In the beginning, there was the catch-cry of “liberty and independence”: the Risorgimento ideal par excellence, expressing the longing of generations of those aspiring for an Italian nation, who – from the Congress of Vienna to 1861, as well as in the bellicose sequels of the following decade – devoted their thoughts and deeds and blood and hopes to the unification of Italy. This ideal became a reality, an achievement that went down in history, and alongside it, many – starting with the liberal elite which placed itself at the head of the Risorgimento – cultivated the aspiration, likewise ambitious, of modernizing a country that was yet to be built from scratch, a country still backward and fragmented.
The participants at this roundtable devoted to reexamining the nature of Italy’s national interests acknowledged that this modernization was only ever achieved in part, and that today, as celebrations are held to mark the 150th anniversary of unification, it can be pointed to as the “mission to be accomplished”: the priority to be pursued if the country’s fortunes are to be revived in a world undergoing extraordinary transformation.
Indeed, it was felt that, if examined closely, it is possible to discern in this “mission” the recurring theme of a century and a half of Italian history – a period marked by repeated stops and starts on the road to the nation’s growth and prosperity. This alternating succession of phases of accelerated then stalled growth, of steps forward then backward, has – it was suggested – all in all made Italy what it is today: one of the most industrialized economies in the world (the second-largest manufacturing country in Europe and the fourth worldwide), but also a country that is at the same time of recent birth yet demographically old, an economy that is officially classified as exhibiting “two-speed development”, a state that is hostage to massive public debt, a society that has seen no population growth for ten years and that has for several decades given the impression of being inward-looking and incapable of overcoming its obstacles or extricating itself from the risk of decline.
Yet even amidst these contradictions, looking at Italian history from the point of view of modernization, certain phases of intense growth and progress stand out as being exceptional: the years immediately post-unification, with the successful gambit of retaining a Kingdom that had for millennia been broken up into an infinite number of local interests, held together solely by a lofty idea of nationhood conceived principally by an intellectual elite; the first wave of industrialization of the late nineteenth century; the Giolitti era; the post-World War II period, accompanied by reconstruction and the boom; and most recently, the pulling together of the nation for entry into a united Europe. Whilst these phases have certainly been very different from each other, the participants pointed to a definite common thread running through them, namely: a “hunger” for development that goes beyond economic growth; or better still, a sense of being presented with a possible future and of being able to contribute – through hard work and sacrifice, creativity and faith – to the success of a venture at once personal and collective.
It was suggested that Italy today seems to be in need of this kind of “hunger” and the sort of vision that looks beyond the narrow confines of the present, in order to overcome the prospects of decline that many commentators predict for it. It is a need that impacts on all spheres of activity – cultural, political, and economic – and entails redefining what constitutes the nation’s collective interest. It remains to be seen, however, how these three areas – each of which clearly frames the issue from a different perspective – might converge in a renewed sense of Italian identity: a national rather than nationalistic patriotism, “neo-contractarian” in nature according to some, but constitutional in any event for the majority of observers, and definitely cohesive, notwithstanding old and new separatist currents that seem intent on undermining its foundations.
Only thus – it was felt – can the collective interest be fully understood as “national” and translate into a mission that truly has the common good at heart. What seems unavoidable, at any rate, is the need for Italy to start “looking after itself“ again and to capitalize on its resources – including its artistic, cultural and natural heritage, and its capacity for creativity and innovation – and transform them into a vehicle for progress and economic growth. In conclusion, it was observed that even in times of great ideological conflict, like the 1950s, Italy’s institutions have nonetheless shown themselves willing to serve, to shoulder responsibility, and to contribute to wealth creation and building a future for the country.