Political prevention

The ‘preventive principle’ was an inspiration for those taking part in the Congress o f Vienna: they had gathered, yet again, to draw up the political m ap o f Europe after the N apoleonic fire-storm . Their aim was to restore the old order, keeping however the positive or non-disposable elem ents that new ideas and new times had generated.

A t any rate, generally speaking the follow ing w ere reaffirm ed, at least substantially: the religious and strictly paternal concept o f authority at all levels, ecclesiastical, civil and domestic; the observance o f law and obedience as an essential

2 G. B osco, S to ria d ’Italia ra c co n ta ta alla gioven tù d a ’ su o i p rim i a b ita to ri sin o ai n ostri giorn i, (Turin, Paravia e Comp. 1855), 455-457, OE VII 455-457. The ‘sectarian’ pian, according to Don B osco, carries on after the Congress o f Vienna: “A t the sam e time those secret societies that had thrown France into turmoil formed a new and strange plan to set up a sin gle republic o f all the kingdoms o f Italy. To succeed, you can easily see, they had first to ruin all the Italian kingly thrones and religion itse lf.. .m eanwhile they looked into w ays to have the people turned against their kings, asking for a constitution the sam e as had been granted in Spain, thanks to which the Prince handed over som e o f his power to the people and all people w ere equal before the law ” (G. B osco, Storia d ’ltaiia, 476, OE V II476).

balancing elem ent in interpersonal relationships; the well-being and happiness o f the people looked after by a State administration expected to be solid J u s t and guaranteed by a strong centre; responsibilities and powers assigned according to the social, spiritual and economic prestige o f the individuals called on to share them; and finally the social, regenerating power o f Christianity.

Nevertheless, along with absolutist orientations and repressive real ities, innovation also made a strong showing. England, France, followed by Norway, the Netherlands and some German states, made their importance felt in this matter.

The restoration o f all the legitimate powers did not mean a return to a pure and simple old order. This was the suggestion made by Charles-M aurice de Talleyrand- Perigord,the intelligent French representative at the Congress o f Vienna. M aking his point, the French representative said: “Universal opinion today (unlikely to falter), is that governm ents exist only for the p e o p le ... and that a legitim ate pow er is the best power suited to guarantee their happiness and p e a ce .., And it is no less advantageous to the sovereign than to his subjects to set up the governm ent in such a w ay as to avoid all possible motives for fear”.3 Pope Pius VII held the same belief in 1816 in his re-organisation o f the adm inistration o f the Provinces o f the Papal State which had been recently ‘reclaim ed’:

A return to the old order o f things in these provinces turns out to be impossible.

New customs have replaced old ones; new opinions have crept in and are almost universally shared in various areas o f the administration and public economy; new ‘lights’ have been accepted following the example o f other European nations and these ‘lights’ demand the necessary adoption, by the aforem entioned provinces, o f a new system m ore suited to the present circumstances o f the population, circumstances so different from the previous one.4

A greater guarantee o f order and balance for the future was sought after by some o f the protagonists in Vienna through the Holy Alliance, drawn up on September 26, 1815 by the sovereigns o f Prussia, Austria and Russia.

The Holy A lliance was guided by Christian principles as expressed by three confessions: Orthodox, Catholic, and Lutheran. It aim ed at providing firm bonds o f

3 C. Talleyrand, R elazion e ci! Re durante il su o via g g io da G ran d a P a rig i (June 1815), in M émoires, 3 , 197ff, cited by C, Bàrbargallo, Storia U n iversale,. 5V, Part 2: D all 'età napoleonica alla fin e della prim a gu erra mondiale ( \1 9 9 - \ 9 \9 ) , (Turin: UTET 1946), 1089. Guizot, Cousin, Royer-Collard etc., are along the same lines.

4 M oto p ro p rio della Santità di N ostro S ignore P ap P io settim o in data d elli 6 luglio 1816 su lla o rg a n izza zio n e d e ll 'A m m in istrazion e P u b b lic a esib ito n egli a tti d el N a rd i S eg reta rio d i C am era n el dì 15 d e l m ese e d anno su ddetto, (Rom e, Presso V. P oggioli

Stampatore della Rev. Cam. Apost. 1816), 5.

fraternity am ong those w ho signed it, and paternal bonds betw een them and their respective peoples so as to ensure stability and peace for Europe.

The first two articles stand out as a synthesis o f the ‘Preventive System ’ to be used on a political-religious level.

Article 1. In conform ity with the words o f the Sacred Scriptures which comm and hum an beings to deal with one another as brothers, the three contracting monarchs will remain united with bonds o f true and indissoluble brotherhood and, considering themselves as compatriots on any occasion and in any place, they will provide mutual assistance, help and relief; while considering themselves as fathers o f a family towards their subjects and armies, they will guide them with the same spirit o f brotherhood, by which they are moved to protect religion, peace and justice.

Article 2. Consequently the only prevailing principle, both among the afore­

mentioned governments and among their subjects, will be that o f being of service to one another: the principle o f manifesting, with unalterable benevolence, that mutual affection which should animate them; the principle o f considering everyone as a member o f the same Christian nation; the principle o f looking upon the allied princes themselves as delegated by divine Providence to rule over the three branches o f the same family, namely, Austria, Prussia and Russia.

By so doing it will be declared that the Christian nation o f which the sovereigns and their people form part, has really no sovereign other than the one to whom alone all power belongs as his own, because it is in him that the treasures of love, knowledge and infinite wisdom can be found, namely God Our Divine Saviour, Jesus Christ, the Word o f the M ost High, the Word of life.5

A political debate on the alternatives o f repression-prevention was held at a European level duringthe second half o f the century, due to the birth o f the International Socialist party (London, 1864). But at this time the cultural and social conditions were profoundly altered.

Two rather mobile fronts were formed: one had liberal tendencies and prevailed in England, Austria and Italy; the other was more rigid and prevailed in France, Spain, Prussia and Russia.

The Italian foreign minister, Visconti Venosa, was convinced that to fight against the Socialist International party members, “It was sufficient for the governm ent to be vigilant in order to frustrate the m anoeuvres o f the agitators, ward o ff their plots and strongly secure the country against such serious dangers. Preventive m easures could

5 A lm ost all sovereigns adhered to the Holy A lliance. Outside it and opposed to it were the Pope and England: A. D esideri, S to ria e sto rio g ra fia , Voi 2 “ D alP Ilu m inism o a ll’età delPImperialismo”, 415-416

eventually be used against the spreading o f those destructive doctrines which threatened Europe with a new kind o f barbarity” . But such measures had “to be compatible with our institutions and customs”. Instead Spain’s minister Praxedes Mateo Sagasta, though a liberal, outlawed the Socialist International party. France followed suit with a law on March 13-14,1872.

The French Foreign M inister, Francois Rem usat, thought that “preventive m easures were appropriate; namely, it was appropriate to consider the very fact o f belonging to the Socialist International Party a crim e” . France’s stand, then, was more repressive than that o f the Italian government,

Once again, the Roman government showed, substantially, an inclination towards accepting the English laissez faire approach and not towards necessarily preventive and general measures. First, the M inister for the Interior, Lanza, and later, the Keeper o f the Seals, De Falco, let it be known to their colleague the Foreign Minister that it was impossible to agree with the Spanish and French stand... The mind-set o f the Roman politicians was closer to the attitude o f Granville and Gladstone which was clearly profoundly liberal, all imbued with the principle which, in terms o f internal politics, was considered the informing principle o f English liberalism and the principle of European liberalism as well, namely, the principle o f repression and not the principle o f prevention. Later on, two representatives o f the Left, Cairoli and especially Zanardelli, openly proclaimed the aforementioned principle, This stand contradicted Crispi who was one of the champions o f strong government and who supported the principle o f prevention. But, at least in those days, in 1871-1873, the repressive principle was also supported by people on the right.6

M inister B. Cairoli, in a speech delivered at Pavia on O ctober 15,1878 put it this way: “Government authority should make sure that public order is not disturbed; it should be inexorable in repressing and not arbitrary in preventing”.7 Joseph Zanardelli shared the very same political stance.8

Francesco Crispi, on Decem ber 5, 1878, declared that:

political authority has the right to prevent crimes just as the judiciary has the right to repress them ” . He clarified his statement by emphasising the need o f a certain authoritarian discretion to be used by the government in the exercise o f

6 F. Chabod, Storia della p o litic a estera italian a d a l 1870 a l 1896, (Bari: Laterza 1962), 435-436. On the w hole problem, cf. 392-454 (La libertà e la legge).

1 B. Cairoli, D isco rso pron u n ciato in P a v ia ...il 15 ottobre 1878, fR o m e 1878), 6, cited by F. Chabod, Storia della p o litic a estern a 435, n . l .

8 G. Zanardelli, electoral speech at Iseo, Nov. 3, 1878, and speeches in Chamber on D ec. 5- 6, 1878, cited by F. Chabod, Storia della p o litic a e s te r a ...

acts o f prevention. This discretionary prevention consists in using a complex of prudential acts, cautions, secure and moral provisions thanks to which the government can keep the public peace without falling into arbitrariness. It is certainly hard to carry it out. The one who carries it out should not only have foresight but also be guided by a great sense o f justice, and by a profound sense o f morality.9

It is rather interesting that in February 1878, Don B osco had sent m inister Crispi a sketch outline o f his II sistema preventive) nell ’educazione (The Preventive System in education), while he had prom ised to send the same to his successor, the M inister for the Interior, Zanardelli, in July 1878.10 One can imagine the impact that the educational use o f the term s ‘preventive’ and ‘repressive’ m ight have m ade on those two men, accustomed to use them in an opposite political sense.11

Following the preparatory work done by two committees, one German the other Austrian, from N ovem ber 7 to N ovem ber 29 ,1872, a conference was held in Berlin which concluded by favouring repressive measures for social crimes. There were no m easures issued for preventive interventions against the danger o f subversive socialism.12