Talk:Liberalism and radicalism in Italy

Important

Wow, this is an important topic, but this article is barely useful - it doesn't even explain what liberalism and radicalism mean in an Italian context. john k 15:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Please add more info, you are very welcome to do that. Electionworld 10:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that, although ELDR member, Italy of Values can be considered a liberal party. It is formed by ex-Fascists, ex-Communists and many ex-Christian Democrats. Its ideology is fundamentally populist and legalist (in Italy it is called giustizialismo, opposing it to typically liberal garantismo). --Checco 07:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Italia dei Valori is an active member of ELDR, fits in well, so there is no reason not to label this party as a liberal party. Do not forget liberalism is a not a heterogenous ideology. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wilfried, I would like to host you in Italy to make you understand what Italy of Values is. I'm sure that you will have to say "Why? Why such a party in my ELDR?". It is interesting that no ex-PLI members joined IdV, indeed in Italy the party is considered as the anti-liberal party! --Checco 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have met in and outside members of the former PLI and of Italia dei Valori, and though I don not agree with this party on all issues, it fits in the liberal family of parties. To be honest, but I tried to be neutral, Forza Italia doesn't fit in. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For all the regard I hold for you, dear Wilfried, I think you are not neutral about Italy. History will teach us... I don't know what former members of PLI you know, 'cos most of them (the most important ones) joined FI. The interesting thing is that the only thing Italian wikipedians agree on is that FI is a liberal party, while some questions about its christian-democratic or conservative and others are pretty sure that FI is a libertarian (in the sense of economically liberal) and neo-liberal party. That could sound good, and FI has also many social-liberal members: even Berlusconi, althgough himself Catholic, had taken always secular positions on ethical matters or prefers not to speak about them, for the reason that he doesn't want to hurt the freedom of conscience of any of FI members. --Checco 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you want the numbers, Wilfried? Unfortunately there are not official statistics about this, but it could be interesting to you this:

• There are 24 former members of PLI in the Italian Parliament:

-21 FI members (M.E. Alberti Casellati, M.T. Armosino, I. Bertolini, A. Biondi, E. Costa, A. D'Alì, G. Fontana, P. Fratta Pasini, N. Ghedini, A. Martino, L. Milanato, E. Nan, A. Pastore, C. Previti, D. Rivolta, P. Romani, P. Scarpa Bonazza Buora, E. Sterpa, G. Vegas, P. Zanettin);

-2 DL members (N. D'Amico, V. Zanone);

-1 independent member (Senator for life S. Pininfarina);

[-2 AN members are former voters of PLI (G. Consolo, D. Garnero Santanché), and in the past legislatures the party had many members form PLI (G. Basini -now returned to PLI-, L. Magnalbò, V. Martelli, G. Pagliuzzi -now returned to PLI-, S. Porcari)]

• There are only two famous ex-PLI members at the head of a Province (R. Costa, FI, in Cuneo; M. Dal Lago, LN, in Vicenza).
• In my region, Veneto, FI in in the hands of ex-PLI members (in a region where PLI took 2%, and DC 35-45%): the FI President of the Region is Giancarlo Galan (ex-PLI), the minister of finance (and ex-Vice President) is Fabio Gava (ex-PLI), one of the two or three leading members of the Regional Council is Tiziano Zigiotto (ex-PLI), my uncle Gianlorenzo Martini (ex-PLI) is an advisor to Galan and the Veneto's representative at Bruxelles.
• PLI former strongholds (as Cuneo) are now FI strongholds.
• Take a look to it:Provenienza dei politici attualmente in Forza Italia about the provenience of FI leading members (there's also an English and a Nederlands version).
• About PRI members, there's no doubt that most went to the left, but take a look to the parliamentary figures. There are 14 Repubblican members in the Italian Parliament and in the European Parliament:

-5 FI members (L. Casero, J. Gawronski, P. Massidda, M. Pescante, D. Verdini);

-3 PRI members, all elected on FI list (A. Del Pennino, G. La Malfa, F. Nucara);

-2 DL members (E. Bianco, A. Maccanico);

-2 MRE members (A. Musi, L. Sbarbati);

-1 DS member (A. Manzella);

-1 AN member (P. Armani).

• In any case, probably the 70-80% of former PLI (and some 40-50% of former PRI) voters now vote for FI (others vote for AN, LN and DL). --Checco 13:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously, all this doesn't make FI a liberal party (but I am sure of it), but at least we can say that most former Liberals (were they liberals? somebody regards the old PLI as a (liberal-)conservative party) joined FI. --Checco 13:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Something to be changed

1- The first, historical Radical Party was born in 1877 and not in 1878.

2- There were some other "liberal" parties before Fascist dictatorship and not only the Liberal Party (for example the Democratic Party leaded by Amendola sr. and some other minor parties) but I don't know when exactly they were founded.

3- The Action Party had two wings: the progressive liberal one, and the liberal socialist one; when the party suffered a crisis, the members of this last socialist wing, joined the Socialist Party, so I don't think that this party should be called "liberal".

4- machiavelli wasn't liberal, come on... and Italy had a lot of other thinkers that could be considered liberal like Mazzini, Pareto, Mosca, Einaudi that are internationally well known. --clemi 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pareto a liberal? Intangible 18:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On Pareto I don't know, for the rest I totally agree with Clemi. There's a lot of work on... --Checco 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Giolitti

He was prime minister during the first decades of the 20th Century (the so-called "età giolittiana", Giolitti's era), so I think that it's wrong to consider him only a liberal of the 19th Century. --Checco 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline and liberal leaders

@User:Autospark: As you have seen, I've been doing several fixes to this article. A question arose to me: would it be better having a joint timeline instead of the current one, basically divided in "political families"? Second issue: "Liberal leaders" is quite a loose and, to some extent, controversial definition, but I overhauled the section, I removed the tag I added before and it can stay for now: any thoughts? Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Checco, I have no problem with the leadership section as it stands. I'm moving towards thinking that a joint timeline is the best solution, particularly as the strands of the different parties have merged with other and overlapped at times.--Autospark (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to think throughly on that, before doing it, but your opinion is very important to me. --Checco (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)