Giovanni Sabbatucci, historian of the “Italian anomaly” dies – Corriere.it

by time news
Of ANTONIO CARIOTI

The scholar who passed away at the age of 80 in⁣ his home in Rome. ⁢He had concentrated his‌ research in ‌particular on fascism and everything that had distanced our country⁤ from the establishment of a solid European-style liberal democracy

‌ The Italian anomaly, in ⁢its various⁢ aspects,⁢ had always been the main subject of⁢ study of the historian Giovanni⁢ Sabbatucci, who passed away on 2 December at the age of 80 in his‌ home in Rome. He had⁣ analysed the phenomenon‍ of ⁢transformism, ​the lack⁤ of a strong reformist left, the pathological ⁤weakness of​ a⁤ liberal ruling class ⁣ which had bowed⁢ to⁤ fascism, ⁤obviously the dictatorship itself and its lasting ⁤consequences. Everything that, from the ​Risorgimento ⁤era onwards, had distanced our country from ​the path⁢ towards the establishment of a solid European-style liberal democracy.

Collaborator ⁣of various press outlets‍ and⁣ frequent guest ​on television programmes, ⁢Sabbatucci, professor of contemporary history at the Sapienza University ⁣of Rome, he was also⁢ known to⁤ the general ​public for the school ​manual he had created in 1988 for the Laterza publishing house with colleagues Andrea⁣ Giardina‌ and Vittorio Vidotto. ‌A text ‌of exemplary clarity which, considering its various updated editions, has​ managed to ‌sell⁢ two million copies, despite ‍some criticisms that⁢ have been ⁤directed at it in the past, due⁢ to alleged‍ bias, by ⁤politicians ‍in search of easy and‍ unfounded polemics .‍

Sabbatucci subsequently directed his investigations⁣ towards⁢ the turbulence ⁢experienced by the Italian ‌political system in the aftermath of the First World War, with the impetuous irruption of‍ the masses onto the public scene. He published the essay ⁣in 1974 The fighters in the post-war ‌period (Laterza), ⁢but ​more generally sI focused on the ‍climate of general delegitimization⁣ of the ‌State ‍ which⁣ had first favored the‍ rise of the ⁤Socialist Party, then placed⁣ on positions of ​revolutionary radicalism, and‍ then ‌favored the‍ violent reaction of fascism, ​up to the establishment‌ of a liberticidal ‌regime.⁢

regarding the moves made by⁣ Mussolini, who came to government in 1922, to ensure absolute power, Sabbatucci ahad focused his attention on the electoral reform ⁣of ⁣1923, which provided for an abnormal majority‍ bonus⁤ for ‍the list that came first in the proportional ranking. The approval of that‌ text – which ⁣went down in history as the ⁣”Acerbo law”⁢ from the name​ of the member of the ​government who had drafted it – was defined by Sabbatucci‍ as⁢ “the suicide‍ of ‍the liberal ruling class”: a demonstration of timidity all the more serious given that ‍it was then fascism had‍ a limited number of deputies in Montecitorio, who were‍ also‌ elected in 1921 within the national blocs ⁤promoted by the moderate‍ Giovanni Giolitti.‍

Subsequently⁢ Sabbatucci had turned ⁤his gaze to the ‍left, analyzing the various failures of Italian​ socialism, its inability to offer a concrete outlet for the ⁤egalitarian demands of the humblest classes. in an essay entitled Impossible reformism ⁣(Laterza, 1991) had focused on the reasons why the maximalist currents ⁢had ended up clearly prevailing ‌in the PSI, in particular due to the affect of‌ the “symbolic ⁢anchoring” ⁤provided to​ them by⁤ the success of the soviet revolution, and the communists had⁣ achieved a hegemony stable within the ​Italian progressive camp.​

Perhaps ⁤ the work of greatest ​interpretative​ commitment However, by the Umbrian historian it is a subsequent volume from 2003, ‍ Transformism as a system (Later). Here the​ practice of co-opting opposition pieces into government majorities,inaugurated in the⁣ nineteenth century by​ Prime Minister Agostino Depretis,is considered ⁤not an expression ‍of political malpractice,to⁤ be⁣ condemned on the level of ethical judgment,but a structural need due ‍to the weakness‍ basis‍ of Italian national⁣ construction. ⁢To guarantee stability ​to the system, in⁤ a context ‍of strong ideological differences and deep social fractures, it had become necessary to enlarge the​ parliamentary ⁤majorities on the ⁤basis of possible convergences, ⁤sacrificing programmatic coherence to the imperatives of governability.

A method that ⁣had proven functional ‍in the first⁣ decades of⁤ life of the unitary ⁢state, ⁢but had precluded the possibility of ‌open competition between opposing​ sides for the leadership of the country. This ​model was‍ in some ways ‌proposed again, according to⁢ Sabbatucci,⁤ in the aftermath of the ⁤Second World War, albeit in a context dominated by ⁤organized political forces‌ which instead had ⁣a much lower weight, initially zero, in liberal Italy. even the post-war democratic‍ season, until the advent of ⁤the majoritarian electoral‍ system⁤ in the early nineties,⁢ was structured ⁣around conflicting⁣ but⁢ immovable majorities, belonging to the Christian Democracy, ⁤through a ‍complex game of party and⁢ current mediation that had⁤ several points in ⁣common with⁣ transformative experience.

Still in reference to the Republic born in 1946, it is​ worth mentioning the reasoned criticism that Sabbatucci had made of the conspiratorial visions of its events, for example in two essays contained in the multi-voiced volume Myths ‌and ‌history of united Italy (il ‌Mulino, ‍1999).⁢ He ⁤found ​untenable the⁣ hypothesis of a great conspiracy hatched in the shadows to influence⁢ the political balance in ​a ⁤conservative sense. Rather,he believed that terrorism,mafias and subversive plots should be investigated by ⁤dissecting the peculiarities⁤ of the different episodes,without claiming to ⁢bring everything back to a single⁤ thread. Shis considerations on the Moro case are also meaningful, a crime which, on the basis of the trial findings, attributed the exclusive duty of the Red Brigades, criticizing the ​idea ⁢that someone had been able to direct them ⁢or in any case manipulate their actions⁣ from the outside.

december 2, 2024 (changed December ​2, 2024 | 10:01 ​pm)

How did ‍Giovanni Sabbatucci’s work influence contemporary political debate and education in Italy?

Title: remembering Giovanni Sabbatucci: An Interview with ‌Political⁤ Historian Dr. Clara Monti

Editor (Time.news): good day, and thank you for joining us, dr. Monti. We’re here to reflect on⁢ the significant contributions⁤ of the late Giovanni sabbatucci, whose work ‌on Italy’s political history has left an indelible mark.

Dr. Clara ⁣Monti: Good day! Thank ⁤you for ⁢having me. Giovanni’s work ⁢was truly ‌pivotal in understanding the complexities of Italian political history.

Editor: He passed ​away⁢ recently at ​the age of 80. From‌ your perspective as a historian, what made Sabbatucci’s analysis of​ fascism and ​Italian political​ systems so⁢ influential?

Dr. Monti: giovanni had a remarkable ability to ‍dissect ⁣Italy’s political anomalies with clarity and depth. His examination ​of the “transformism”​ phenomenon and the ⁢weakness ⁢of the liberal ruling class, which capitulated​ to fascism, shed ⁣light ⁢on why Italy struggled⁤ to ⁢establish⁤ a ‌solid liberal ‌democracy akin to other European nations.

Editor: It seems his work was not just academic but also engaged with contemporary political debates. How did his ideas resonate in the broader public sphere?

Dr. Monti: Absolutely. Giovanni was ⁤not just‍ a professor; he was​ a public intellectual. His⁢ widely used textbook,⁣ created with colleagues in 1988, ‌didn’t⁣ just serve as a reference but became‌ a vital part of the educational‌ landscape, selling⁣ over two million​ copies. His engagement with the public ⁤through lectures and media⁣ appearances brought his critical views to the⁢ forefront, challenging political norms and misconceptions.

Editor: His discussions often turned toward the implications of Mussolini’s‍ rise to power, particularly his focus on the electoral ‍reform of 1923, known ‍as the ⁣Acerbo Law. What were the key takeaways from his analysis regarding this ​reform?

Dr. ⁣Monti: ‍ Giovanni called​ the approval​ of the Acerbo Law “the suicide of the⁢ liberal ruling class,” highlighting their failure to recognize the threat fascism posed ​despite ⁣its⁢ limited parliamentary presence at the time. This ⁣law effectively disenfranchised the electorate and allowed Mussolini to ‌consolidate power—essentially⁤ providing a blueprint for how fragility in democratic ​systems ⁤can lead to authoritarian regimes.

Editor: ‍ He also directed his attention to the left and Italian socialism. What were his insights regarding the failures of Italian socialism to address‍ the needs ⁤of the working class?

Dr. Monti: Giovanni pointed out that Italian socialism struggled to articulate a cohesive response to the egalitarian ⁤demands of the lower⁢ classes. his work revealed that, instead of fostering unity and revolution, the socialist movement became fragmented and radicalized, ​which in turn created a political vacuum that fascism exploited. By analyzing these failures, Giovanni underscored the importance of robust political ​discourse in safeguarding democracy.

Editor: It’s ‍clear he had profound insights into Italy’s political ⁤fabric. How‍ do you think his ⁢legacy will influence future generations of historians and political activists?

dr. Monti: Giovanni’s legacy lies in his ⁤relentless pursuit of⁢ truth and his courage to confront uncomfortable historical realities. Future historians⁢ will ‍undoubtedly draw from his methodologies and learn to ‍scrutinize political dynamics with the same rigor. Moreover, political ⁣activists can ​learn from ⁢his advocacy ‍for ‌a strong, accountable infrastructure that prioritizes democratic values over complacency.

Editor: Thank⁢ you, Dr. ⁢Monti, for sharing your insights into Giovanni Sabbatucci’s ⁢substantial contributions. His work remains crucial, especially in today’s political climate.

Dr.Monti: ‍ Thank you for having me. Giovanni Sabbatucci’s commitment to understanding our past will continue to ​inspire⁢ critical engagement with our present.

You may also like

Leave a Comment