On Electoral Reform
By Benito Mussolini
Honourable Gentlemen,—I should have preferred to speak to this Assembly on that question of Foreign Policy which at this moment interests Italy and fills the world with excitement: I mean the Ruhr. I should have proved that the action of Italy is autonomous, and is inspired by the protection of our interests and also by the need generally felt to get out of a crisis which impoverishes and humiliates our continent. I promise myself to do so shortly, if the Chamber does not have the whim today of dying before its time. (Laughter and prolonged comments.) My speech will be calm and measured, although fundamentally forceful. It will be composed of two parts: one that I should like to call "negative," and another which I shall call "positive."
After all, I am not sorry that the discussion has gone, little or far, beyond the limits in which it could have been confined. The discussion on the Electoral Bill has offered opportunity to the Opposition to reveal itself, to move, from all its sections, from all its benches, to an attack against the policy and the political system of my Government. It will not surprise you, therefore, if, although not entering into details of all the speeches, I pick out from what has been said by the principal speakers those arguments and those propositions which I must definitely refute.
Warning to the Popular Party. As the speech by the Hon. Petrillo was favourable to the Government, it is not worth while to busy ourselves with it. (Laughter.)
I shall give my attention to the speech delivered by the Hon. Gronchi,—a speech fine as regards its form, and perhaps still finer as regards its contents. The Hon. Gronchi has once again offered the Government a collaboration of convenience, as in those manages de convenance which do not last or which end in ceaseless yawns.
Your collaboration, Gentlemen of the Popular Party, largely consists of details omitted. Your party, too, shows the same weakness. You should set to work and clear them up.
I do not know for how long these elements who wish to collaborate legally with the National Government can still remain united with your party, together with those who would wish to do so but cannot, because their inmost feelings do not allow them this step and this collaboration. You certainly know me well enough to understand that, as far as political discussion goes, I am intransigent. The small fry of the two-fifths and of the three-quarters or some other fraction of this electoral arithmetic does not interest nor concern me. Politics cannot be compared to a retail business. To be or not to be! I am such a poor electoralist that I could even let you have the thirty or forty deputies who satisfy you; but I do not give them to you, as this would be immoral, because it would represent a transaction which must be repugnant to your conscience, as it is to mine. In fact, I cannot accept a kind of Malthusian collaboration! (Laughter and approval.)
The Russian and the Italian Revolutions both tend to overcome all Ideologies. The speech delivered by the Hon. Labriola was certainly powerful. He said that Ministerial crises are a substitute for revolution. He should have said "Ersatz," because substitutes, since the war, are of German origin. That is too like the opinion of a herbalist to be accepted. It may be that the want of Ministerial crises leads to revolution, but here you have an example that shows how excessive Ministerial crises lead also to revolution. But, above all, it astounded me to hear the Hon. Labriola still employ the old vocabulary of second-class Socialist literature, speaking of bourgeoisie and proletariat—two entities clearly defined and perpetually in a state of antagonism. It is certainly true that there is not one bourgeoisie, but there are, perhaps, twenty-four or forty-eight bourgeoisies and under-bourgeoisies. The same can be said of the proletariat. What relation can there be between a workman of the "Fiat" factory—specialized, refined, with tendencies and tastes already bourgeois, who earns thirty to fifty lire a day—what relation can there be between this so-called proletarian and the poor peasant of Southern Italy, who despairingly scrapes his land burnt by the sun?
The Hon. Labriola has said that only the proletariat can give itself the luxury of a dictatorship. This is a mistake which is proved and can be proved. The only example of dictatorship is offered us by Russia. But the Hon. Labriola has written dozens of articles to prove that dictatorship does not exist in Russia and that dictatorship is not "of" but "upon" the proletariat. All those who govern the Russian States are professors, lawyers, economists, literary men, men of talent; that is to say, men coming from the professional classes, from the bourgeoisie.
The fault which the Hon. Labriola lays on us, finding an analogy between the methods and the evolution of the Russian and of the Italian revolution, does not exist. And here I make a simple statement of historical order. It is a fact that both revolutions tend to destroy all the ideologies and in a certain sense the Liberal and Democratic institutions which were the outcome of the French Revolution.
Italy pulled herself together after Caporetto, because the necessary Discipline of War was imposed on her. During the last few days use and abuse of a polemic method have been made, that of unearthing the writings and opinions of the past to employ them as a weapon in the present dispute. This is a very wretched system which I am going to use against those who have adopted it.
In his speech the Hon. Alessio has stated that the defeat of the Central Empires was due to the deficiency of their representative organs. This is a totally one-sided explanation. There has been a war; millions of men have fought against the Central Empires and defeated them. Another mistake is to say that after Caporetto Italy pulled herself together because she had regained her liberty. Nothing of the kind! The reason is that the necessary war discipline was imposed upon her. I am not one of those who think that Caporetto was due entirely to the disintegration of the country in rear of the fighting front. It was a military reverse in its causes and development; but there is no doubt that the atmosphere of the country, an atmosphere of leniency and of excessive tolerance, has produced disturbing moral phenomena which must have contributed to our reverse.
The Dawn of Italian Risorgimento came from the Bourgeoisie of Naples. The other statement made by the Hon. Alessio, that the Italian Risorgimento represented the efforts of the Italian lower classes, is superficial. Alas! it is not so. The Italian lower classes were absent and often hostile to it. The first dawn of the Italian Risorgimento came from Naples, from that bourgeoisie of intelligent and gallant professional men which in Southern Italy represents a class historically, politically and morally well defined. Those who at Nola in 1821 hoisted the standard of revolution against the Bourbons were two cavalry officers. All the noble martyrology of the Italian Risorgimento is formed out of elements of the bourgeoisie. Nothing is sadder than the useless sacrifice of the Bandiera brothers. And when you think of the tragedy of Carlo Pisacane you are thrilled! I should like to deny that Giuseppe Mazzini himself can be included in Democracy. His methods were certainly not democratic. He was very consistent in his aims, but how many times was he not incoherent and changeable in his means?
The Expedition to the Crimea really prepared the way for the Unity of Italy. And what about Cavour? I think that the event which really prepared the way for the unity of the country was the expedition to the Crimea, which represents one of the most noteworthy in history. I recall it because it shows how in solemn hours the decision is left to one man, who must consult only his own conscience. When General Dabormida refused to sign the Treaty of Alliance with France and with England, Cavour, on the same evening of the 1st of January 1885, signed it without consulting Parliament or the Council of Ministers, and signed it above all at his discretion without imposing any condition whatsoever. It was a stroke of rashness that you might call sublime. Cavour himself recognised it, and when writing to Count Oldofredi, he said: "I have taken a tremendous responsibility on my shoulders. It does not matter. Let happen what may. My conscience tells me that I have fulfilled a sacred duty!"
When the soldiers of the small and valiant Piedmont were on the point of leaving, the discussion in the Sub-aIpine Parliament took place, and Angelo Brofferio, a kind of Cavallotti of the time, accused Cavour of not having a definite political line of conduct. It is really worth while to read part of this speech, because it closely recalls the speeches which during the present week have been made in this hall.
"Our Ministers," said Angelo Brofferio, "represent all ideas and all convictions. At one time they become Conservatives and withhold the Jury from the Press; another time they ape the Democrats and raise cries against usurpations of Rome; still another time they throw off the mask and become retrogrades in order to unite with Austria!"
Angelo Brofferio ends with these really singular words: "Where is in this system respect for convention and for constitutional morality?" and, referring to the Treaty, he added: "May God preserve us from that sinister eventuality! But if you agree to this Treaty, the prostitution of Piedmont and the ruin of Italy will be accomplished facts!"
It is curious, also, that another powerful ideologist, certainly sacred to the memory of all Italians, Giuseppe Mazzini, was very much against this Treaty, even to the extent of calling "deported" the Piedmontese soldiers who were leaving for the Crimea and of inciting them to desert! But Garibaldi, a far more practical leader, had an intuition of the fundamental importance of the Treaty of Alliance between Piedmont and Western Powers. "Italy," said Garibaldi, "should lose no opportunity of unfurling her flag on the battlefield which might recall to European nations her political existence."
Today you certainly all agree in recognizing that history has shown that Angelo Brofferio was in the wrong and Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, was entirely in the right.
The Moral Unity of the Italian People. The speech delivered by the Hon. Amendola is, after that of the Hon. Labriola, more worthy of being analyzed. He said: "The Italian people are affected by a moral and spiritual crisis, which is certainly connected with our intervention, with the war, and with the after-war period," and he concluded by suggesting that it is necessary to give to this Italian people its moral unity. Well, we must be clear. What means "moral unity of the Italian people"? A minimum common denominator, a common field for action, in which all the National Parties meet and understand each other, a general leveling of all opinions, of all convictions, of all parties? For me it is sufficient that moral unity should exist in certain decisive hours of the life of the people. We cannot expect to have it on all days and on all questions. On the other hand I firmly believe that this moral, fundamental unity of the Italian people is already at work. We ourselves see it realized, perhaps not so much by our political work as by the war, which has made Italians know one another, and has thrown them together, making of this small peninsula of ours a kind of family.
Many local boundaries which separated provinces and regions have disappeared. Now we must complete the work. The Hon. Bentini, speaking of the freedom of the Press, to which subject we will return later, quoted the episode of Garibaldi and Dumas. I fully approve the answer given by Garibaldi. But I ask you: if the newspaper Indipendente had, by chance, published news concerning the movements of the Garibaldian troops or discrediting the military action, do you think that Garibaldi would not have suppressed that paper?
We have the Power—we shall hold it and defend it against all! But in the speech by the Hon. Bentini, what is particularly singular is the confusion between tactics and political strategy. Today it is possible to win many battles and the war can be lost or won. What happened? You had brilliant tactical results, but afterwards you had not the courage of undertaking what was necessary to reach the final goal. You conquered a great many outlying communes, provinces and institutions, and you did not understand that all this was perfectly useless if, at a given moment, you had not become masters of the brains, of the heart of the nation—if, that is to say, you had not the courage of making use of a political strategy. Today your chance is over, and do not delude yourselves!
History offers certain chances only once. But to understand this law it is necessary, Honorable Gentlemen, to keep before you two very simple considerations, and they are these: there has been a war which has shifted interests, which has modified ideas, which has exasperated feelings, and there has also been a revolution. To make a revolution it is not necessary to play the great drama of the arena. We have left many dead on the roads to Rome and naturally anybody who deludes himself is a fool. We have the power and we shall hold it. We shall defend it against anybody!
The revolution lies in this firm determination to hold power!
The Italian People under the Domination of a Liberticidal Government, groaning under the Fetters of Slavery? And now I come to the practical side of the discussion.
They speak of liberty. But what is this liberty? Does liberty exist? After all, it represents a philosophical and moral concept. There are various manifestations of liberty. Liberty never existed. The Socialists have always denied it. The liberty of work has never been admitted by you. You have beaten the blackleg when he presented himself at the factories when the other workmen were on strike.
But then is it really true and proved that the Italian people are under the domination of a liberticidal Government, and groans in the fetters of slavery? Is mine a liberticidal Government?
In the social field, No! I had the courage to transform the eight-hours day into a law of the State. Do not despise this victory; do not undervalue it. I have approved all the social and pacifist Conventions of Washington. What has this Government done in the political field? It is said that Democracy lies where suffrage is widened. Well, this Government has maintained universal suffrage. And, although Italian women, who are intelligent enough to exact it, had not done so, I have given it, be it only as regards the municipal elections to from six to eight millions of women! No exceptional laws were passed, and the regulation of the Press is not an exceptional law.
You forget a very simple thing, that the revolution has the right of defending itself. Is there in Russia liberty of association for those who are not Bolshevists? No! Is there liberty of Press for them? No! Is there liberty of meeting, of vote? No! You who are the defenders of the Russian regime have not the right to protest against a regime like mine, which cannot, even distantly, be compared with that of the Bolshevists.
I am not, Gentlemen, a despot who remains locked up in a castle protected by strong walls. I circulate freely amongst the people without any concern whatsoever, and I listen to them. Well, the Italian people, up to now, have not asked for liberty. At Messina the population which surrounded my carriage said: "Take us out of these wooden huts." In Sardinia—(you will notice that I am speaking of a region where Fascism has not tens of thousands of followers as in Lombardy)—in Sardinia, at Arbatax, men came to me with drawn faces; they surrounded me and, pointing out to me a track with a putrid river among the marshy reeds, said to me: "Malaria is killing us!" They did not speak to me of liberty, of the Statute, of the Constitution. It is the emigrants of the Fascist revolution who create this idol which the Italian people, and now, too, foreign public opinion, has largely dismantled.
Every day I receive dozens of Committees, and hundreds of applications are flung on my desk, in which one might say that the urgent needs of each of the eight thousand communes of Italy are represented.
Well, why should all those not come to me and say: "We suffer because you oppress us"? But there is a reason, a fact to which I wish to draw your attention. You say that the ex-soldiers fought for liberty. How does it happen, then, that these ex-soldiers are in favor of a liberticidal Government?
Are force and consent antagonistic elements? Not at all! In force there is already consent, and consent is force in itself and for itself.
But tell me, have you found on the face of the earth a Government, of whatsoever kind, which claimed to make happy all the people it governed? But this would mean the squaring of the circle! Whatever Government, be it even directed by men participating in the Divine wisdom, whatever measure it takes, will make some people discontented. And how can you check this discontent? By force! What is the State? It is the police. All your codes of law, the laws themselves, all your doctrines are nothing if, at a given moment, the police by their physical strength do not make felt the indestructible weight of the law.
We do not want to abolish Parliament. They say that we want to abolish Parliament. No! It is not true. First of all, we do not know what we could substitute for it. Parliaments, the so-called Technical Councils, are still in the embryonic stage.
Maybe they represent some principles of life. With such subjects one can never be dogmatic or explicit; but, in the face of today's state of affairs, they represent only attempts. Maybe that in a second stage it may be possible to allot to these Technical Councils a portion of the legislative work.
But, Gentlemen, I beg you to consider that Fascism is in favour of elections. That is to say, it calls for the elections, in order to conquer the communes and the provinces. It has called for them in order to send Deputies to Parliament; it does not, therefore, seek to abolish Parliament. On the contrary, as I said before and I repeat it, the Government wants to make of Parliament a more serious, if not more solemn institution: it wants, if possible, to bridge over that hiatus which undeniably exists between Fascism and the country.
Fascism is not a transitory Phenomenon, Do not hope that its Life will be short! Gentlemen, we must follow Fascism, I will not say with love, but with intelligence. There must be no illusions. How many times from those benches it was said that Fascism was a transitory phenomenon! You saw it. It is an imposing phenomenon which gathers in its followers, one might say, by millions. It is the largest mass party which has ever existed in Italy. It has in itself some vital, powerful force, and since it is different from all others, as regards its extent, its organization, its discipline, do not hope that its life be short!
Today Fascism is going through the travail of a profound transformation. You will ask: "When will Fascism grow up?" Oh! I do not wish it to grow up too soon! (Laughter.) I prefer that it should continue still for some time as it is today till all are resigned to the fait accompli, and have its fine armor and its virile warlike soul.
There is a fact which is rapidly transforming the essence of Fascism. The Fascist Party, on one side, becomes a Militia, and, on the other, becomes an administration and a Government. It is incredible what a change the head of a "squadra" undergoes when he becomes an alderman or a mayor. He understands that it is not possible to attack abruptly the Communal Budgets without preparation, but that it is necessary to study them and devote himself to the administrative part, which is a hard, dry, and difficult task. And as the communes conquered by Fascisti number now several thousands, you will conclude that the transformation of Fascism into an organ of administration is taking place and will be soon an accomplished fact.
Liberty must not be converted into License, and License I shall never grant! You ask: "When will this moral pressure of Fascism end?" I understand that you are anxious about it. It is natural, but it depends on you. You know that I should be happy tomorrow to have in my Government the direct representatives of the organized working classes. I would like to have them with me; I would like also to entrust them with a Ministry which requires delicate handling, so as to convince them that the administration of the State is a thing of the utmost complexity and difficulty, that there is little to improvise, that tabula rasa must not be made, as in some revolutions, because afterwards it is necessary to rebuild. You cannot take a corporal of the division of Petrograd and make of him a general, because afterwards you have to call in a Brusiloff! To sum up, so long as opponents exist who, instead of resigning themselves to the fait accompli, contemplate a reactionary movement, we cannot disarm. But I say further that the last experience after your attempt at the strike of last year must also have convinced you by now that that road will lead you to ruin; whilst, on the other hand, you ought to take into account, once and for all, if you have in your veins a little Marxist doctrine, that there is a new situation, to which (if you are intelligent and watch over the interests of the classes you say you represent) you should conform. And, moreover, Colombino, who is a friend of Ludovico d'Aragona, can say if I am an enemy of the working classes. I dare him to deny my statement that six thousand workmen belonging to the Italian Metallurgic Consortium work today because I helped them and because I did my duty as citizen and head of the Italian Government.
But liberty, Gentlemen, must not be converted into license. What they ask for is license, and this I shall never grant! You can, if you wish, organize and march along in processions and I shall have you escorted. But if you intend to throw stones at the carabineers or to pass through a street where it is forbidden to do so, you will find the State which opposes you, if necessary by force.
Close Analysis of the Electoral Reform Bill. But this Electoral Law which harasses us so much: is it really a monster? I declare it to you that, were it a monster, I should like to hand it over at once to a museum of monstrosities. (Laughter.) This law, of which I have traced the fundamental lines, but which afterwards has been successively elaborated by my friend the Hon. Acerbo, and re-elaborated by the Commission, I do not know whether for better or for worse,—(Much laughter.)—is a creation, and, like all creations of this world, has its qualities and defects. One must not condemn it as a whole; it would be a great mistake.
You must consider—I say this to you with absolute frankness—that it is a law for us; but it involves principles which are ultra-democratic—that of the State election schedule; that of the national constituency, which was the vindication of Socialism, as just now Constantino Lazzari recalled. You say that the struggle is impersonal, that the elections will cause unrest. But who tells you that the elections are near? (Laughter: prolonged comments.) The working of this law is such that a fourth part of the seats is guaranteed to the minorities, while I think that, calling the elections by the present law, the minorities would, perhaps, be further sacrificed. At any rate the impersonality of the struggle withholds from the same struggle that character of harshness which might preoccupy from the point of view of public order. As things stand today, elections held on the uninominal constituency or even on the proportional basis would certainly lead to excesses.
The Government cannot accept Conditions. Either you give it your Confidence or deny it. I declare that I shall not call elections until I am sure that they will be held in independence and order. I add that while on principle I am, and I must be, intransigent, I entrust myself, in a certain sense, as regards technical discussion, to the competent elements. In this hall there are very many competent elements. They will say how this law can be even more abused or improved. But this is the business of the Chamber, and the Government declares to you that it does not refuse to accept those improvements which would render easier the exercise of the right to vote.
This concerns in a certain sense the Popular Party, which must decide for itself. I have spoken plainly, but I must say not as plainly as has been spoken from those benches. The Government cannot accept conditions. Either you give it your confidence or you deny it.
On your Vote will depend in a certain sense your Fate! I agree with all the speakers who have declared that the country wishes only to be left alone; to work in peace with discipline. And my Government makes enormous efforts to achieve this result and will go on, even if it has to strike its own followers, because, having wished for a strong State, it is only just that we should be the first to experience the consequences of strength. I have also the duty of telling you—and I tell you from a debt of loyalty—that on your vote depends in a certain sense your fate! Do not delude yourselves, even in this field, because nobody gets out of the Constitution—neither I nor the others—as nobody can suppose that he is not amply guaranteed according to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. And then, if things are thus, I tell you, take into account this necessity. Do not let the country have once again the impression that Parliament is far from the soul of the nation and that this Parliament, after having maneuvered for an entire week in a campaign of opposition, has achieved sterile results at the end. Because this is the moment in which Parliament and country can be reconciled. But if this chance is lost, tomorrow will be too late, and you feel it in the air, you feel it in yourselves. And then, Gentlemen, do not hang on political labels, do not stiffen yourselves in the formal coherence of the parties, do not clutch at bits of straw, as do the shipwrecked in the ocean, hoping vainly to save themselves. But listen to the secret and solemn warning of your conscience; listen also to the incoercible voice of the nation!
