Year LXVI, 2024, Single Issue, Page 85
Federalist Action
and the Involvement of Society:
A Territorial Approach to Federation Building*
The topic addressed here concerns the cultural role of organised federalism in society. But before getting to the heart of the matter, it is necessary to make some preliminary remarks. First, we need to note that, in spite of its obvious limits and contradictions, the process of European integration is advancing, and also acknowledge that organised federalism no longer looks like a great force capable of autonomously directing the integration process towards a federal structure, as it did in the past. It is, however, important to distinguish between the integration and the federative processes, as they are two distinct developments. The first does not necessarily lead to the creation of a federal institutional structure; the second, on the other hand, recognises that it is both imperative and urgent to achieve such a structure. Furthermore, while the integration process has certainly moved things closer to the ideal of the United States of Europe, taking some of the sense of urgency out of the federalists’ demands, it remains far from complete, such that countless social, economic, democratic and territorial issues remain to be resolved. The weak sense of urgency and lack of attention to the demands of organised federalism at European level are now seriously threatening to bring the federative process to a halt, or even cause it to regress. The federalist force, theoretical vanguard and flagbearer of the idea that today’s Europe needs to make a federal leap, is therefore needed to act as a fundamental bulwark against this trend. In order to safeguard its capacity to play this crucial role, we need to see, clearly manifested within the internal life of the Movement, not only moments of debate and common reflection, but also a certain open-mindedness and willingness to exchange ideas. Because the more ideas there are, and the more they are discussed and developed collectively, the more likely it is that we will be able to continue to act as a vanguard.
But there is also another crucial aspect to consider: the need to develop, within the Movement, a new capacity to see and understand today’s reality also from perspectives different from those adopted up until the end of the last century and the beginning of the present one. The world keeps on changing, the challenges are diversifying and multiplying, and social and political relations are expanding and becoming more intertwined than in the past. All this must be food for thought for the Movement, because federalism remains the only meaningful framework and the only viable institutional formula potentially able to democratically manage this complex reality. The thoughts I offer here are limited to Europe, even though choosing a Eurocentric perspective risks fuelling a form of self-inflicted closure of the Movement’s thought that I consider potentially harmful and misleading. As, too, is the belief that, once a federal Europe has been established, it will then be possible to build the World Federation in the wake of the success of the European experience. This would be true only if, while building the United States of Europe, we also took care to thoroughly understand the dynamics of the rest of the world and the issues that, like it or not, amount to global challenges. If there is no propensity to reflect and work also at a global level, the creation of a federal structure in Europe will always remain partial, a view expressed several times in their writings by Albertini and other Italian federalists.
Returning to my main theme, it might be interesting to consider whether it is equally harmful and deceptive to believe that creation of the European Federation will automatically give us federal citizens, by which I mean citizens who recognise and embrace the founding principles of federalism. A European people that adopts federalist behaviour[1] is, I believe, a legitimate aspiration for our movement. Albertini’s words on this subject perhaps help to clarify this matter: ‘if we want to avoid elaborating inexact theories, which speak of the state, society, freedom, justice and so on without actually referring to reality, we must make reference to ways of acting, to human behaviour. If this operation does not succeed, the theory remains vague precisely as regards its relationship with reality, in other words with the agents, nature and goals of human action, which can then be interpreted at will in the most diverse ways.’[2]
This brings us to the first key point of the present discussion: to understand whether or not it is in the interests of our movement to contribute to the cultural formation of the society that will actually live in what we all hope will soon become the European Federation. Personally, I believe that this should be, at this historical juncture, a priority of the Movement, on a par with the battle for reform of the EU Treaties. Basically, we need to ask ourselves, what is the use of the whole of federalist thought, or rather the federalist system of political thought — not to mention federalist ideology in Albertinian terms — when we limit the action and, to some extent, the thought of the Movement to the establishment of a federal structure at continental level?
Let there be no doubt, the creation of a true European federal order remains an absolute priority. However, it is important to recognise that while this is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient one, even just for maintaining peace or achieving social progress in Europe. There is no guarantee that the creation of a true European federal institutional structure will spontaneously lead to the creation of a European federal society. This is precisely why I consider it fundamental to look once again at the three constituent aspects of federalist thought according to Albertini: (1) its value aspect, universal peace; (2) its structural aspect, the federal state theory; (3) its socio-historical aspect, that is, the stage of development corresponding to a pluralistic society open to interdependence.
The socio-historical aspect, in particular, seems to underline the fact that there is no automaticity between the realisation of the federal structure (structural aspect) and the construction of a society consistent with the institution created. This is why I feel it is worth asking ourselves: what is the purpose of all the theoretical and value-based analysis of federalism if, while we struggle for the establishment of a true federation in Europe, we fail to recognise the need to simultaneously foster a federalist culture among the future citizens of this federation?
This question opens up the debate on the issue of consensus regarding the creation of a federal structure, but above all it prompts us to ask ourselves what role the federalists should play in the construction of this consensus in society. It is certainly not an easy question to address, quite the opposite. However, it remains necessary not to overlook the imperative of a federative process that is profoundly democratic, and not something that is imposed, more or less overtly, from above. In fact, democratic participation is a founding and essential principle of the federalists’ political and militant culture, and it thus follows that we cannot avoid working to build not so much consensus in the strict sense as a shared culture at a continental level capable of politically supporting the creation of an effective federal structure. In this regard, I believe it is important to look at the positions adopted by the leading scholars of federalism.
Albertini deemed the third constituent aspect of federalism ‘essential, for no human behaviour which gives rise to a particular organisation of political relations can manifest itself without a basis in society and in a particular historical phase which allows it to spread and consolidate.’[3]
An interesting position on the cultural role of federalism was adopted by Spinelli, who pointed out that federalism is very easy to apply as a principle, but very difficult to frame as an element capable of explaining a cultural process, etc., even though that was what was needed. Once there are federalists, he argued, the European Federation will be created, and then the world one.[4]
Finally, precisely with regard to the role of the federalists, Albertini, in 1980, wrote: ‘Federalists can change the power situation — and constitute a political force of initiative, even if not of execution — only by making their sections, in every city and community, centres for cultural development, dialogue and the stirring up of ideas, thus intervening in the basic social environments in which political orientations take shape.’[5] A little further on, he added: ‘Resistance to this political-cultural undertaking is entirely natural. But when one reaches the point of believing that it is necessary to separate theory from practice, one must ask oneself whether this is possible when it comes to building a new world, and also remember that, in the past, all new forms of political thought…succeeded in renewing politics only by renewing culture. It is only by achieving unity of theory and practice that new problems can be solved. This is why we must broaden our gaze, and also ask ourselves whether this unity is not exactly what all men must strive to acquire, given that the situation requires mankind to develop the ability to decide on its own survival and destiny. It is true that a large number of men are still far removed from this cultural possibility. But it is a question of establishing whether we should not already be setting ourselves this objective, however difficult and remote it may be.’[6]
From these excerpts, it seems clear that there is a cultural mission that federalism must embrace when fighting for the establishment of a new political power. In fact, the political battle goes hand in hand with cultural endeavour.
The above reflections on the historical-social aspect of federalism as an active political philosophy and the cultural role of organised federalism have profound implications given the evident risk of a proliferation of European nationalism, especially outside the MFE, but unfortunately, in some cases, also within it. By nationalism, we mean the political culture based on division of the human race, which encourages hatred of foreigners, and exalts and justifies violence. Therefore, by European nationalism, we mean a process of extension of this culture, which, having taken root and taken shape at the level of nation-states, risks evolving at supranational level and leading to the affirmation of ideas in the ‘fortress Europe’ or ‘Europe as a nation’ mould, thereby reproducing the very dynamics that federalism inherently opposes. This phenomenon is quite the opposite of a realisation of the prerequisites of emancipation, equality and pacification that lie at the heart of federalist thought. It corresponds to a distorted and dangerous vision of the role of Europe that can be attributed, precisely, to a failure of the cultural legacy of federalist thought to take root in society. To avoid this attitude spreading, it is necessary to prevent and educate, providing instruction in federalist thought (in its multiple expressions) and underlining its cultural significance, and in so doing trying to reach as many citizens as possible. This must be considered another of the key tasks of organised federalism, pursued more for the cultural value of a European social conscience consistent with democratic principles and respect for diversity than for any short- to medium-term benefits it will bring.
Furthermore, I would say that there are, to this end, two principles that need to be rediscovered, or more precisely re-evaluated. They are the principle of subsidiarity, which is struggling to materialise in today’s, still not federal, Europe, and that of territorial solidarity, also still far from realised. Moreover, the latter, even in a federal framework, is not simply an institutional or administrative issue, but a crucial value element. If militant federalism identifies with these two principles and works to achieve the prerequisites that will allow them to be respected in a new European institutional framework, then it will not be able to avoid cultivating the commitment to a federalist culture that lives in society and at the level of the territories, so that these principles are internalised as legitimate and necessary aspirations of a new European citizenship.
All this is to make the point that the game is not played only in Brussels, in the capital cities, in party secretariats, through electoral lists, or in places of administrative power at any level. The struggle for the European Federation is played out in society as a whole, with citizens, with associations and, above all, at the level of the territories, with the youngest members of society. I will go further, and say that the game is won through astute thought and a huge cultural effort. To take up what Roberto Castaldi said earlier at this Debate Office meeting, the efforts of organised federalism must be geared at: ‘helping people understand that it is more useful to take the more difficult course than the easier one’. The more people think like us, the more likely it is that a true European federation will be created and, thanks to greater awareness and a European culture based on the key principles of our thought, will manage to withstand the challenges linked to the complexity of the current situation. This is not a recruitment campaign or a blanket membership drive, but rather a grassroots-level dissemination of our ideas in all the spaces that may be open to us, without any evaluation of political advantageousness or strategic value; an effort driven, simply, by the intrinsic cultural value of our ideas, which we cannot allow to get lost in the complexity of an increasingly unstable world.
At this point, I would like to return to the address given by Alberto Majocchi during this meeting of the Debate Office. In his conclusions he affirmed the need to ‘create an opinion movement’ through our activities. After all, we can no longer afford to believe that we are still living in yesterday’s world, and that our role as a minority intellectual elite can, by itself, support the full weight of the transformation that the creation of the United States of Europe demands; we need strong allies who know how to create consensus and stir consciences. Some of the struggles carried out by these potential allies are not alien to us. Indeed, they are struggles that without our institutional vision would lack meaning and remain pure utopia, such as, among many others, the environmental struggle, the fight to abolish atomic weapons, and the one to introduce the billionaire tax. It would be a tough undertaking, and not a simple one, but it could prove to be a functional strategy for pursuing our objectives in Europe, in the world, and above all among citizens at local level.
It follows that the activity of organised federalism must inevitably continue to be twofold: on the one hand the struggle for the establishment of a new power (the European/World Federation); on the other, a cultural commitment to the emancipation of federalist thought and the affirmation of its founding values in the social fabric of the future federal citizenship. It is time to square the groundbreaking and cultural role of federalism with social reality, a necessary step that can only happen through a parallel process of developing consensus around the proposals advanced by federalists. Creating, or drawing out, consensus for the federalists’ proposals among European citizens is the great challenge facing us today. Full realisation of the federalist institutional and social design cannot be achieved in the absence of a shared awareness of the federalist values (peace, cosmopolitanism and communitarianism), of democratic principles, and of the supremacy of law as the means to resolve disputes at every level, from the individual to the global. What must be underlined, once again, is that there is no competition between the action for the construction of a new political power (the European and, ultimately, global federation) and the action for the development of a federalist society: they are twin processes that go hand in hand. Each needs the other, both to be fully realised and to survive. Failure to recognise the synchronicity of these processes condemns federalism as a body of political thought, and federalists as a militant subject, to insignificance in terms of their political-institutional demands, and to incoherence with respect to the stages reached in the ongoing historical and social processes.
I wish to end by expressing my hope that we may once again start reading and updating the ideas of those who went before us without presuming to know how they should be interpreted, but more simply with the desire to find, in them, something useful that might, despite the differences and the changes that have taken place, help us to better understand the times in which we live, and also envisage the future.
Gabriele Casano
General references:
- Moro, Federalismo e comportamenti federalistici, Il Politico, 87 n. 1 (2022).
- Albertini, S. Pistone, Il federalismo, la ragion di stato e la pace, Quaderni di Ventotene, n. 4 (2001).
- Rossolillo, Federalism and Human Emancipation. The Federalist, 32 n. 2 (1990), pp. 109 ff., https://www.thefederalist.eu/site/index.php/en/essays/1889-federalism-and-human-emancipation, also available in: G. Vigo (ed.) Francesco Rossolillo, Senso della storia e azione politica, vol. I Il senso della storia, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2009, pp. 659 ff., http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136:il-senso-della-storia&catid=12:francesco-rossolillo.
- Albertini (1988), L’organizzazione e il nuovo modo di fare politica, in N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, tutti gli scritti, IX 1985-1995, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2001, pp. 321 ff., http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=118:tutti-gli-scritti-1985-1995-anno-1988&catid=10:mario-albertini.
- Albertini, Our Work for Federalism, The Federalist, 29 n. 1 (1987), pp. 3 ff., https://www.thefederalist.eu/site/index.php/en/editorials/1863-our-work-for-federalism; also available in: N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, tutti gli scritti, IX 1985-1995, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2001, pp. 267 ff., http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:tutti-gli-scritti-1985-1995-anno-1987&catid=10:mario-albertini.
- Albertini, Due poli per la politica culturale del MFE, Il Dibattito Federalista, 3 n. 1 (1987) pp. 1 ff., also available in N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, tutti gli scritti, IX 1985-1995, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2001, pp. 207 ff., http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:tutti-gli-scritti-1985-1995-anno-1987&catid=10:mario-albertini.
- Albertini, Politica dei quadri e linea politica generale, Il Dibattito Federalista, 3 n. 3 (1987), pp. 64 ff., also available in: N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, tutti gli scritti, IX 1985-1995, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2001, pp. 223 ff., http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:tutti-gli-scritti-1985-1995-anno-1987&catid=10:mario-albertini.
- Albertini, Messaggio ai giovani partecipanti al Seminario di Ventotene, L’Unità Europea, n. 103-104 (1982), also available in: N. Mosconi (ed), Mario Albertini, Tutti gli scritti, VIII 1989-1974, pp. 621 ff., http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106&catid=10.
- Albertini, Politica e cultura nella prospettiva federalista, Il Federalista, 22 n. 3 (1980), pp. 156 ss., https://www.thefederalist.eu/site/index.php/it/saggi/723-politica-e-cultura-nella-prospettiva-del-federalismo; also available in: N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, Tutti gli scritti, VIII 1979-1984, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2009, pp. 311 ff., http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103&catid=10.
[*] This paper was presented during a Debate Office meeting, entitled European Union: A Laboratory for Achieving Unity in Diversity, organised by the Italian section of the European Federalist Movement, which took place in Cagliari on 19-20 October 2024.
[1] An interesting analysis is provided by D. Moro, Federalismo e comportamenti federalistici, Il Politico, 87 n. 1 (2022), pp. 71 ff..
[2] M. Albertini, Federalism, The Federalist, 42 n. 2 (2000), pp. 87 ff., https://www.thefederalist.eu/site/index.php/en/essays/2026-federalism; also published in: N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, Tutti gli scritti, IV 1962-1964, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2007, pp. 231 ff., especially, pp. 233-34, http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&catid=10.
[3] Ibid., pp. 253-254.
[4] Spinelli’s remarks are quoted in: M. Albertini, Politica dei quadri e linea politica generale, Il Dibattito Federalista, 3 n. 3 (1987), pp. 64 ff.; also available in N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, Tutti gli scritti, IX 1985-1995, Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 224 ff., cf. especially p. 234, http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:tutti-gli-scritti-1985-1995-anno-1987&catid=10:mario-albertini.
[5] M. Albertini, Politica e cultura nella prospettiva federalista, Il Federalista, 22 n. 3 (1980), pp. 156 ff., https://www.thefederalist.eu/site/index.php/it/saggi/723-politica-e-cultura-nella-prospettiva-del-federalismo; also available in: N. Mosconi (ed.), Mario Albertini, Tutti gli scritti, VIII 1979-1984, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2009, pp. 311 ff., cf. especially p. 321, http://www.fondazionealbertini.org/sito/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103&catid=10.
[6] Ibid., p. 323.
