Elements of Politics

It really needs to be said that the first things to be forgotten are just the first points, the most elementary things; on the other hand if these are repeated incessantly they become the pillars of politics and of all collective action.

The first point is that there do in fact exist rulers and ruled, leaders and led. The whole of the science and art of politics is based on this primordial, irreducible (in certain general conditions) fact. The origin of this fact is a problem on its own which will have to be studied separately (at least, it can and will have to be studied how to minimise the fact and make it disappear, changing certain conditions identifiable as operating in this sense), but the fact remains that there do exist rulers and ruled, leaders and led. Given this fact it will have to be seen how one can rule in the most effective way (given certain ends), and how therefore to prepare the rulers in the best way (and the first section of the science and art of politics consists more precisely in this), and how, on the other hand, to know the lines of least resistance or the rational lines for gaining the obedience of the ruled and the led.

In the formation of leaders the premise is fundamental: does one wish there always to be rulers and ruled, or does one wish to create the conditions where the necessity for the existence of this division disappears? In other words, does one start from the premise of the perpetual division of the human race or does one believe that this is only an historical fact, answering to certain conditions? Nevertheless, it needs to be understood that the division of rulers and ruled, though in the last analysis it goes back to divisions between social groups, does in fact exist, given things as they are, even inside the bosom of each separate group, even a socially homogeneous one. In a sense it can be said that this division is a product of the division of labour, that it is a technical fact. Those people who see in everything only "technique", "technical" necessity, etc., speculate about this coexistence of motives so as to escape the fundamental problem.

Given that even inside the same group there exists a division between rulers and ruled, it is necessary to settle some immutable principles, and it is mainly on this question that the most serious "errors" come about, those which show themselves in the most criminal incapacity and are most difficult to correct. It is believed that when the principle of the group is laid down obedience ought to be automatic, should come about without the need to show its "necessity" and rationality, or even that it is beyond discussion (some people think, and what is worse, act on the thought, that obedience "will come" without being asked, without the paths being shown). So it is difficult to rid the leaders of dictatorial habits, that is, the conviction that something will be done because the leader thinks it is correct and rational that it should be done: if it is not done, the "blame" is put on those who "ought to have", etc. So it is difficult to extirpate the criminal habit of neglecting to avoid useless sacrifices. Still, common sense shows that the greater number of collective (political) disasters come about because no attempt was made to avoid useless sacrifices, or no account was taken of the sacrifices of others and other people's skins were gambled with. Everyone has heard stories from officers at the front of how soldiers would readily risk their lives if it was necessary, but who would rebel when they saw themselves neglected. For example, a company was capable of going without food for many days when it saw that supplies could not get through because of force majeur, but it mutinied when one meal was skipped through neglect and bureaucracy, etc.

This principle is extended to all actions which demand sacrifice. Therefore, after every defeat, it is always necessary to look into the responsibility of the leaders, and this in a strict sense (for example: a front is made up of many sections and every section has its own leaders: it is possible that the leaders of one section may be more responsible for the defeat than those of another, but the question is one of degree and never of anyone's freedom from responsibility.)

Having laid down the principle that there exist leaders and led, rulers and ruled, it is true that up till now the "parties" have been the most appropriate method for producing leaders and the capacity for leadership ("parties" can present themselves under different names, even that of anti-party or of "negation of parties"; in reality even the so-called "independents" are party men, except that they would like to be "party leaders" through the grace of God and the imbecility of those who follow them).

Development of the general concept contained in the expression "public spirit". This expression has a very precise, historically determined significance. But this is the problem: does there exist something similar to what is called "public spirit" in every serious movement, i.e. one which is not the arbitrary expression of individualism, but is more or less justified? At the same time, "public spirit" presupposes "continuity", whether with the past, or rather with tradition, or with the future, i.e. which presupposes that every act is a stage in a complex process which has already begun and which will continue. The responsibility for this process, for being actors in this process, for being in solidarity with forces which are materially "unknown" but which are felt to be actively operating and are taken account of as though they were "material" and bodily present, is called in certain cases precisely "public spirit". It is evident that this awareness of "duration" must be concrete and not abstract, that is, in a certain sense, it must not pass certain limits. I assume that the smallest limits are one generation before and one generation after, which is no little time, since generations are counted not thirty years ahead and thirty years back but in an organic, historical way, which for the past at least is easy to understand. We feel solidarity with men who are today very old and who for us represent the "past" which still lives among us, which we need to know, of which we need to take account, which is one of the elements of the present and one of the premises for the future. And we feel solidarity with babies, with the newly born and growing generation for which we are responsible. (The "cult" of "tradition", which has a tendentious value, is something different, it implies a choice and a definite purpose, that is, it is at the basis of an ideology.) Still, if it can be said that "public spirit" in this sense exists in everything, we need time and again to fight against distortions of it and deviations from it.

"Action for the sake of action", struggle for the sake of struggle, etc. and especially shabby, petty individualism, which is a capricious satisfying of momentary impulses, etc. (In reality, the point is always that of Italian "apoliticism", which takes on these various picturesque and weird forms.) Individualism is only animal apoliticism, sectarianism is "apoliticism", and, if you look into it, sectarianism is a form of personal "patronage", whereas it lacks the party spirit which is the fundamental element of "public spirit". The proof that party spirit is the fundamental element of "public spirit" is one of the more conspicuous and most important to be sustained; vice versa, "individualism" is an animal element, "admired by foreigners", like the antics of the inhabitants of a zoo.