ABSTRACT: Interview. According to Santoro, there are two fundamental reasons that led him to join the party for 1994: firstly to aggregate the "lay, democratic and liberal" area; secondly because he shares the radical battle on civil rights and the safeguard of the rights of the individual. He shares the reasons that led to the summons of the group of seven o'clock in the morning: "at that moment Parliament was under accusation" and it was necessary to "halt the anti-parliamentary tendencies". He then recalls his experience in the League of Cooperatives, with the internal debate on the management model. The League was a representative structure, which did not take part in the "direct management" of the entrepreneurial activities. He is therefore not in a position to assess the rules with which they placed themselves on the market.

(1994 - IL QUOTDIANO RADICALE - 8 December 1993)

There are two reasons why Italico Santoro, a member of Parliament (Republican Party) joined the radical party. The first reason lies in the need to aggregate, as far as possible, that intermediate, lay, democratic and liberal area which the proportional system had contributed to dividing, and of which the majority system makes it inconceivable to create coalitions to enhance one's presence in the country and to start in a position of strength any electoral agreements that may become necessary.

The second reason, which is rather more pragmatic, is that I share the ancient but ever necessary battle on civil rights and on the need to protect the rights of the individual. On this field for a certain period a certain sacrifice may have seemed legitimate.

When there was the emergency on terrorism, a series of rules were passed that created a real emergency legislation. This legislation cannot be the permanent legislation of a democratic country. A democratic country, in fact, finds the core of its juridical civilization, which is the juridical civilization of the West, in the British habeas corpus, which fulfils needs that are completely different from the ones of the emergency legislation.

Today it is ever more necessary to overcome that type of legislation, overcome the massive use of criminals turned state's evidence, and to enhance instead the civil rights needs that have been the basis of the campaigns of the radical party.

Q: Some say that many parliamentarians have discovered the reasons of civil rights only when the justice system struck the centres of power. Others instead say that the campaigns carried out by the much-criticized MPs who participated in the "seven o'clock meetings" are campaigns of general interest where the MPs were not defending themselves but a general interest of juridical civilization and a general interest of the country. Why did you participate in these meetings?

A: Occasionally it is necessary to carry out campaigns after experiencing them on one's skin. Many problems are urged also by personal experience, and I can find nothing deplorable in this, because it is fair that experiences be lived in such a way as to analyse the problems with respect to which it will be necessary to operate in the general interest.

As to the seven o'clock meetings, I believe they carried out a function of their own. In that period Parliament was under accusation. It seemed that Parliament was nothing but a bunch of MPs under investigation, without even analysing the political reasons that determined the current situation, and that are vaster and more complex than the public opinion realizes. It was therefore necessary to halt the anti-parliamentary tendencies that were rising in the country, and I believe the meetings of the group contributed to stopping the pressures that were emerging against Parliament. Obviously this also means that Parliament must coherently carry out a series of campaigns for the modernization of the country and of the institutions in particular. A series of reforms must be completed. It is fair, for example, that through the referendums we revise the current electoral law, which in itself has not solved the problems, leaving the country half way under the electoral point of view. Likewise, it is fair for this Pa

rliament to pass the direct election of the premier, since it is the only way to provide a permanent and unitarian solution to the political life of the country.

Q: The kickback scandal is raging also on the so-called "red cooperatives". Before being a member of Parliament you were vice president of the League of the Cooperatives. On your experience what was your impression on this matter?

A: The difference of the PCI, which I found in the cooperatives, lay especially in the way of administering a company or a firm. According to the majority of the cooperatives, i.e. the communists, it was necessary for a company to invoice a lot: by invoicing a lot (also producing at loss), with many orders, they throught they increased the number of jobs. That was a big mistake.

We carried out a long campaign within the cooperatives to convince them to pass to the logic of profit, to convince them, in other words, of the need for a company to earn, and that that was the best way to ensure jobs in the long term. The real difference I perceived was this difference, of scarce entrepreneurial competence. For the rest I was vice president of the League, i.e. of a structure that represented the Cooperative that was called the "red industrialists' union" which did not take part in the direct management of the cooperatives.

Therefore, the way the single cooperatives, the single groupings operated was a problem they had to solve, on which I cannot give an assessment.

The cooperatives operated on the market. They were forced to participate in tenders alone or with other private enterprises, and lived all the experiences of the market.

Of a market that in some respects was polluted and for other was not. In the end the cooperatives lived the experiences of all other companies.

Q: Will you join for 1994 too?

A: Obviously I will join also for 1994, precisely because the reason I explained above for which I joined in 1993 remain valid. The need to work to aggregate the liberal-democratic area remains valid, and so does the need for a long campaign to bring the country back on the path of a Western juridical civilization, on the way of the habeas corpus and of civil rights. If these campaigns were already confronted and solved, one could do withuot the radical party. Unfortunately they will require a long effort.

The contribution of the Radical Party on these battles is decisive.