do we meet the tremendous costs involved in financing a transnational organization? When we wrote our "historic" Statute we chose to make membership fees and contributions from sympathizers our only financial source, in order to ensure that no pressure was brought to bear on the Party regarding its decision-making. Is it realistic to uphold this choice? Are there any viable alternatives, like utilizing the profits from business ventures? And what kind of guarantees should we impose if we decide to do this?

At another level, will we have to establish what kind of financial relationship there should be between Radical associations and the Party itself? For example, should we say that, as in other organizations of a transnational nature, the status of the associations, and the amount of say they have in decision-making, must be directly proportional to their financial contribution? Could we conceive of an instance in which the Congress would only approve a project if the project itself were partly self-financing?

These are only a few topics for debate. Many others could be added to them. What it was important to do here was to offer you something to reflect on, and to stimulate an exchange of ideas.