On the occasion of Eirenefest, a book festival on peace and non-violence, Lista Civica Italiana interviewed Giuseppe Polistena, author of the book ‘Politica, questa sconosciuta’ (Politics, this unknown entity), which will be presented in Rome on Saturday 27 May at 5.30 pm at the Casa umanista in Via dei Latini 12/14. The book is the result of thirty years of research and represents a major step forward in understanding the identity of politics, knowledge that the West needs to renew. Over time, the book could contribute to a significant improvement in institutions and in the ability of politics to respond to people’s needs. It could form the basis for a reversal of the trend of disaffection with politics; it also demonstrates that politics is consubstantial with peace and non-violence.
Prof. Giuseppe Polistena, why did you write this book? What complexity is inherent in the concept of “politics”?
I wrote this book as the result of extensive theoretical and field research. The theses put forward are brought before the court of history.
The concept of “politics” has been the subject of an original mystification that has prevented its specific identity from being defined. This is because this human activity, which arose at a specific period in history, has the primary objective of managing “power”, which is a reality that has always been part of human nature and therefore predates the birth of politics. Politics arose precisely when human beings felt the need to control and limit power without passively accepting it as destiny. The mixing of these two realities (power and politics) led many philosophers and scholars of this subject to think that politics was identifiable with the art of government, i.e. the management of power. On the contrary, politics arose from below as an attempt to challenge, control and limit power. The confusion between the two terms, Power and Politics, has had important historical and institutional consequences.
In practice, political activity arises when social forces emerging from an evolved society judge the old places of power to be inadequate and oppressive, and propose a different vision and organisation of society. To achieve this, in addition to criticising the established power, it is necessary to gain a sufficient amount of power to bring about the desired change. The need for politics not only to control power but also to be obliged to use it in part has created a misunderstanding about the relationship between power and politics and their identity. The two concepts (politics and power) are structurally heterogeneous, but their relationship has led to politics being mistakenly conceived as the simple pursuit of power. In reality, politics has another objective: to control power.
1) How is political “form” produced?
First of all, a brief mention of the idea of “form”, which is the founding idea of my research. By form, I mean the supporting structure that contains things, people and processes. For example, absolute monarchy is a form within which individual absolute rulers are placed, who, even if they were “enlightened”, could not eliminate the negative aspects of that form.
Many conditions are necessary to produce the form of politics: first and foremost, a civic organisation (e.g. the city, the state, etc.), characterised by a differentiation of roles and tasks and the existence of an identifiable perimeter. This means that politics is a historical creation that we cannot find in the long prehistoric period. There is no politics in prehistory. Politics arises in the “polis” and arises when a level, even a small one, of “humanity”, i.e. “secularism”, is introduced, which does not replace but coexists with the enormous force and pervasiveness of the “sacredness” that has existed since much more ancient times. It is in fact the “sacred” that regulates life in prehistory and among ancient peoples. Humanity fits into sacredness without eliminating it, and it is in this process that peoples can produce political form. If all social life is regulated by the sacred, politics as a specific activity of humanity cannot find a place. Finally, it is necessary to produce an overall vision that observes social differences, recognises them, seeks mediation between them and conceives an overall model for the future.
The entry, albeit timid, of the future into the horizon of history is a further condition for the emergence of political behaviour.
2) What are the first political behaviours that can be found in history?
It is possible that many political behaviours developed in history without leaving a trace, but if we take into account two of the conditions of politics (the polis and the secular component necessary for political production), we can say that the first political behaviours we know of took place in Greece and then in Rome. Obviously, the subject is difficult, but we know, for example, the historical events associated with the figure of Solon, the Athenian who certainly identified and practised political behaviour, leaving a clear trace of it in his works. Politics has developed since then and has been the subject of philosophical attention, even though it arose without any awareness of its birth and therefore without the possibility of teaching it. One of the proofs of the failure to identify the identity of politics concerns teaching. Although Plato and Aristotle spoke of “Political Science”, this science was never taught, to the extent that chairs of politics only arose in the 20th century in universities, while in secondary schools this subject has never been taught anywhere in the world. Philosophers contributed to this serious shortcoming with their belief that political nature was innate: in reality, humans are social animals but not political ones. Today, it is important to reconstruct and disseminate the correct cultural forms in society in order to identify the identity of politics and bring it back to a physiological situation.
3) Why did you use the words “Everyone” and “No one” as political categories?
For a long time, scholars have sought political categories without reaching agreement. Unlike ethics or aesthetics, whose categories are clear (Good-Evil, Beautiful-Ugly), the categories of politics have never emerged clearly. This has been very serious for world institutions because categories are the reference points of a discipline, and politics did not have them. Even more serious is the 20th-century success of Carl Schmitt, an important German philosopher of the conservative right (he joined the Nazi party), who identifies political categories in the friend-enemy dichotomy.
My position is completely antithetical to Schmitt’s: political categories exist and are “Everyone” and “No one”. Unfortunately, they have not been identified in the historical course of politics. The success of Schmitt’s thesis reveals the disastrous situation of politics in the twentieth century and explains the two catastrophes of war. The categories “Friend-Enemy” not only fail to identify political behaviour but are antithetical to it. In fact, politics arises from an overall view of society that produces a vision in which differences between people must be harmonised and made to coexist through mediation or compromise.
The overall view that allows differences to coexist is guided precisely by the category “All”, because this category indicates that politics must deal with all those who live within the perimeter of the polis, otherwise politics would fail. The category expressed by the word “No one” implies that no one should have so much power that they can prevail over others. Everyone and No one are therefore categories that are closely connected to each other and are the sources of what we call Democracy (Everyone) and Constitutionalism (No one).
4) What is the relationship between politics and power?
We have seen how power cannot be considered a constituent element of politics because it is not part of its DNA, i.e. the conditions that determine political form. Politics came into being because someone suffered the violent exercise of power and therefore it arose as a means of controlling and limiting power, i.e. as a “constitution”. Secondly, it was understood that if power were not widespread, i.e. for “everyone”, it could not be controlled because someone would have more of it, so democracy, understood as equal power for all, became an element of the identity of politics, which exists if there is control and equal distribution of power. All this is summarised by the two categories of politics we have already mentioned. Anyone who attempts to define politics based on the concept of power is off track because they fail to identify the historical moment when human beings first began to challenge the enormous power conferred by the “sacred” on other human beings (kings, sorcerers, spiritual leaders, etc.). That is the original moment when politics came into being. Given that one of its purposes is to order and limit power, there is a closeness between these two concepts that generates confusion. The confusion probably stems from the fact that those who seek to change the organisational form of the society in which they live need an adequate amount of power/consensus in order to achieve/impose political change. Thus, new political forms, which aim to curb dominant and oppressive power, are initially associated with manifestations of power that are sometimes even violent. Politics, however, has nothing to do with power; in fact, it asserts that if someone had too much power, the category of “No One” would be violated. Of course, in order to control power, it is necessary to possess the strength, i.e. the power to do so, but this power is special because it is orderly and limited, and it is precisely “political power” that exists only if there is a constitution that implements the category of “No One”.
This proximity between politics and power has led to confusion between the two concepts: limiting and controlling power requires institutions, and institutions must hold the function, i.e. the necessary power. Unfortunately, it will always be possible for the faculty of managing the power acquired by politics in a correct process of human development to become autonomous, losing its “political” function and thus becoming a power relationship devoid of the connotations that correctly define politics. In such cases, it is not that bad politics arises, but simply that politics vanishes, its form disappears, and the apolitical (or anti-political) behaviours that tend to prevail within various societies take over. This possibility clearly tells us that politics is not identified with state institutions (which can exercise power but cannot engage in politics) and that once produced, it does not last forever. In fact, it needs continuous control and maintenance, which is why what I have called “social politicality” (see next question) is indispensable. This neologism refers to the tools and organisational methods that allow citizens to participate in political production and to direct institutional politicality in the interest of the community (something that is currently completely non-existent).
5) In your book, you talk about institutional politicality and social politicality. Can you explain these terms?
First of all, I used a neologism because I felt the practical need to condense a series of concepts and functions into one phrase. Schematically, we can identify two types of politicality that greatly help us understand the mechanisms involved in political production.
The first is institutional politics carried out in the institutions provided for by the Constitution, such as the government and parliament, where decisions binding on everyone are taken. In ancient times, institutional politics was carried out by those who had the actual power to do so (usually kings).
The second is social politicality, which should be exercised by citizens and takes the form of a set of functions and actions that are closely interrelated. Social politicality does not have decision-making power and reproduces the very birth of politics, which, as we have seen, arose outside the established power structure; in order to exist, it requires a high level of political culture in civil society. In the modern era, sovereignty has been conferred on civil society, but if there is weak “politicality” within it, the institutional sphere will take over and the general situation of a country will tend to deteriorate dramatically.
In essence, “social politicality” allows citizens to develop political ideas and visions to guide and control institutional politicality in the interests of the community. Social politicisation, therefore, develops when civil society has political spaces and tools to form, discuss, express its demands and proposals, participate in the development of electoral programmes and the selection of candidates for elected office, and verify and evaluate the work of those elected.
Today, in the modern world, social politics is essentially non-existent because all political space has been occupied by the class that controls state institutions. This means that the conditions do not exist to allow citizens to control power and provide institutions with the resources best suited to their functioning.
6) What has happened to politics in modernity?
The modern period has seen a great development in political behaviour, which is now studied and practised through the extraordinary growth of constitutionalism and democracy, the legitimate offspring of politics. However, modernity, despite having made great strides forward through a completely new idea of “sovereignty”, has failed to identify the identity of politics. This has had a very serious consequence: society has not been able, in general, to “design” the most suitable institutional forms and procedures for the development of politics. Political institutions, those that must make decisions that are binding on all members of a society, are not structured in such a way as to favour the development of politics. Modern institutions at various levels are unable to manage the large mass societies produced by modernity itself because they are structured in a pathological way. It is precisely this shortcoming that has made it possible for the seat of political power (the institutions) to be occupied for life by dictators or professional politicians without anyone having the intellectual tools to correctly identify the devastating consequences of this practice.
7) His vision implies that the same individual cannot simultaneously occupy the two types of politicality described.
This concept is of the utmost importance: if an individual claims to occupy both spheres of social and institutional politicality, a serious problem of compatibility arises that must be discussed.
Today, all over the world, individuals occupy or tend to occupy both the institutional and social spheres at the same time, and this leads to the disappearance of the party as an intermediary between citizens and institutions. The incompatibility is obvious and needs to be explored further.
8) What are the essential elements for the existence of social politics?
The essential elements are: an independent information system, civic and political education for citizens, the existence of parties and/or political groups, understood as free associations of citizens that produce political visions and proposals. The two types of political activity in a well-structured society should not overlap but should confront and interact with each other. In our society, they overlap and are confused, and this makes the system dysfunctional.
9) What reforms are desirable for current social systems?
My studies, which are based on “Forms” and the introduction of the political categories of Everyone and No One, contribute to the understanding of the identity of politics. In light of this discovery of identity, I can say that today it has disappeared or is disappearing. In such cases, institutions remain with their bureaucratic bulk but become pathological systems incapable of real political productivity. This incapacity makes politics deaf to the basic needs of citizens (think of the reforms that have been postponed for decades) and still allows war, i.e. the barbaric and anti-political mode that involves the physical destruction of individual life.
In order to change systems in a political sense, a series of legislative reforms are needed, primarily in the West, which feels sheltered from this need through the misunderstanding associated with the term “democracy”: for example, the mere fact of going to vote is not sufficient to claim that we live in a well-functioning democracy. In reality, the West is the area most responsible for the annulment of politics because, despite having had the opportunity to promote higher political standards, it has not done so in order to defend its own interests. Obviously, non-Western systems (Russia, China, the Arab and African worlds) are in an even worse institutional situation. The reforms that the system needs are numerous and, unfortunately, many of them are neither planned nor even conceived.
I will list them in approximate order:
A. Party reform. No institutional system can maintain a healthy political level in the absence of intermediary bodies made up of parties that allow for the natural development of social politics. Currently, there are parties all over the world, but they are not intermediary bodies because their representatives also hold institutional power. The absence of intermediary bodies creates the dual society represented by the citizen/state dichotomy, which is the dream of many people who fear intermediary bodies. In reality, without party intermediary bodies, it is not possible to produce politics because one of the fundamental components of social politics will be missing. To this end, a major information and pressure campaign is needed to free social politics from the undue invasion of institutional politics.
B. Reform of the way politics is conducted. The holding of permanent institutional power, whether in the form of individuals or groups of professional politicians who move from one institution to another, is incompatible with politics. We need to introduce the strong concept of “return to civilian life” to replace the weak and unpractised concept of “rotation of office” or “limitation of institutional mandates”, which, even if practised, could not work.
C. Reform of education and information. In today’s mass societies, schools need to have a political education programme for every level of education, and information systems need to develop free political information without falling into political partisanship, which is not the case anywhere in the world. In order to allow citizens to form their own opinions freely, it would also be necessary to create a plurality of independent “information channels” run by journalists chosen by lottery, with a limited term of office and freedom of decision.
10) There is a widespread opinion that multinationals and finance have taken over politics. What do you think about this: has politics “lost”?
Finance has an enormous influence on political institutions and, at some levels, manages to control them, but this is because political institutions are pathological almost everywhere due to a misunderstanding of the role and identity of politics. It should also be borne in mind that political institutions are the formal holders of power, which is why they are controlled indirectly. If institutions were to return to real politics, the power of finance would be ordered and ultimately tamed. But this is not the case. Everyone knows that large corporations influence politics, but in general, citizens do not have the cultural tools to identify the mechanism that generates this phenomenon. To conclude, I would say that those who fight for a humanisation of the economy should reflect on their priorities: until politics is better structured, finance will have a free hand.
11) If citizens had more tools for direct democracy, would politics start to function properly again?
More tools for direct democracy are desirable because they increase the possibility of citizen participation, but they are not sufficient for the normal functioning of politics. Direct democracy becomes a decoy in a society where information and the consequent ability to influence choices is in the hands of a few centres of power. In other words, for politics to thrive, democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
12) Your book talks about sacred power and how it hinders the development of politics. Can faith be reconciled with politics?
Faith must be placed in the private sphere, where it assumes value and legitimacy. If the precepts of faith are to have political significance, what happened in Italy a few centuries ago and is happening in Iran now will inevitably happen. Every faith conveys a strong idea of truth, which is why it is incompatible with politics. In my book, I explain that politics arises from overcoming sacredness and considering the idea of truth to be non-essential.
13) What is the relationship between your vision of politics and peace?
Politics, precisely because it is based on the categories of Everyone and No One, contains peace as an intrinsic element, while war is not the continuation of politics, as Von Clausewitz said and as is often claimed, but its negation. War was the normal way of resolving conflicts before politics made its appearance in history: if there are still wars, it is because we are still adopting a very old and erroneous form of politics. “Authentic” politics is therefore a bringer of peace, but this has been neither understood nor accepted.
14) The discoveries about the identity of politics and the consequent impossibility of making politics one’s “life’s work” lead to a revolution in the organisation of the state. What are your thoughts on this?
Awareness of the identity of politics would oblige the institutions of the various states and the individuals who are part of these institutions to undergo a transformation that is difficult because it involves the transfer of significant portions of power and the end of the “job of politician for life”. There are therefore strong interests in maintaining the status quo, even if everyone realises the difficulties that the established order, i.e. the forms in force, entails.
Without addressing this issue, which requires courage and a willingness to make real change, politics will remain at a pathological level and will not be able to fulfil its essential purpose, which is to use social politics to guide institutional politics, thus participating in the definition of the choices of the national community.
15) If the “state” wanted to promote social politics, which is currently stagnant, what should it do?
The state represents institutional politics and tends, by its very nature, to absorb politics within itself. In exceptional historical situations, statesmen who have been trained in the sphere of social politics (I am thinking, for example, of the CNL during the Second World War) could promote laws in the direction of the three crucial sectors, which are the press, education and the party.
It is possible to think of many laws that would allow the development of social politics. In essence, we can imagine a revolution in the way politics is conducted, whereby citizens who demonstrate a serious commitment to this field could receive support from the state in the form of: offices with meeting rooms, state-paid officials to support routine activities (e.g. convening meetings, retrieving documentation, etc.), equipment for holding rallies, discounted theatres for meetings, and assistance with printing flyers and advertising material. As can be seen, this is very different from the current system of public funding for political parties.
16) What can individuals, associations and local civic lists do to develop social politics?
Become aware of the mechanisms that come into play in the absence of social politics and understand that without an acceptable level of social politics, democratic politics is not possible. Individuals and associations produce social politics when they interact with politics in a non-occasional way and when they conceive institutional reforms that favour politics. Another important thing they could do is to create cross-cutting and joint networks such as the Network for Social Politics to promote these new ideas. If those who want to improve the social, environmental and economic situation do not address the pathological situation of politics, they condemn themselves to working forever to patch up the disasters caused by bad politics without ever getting to the root of the problem.
Giuseppe Polistena graduated in Philosophy in Messina and taught for many years in Milan, where in 1981 he founded the philosophical-literary magazine “Malvagia”. He participated in the formation of the Green Party, holding the position of national coordinator and regional spokesperson. He left the party after the elimination of the statutory rules of its early days, which made it a real archipelago. Always interested in the relationship between theory and politics, he pursued a path of philosophical inquiry that developed over forty years, culminating in the text Diacronia (2016), which is proposed as a programme of theoretical and political research. This subsequent study gave rise to the book Politica, questa sconosciuta (Politics, this unknown), published in 2022 by Mimesis Edizioni. He has founded various cultural and civic engagement groups, including the study group www.formeeriforme.it (Theory and Politics). Giuseppe Polistena was headmaster of the Civico Liceo Manzoni secondary school in Milan for many years and now runs the Mile School, also in Milan.