News

On June 2, marking the 80th anniversary of the Constituent Assembly, returning to the roots of Italian democracy means rediscovering the Constitution as a true “event of conscience.”
For this reason, we highlight Francesco Occhetta’s book

THE ROOTS OF DEMOCRACY
The Principles of the Constitution in the Debate Between Jesuits and Catholic Constituent Assembly Members

In Italian: LE RADICI DELLA DEMOCRAZIA
I princìpi della Costituzione nel dibattito tra gesuiti e costituenti cattolici

which reconstructs the debate on the fundamental principles of the new democracy: the person, work, solidarity, equality, autonomy, religious freedom, and peace.
At the center emerges a guiding value: the dignity of the human person, the foundation and limit of all political power.

Through archival sources, including unpublished ones, the book highlights the role of Catholic culture, the contribution of the constitutional drafts requested by Pius XII, the thought of Maritain, the mediation of the “first” Dossetti, and the work of Father Giacomo Martegani.

Today, in an era marked by new democratic crises, this volume reminds us that the Constitution is not merely a political guideline, but a fundamental guarantee: it inspires decisions, sets limits on power, and safeguards coexistence.

For understanding the roots of democracy also means defending its future.

Here we publish the foreword by President Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, which was one of his last writings.

It’s true. Any discussion on matters pertaining to the Italian Constitution interests me and, in a certain sense, moves me and stirs my emotions.

I was 27 years old when I was elected to the Constituent Assembly, where we were witnessing a moment of immense historical significance: a long and painful period of political stagnation was coming to an end for our country, for our people—of whom I, too, have the great honor to be a part.

I have been asked many times if I was aware that I was participating in an exceptional historical event that marked the bloody end of the fascist dictatorship.

Our condemnation of the dictatorship took root during our high school years. The comparison with true democracies was starkly negative for an authoritarian regime: no right to vote for citizens, and thus no participation in the political life of the community; no possibility of choosing between different political forces; and no presence of a free and influential labor union.

This condemnation of the dictatorship grew stronger within me when I heard it asserted—by the dictatorship’s own doctrine—that the human person cannot be the holder of fundamental rights because only the State is their owner. The individual, already so severely humiliated, was literally crushed by this aberrant theory in the face of the overbearing, masterful State, which can grant or revoke these rights whenever and however it sees fit, even partially or for a limited time. I was a law student at the Catholic University, whose rector was the Franciscan scientist Agostino Gemelli.

A splendid report by La Pira to the Preparatory Commission, even if intended for another purpose, remains, in my view, a document of exceptional clarity and legal rigor.

If I examine myself carefully, I believe I lived through that time in the essential pursuit of truth and justice.

The principles of freedom and democracy were presented to us young people through the voices and experiences of those who had suffered under dictatorship and had already paid the price for the values we were about to enshrine in our Constitution.

Freedom and democracy are values that require great humility to live out in truth, accepting that we can never say we have reached the final destination: every day we can take a new step to make them relevant and lived by all.

At 92, I feel the weight and the joy of this journey, made up so often of small victories and also of great disappointments. Among my experiences was the 2006 constitutional reform, carried out by a simple majority of the center-right government and involving genuine attacks on the fundamental principles of law. What remained particularly painful for me was the proposal that the Head of the Executive be granted the power to dissolve Parliament, effectively dismissing the legislative branch: a true madness of unconstitutionality.

Yet none of those who supported these aberrant arguments have acknowledged the error or changed their minds.

Hence my conviction that even today our Constitution remains vulnerable to further attacks, which become all too easy when amendments—even those that are essential, and on some of which there is already significant consensus—are not pursued solely in the interest of the Italian people.

The Constitution is not untouchable, and I say this in my capacity as President of the Association for the Defense of the Constitution.

What matters is that every amendment be approved by Parliament with broad support from the opposition and that it always and above all serve the interests and benefit of the Italian people.

My reflections stem from having read, reread, and pondered Occhetta’s study. His desire to delve into the minds of the most committed and dedicated members of the Constituent Assembly is evident. One senses the author’s passion for trying to capture the spirit of the Constituent Assembly members—tormented seekers, yet so honest in their quest to find essential common ground. All these elected parliamentarians lived with intensity the “no” to dictatorship and the determined will for freedom and democracy.

The collective “no” to dictatorship is certainly a starting point, but it needs some equally shared “yeses” to pave the way for renewal. The work of the Constituent Assembly was undoubtedly focused on this essential quest.

The very debate over Article 1—“Republic of Workers” or “Republic founded on work”—clearly expressed this compelling commitment to fundamental inquiry. And the left’s willingness to abandon its preferred formula, “Republic of Workers,” demonstrated—and this was certainly not the only instance—just how deeply everyone felt this essential and passionately held point was valued.

Thus, the Human Person entered through the front door of the Constitution, and entered triumphantly.

I will never be able to convey the thoughts, the feelings, the deep emotion of this achievement, which seemed to me the realization of a great dream.

The Person, so mistreated by the inherently anti-human dictatorship, reduced to a thing without rights and without dignity, enters and takes center stage in our Constitution, which was created above all to serve the Person, for their dignity, for their rights, and for their duties.

In Occhetta’s work, this profound understanding of the minds and hearts of the Constituent Assembly members comes across as vivid and fruitful. I also find parallels between our approach to debate and what Occhetta wrote.

We Christian Democrats never entered the chamber to address an issue without first having studied, examined, and discussed it in party meetings. Thus, we were familiar with the objections, differences, and motivations of the other political forces. During the debate in the chamber, we experienced with great emotion the shaping of the legislation, which had by then become a shared political will. Here, Dossetti’s clear and precise words conveyed to us the process that had been completed and the point of arrival. Thrilling.

I will recount an episode I will never forget.

During a political debate on events unfolding at the time, a far less noble clash erupted in the chamber—one of brute force and heavy aggression. The session was suspended by the wisdom of the President, Terracini, and the assembly resumed a few hours later. I was mortified at the thought of the damage caused by disrupting the work that had just been done. Instead, when the session resumed, I saw, to my great surprise, the parliamentarians who had attacked one another writing the text of the article under consideration together. Wonder and emotion. This was the spirit that dominated the Assembly right up to the very last article.

The contribution of the Church’s thought, experience, and life was immense. We were also familiar with the careful and prudent work carried out by Father Martegani of Civiltà Cattolica, and we had spoken and debated many times with Father Messineo, certainly an authoritative figure on the political right, a learned man whose positions were always clear and well-reasoned.

Yes, dear Father Occhetta, for Catholics and for a large segment of the Constituent Assembly, democracy was never a dry acceptance of a method or a procedure, but rather an expression of deep convictions, and above all, life, sentiment, and a genuine human witness to a way of thinking, being, and acting.

Hence the joy of finding, in the final text, so many messages, so many living and active signs of Christian thought. Yet there was never any claim to primacy on the part of the Catholic world. Never.

The Constitution was born out of a fruitful convergence of different worlds, philosophies, and traditions, but it was created for everyone without distinction, and everyone was meant to feel represented by that document written by Italians for Italians—for every Italian. Thus, the “inviolable rights,” equality before the law, religious peace, and the defense of every religion respectful of the Constitution gained clarity and strength.

Thus, the “no” to war, which Italy repudiates, becomes the clear fruit of the triumph of the human person and their fundamental commitment to bring collaboration, sharing, solidarity, fraternity, and peace to everyone, always. Thank you, Fr. Occhetta: I have enjoyed your study and your research, which are so close to my own experience, rich in lessons and timeless ethical values.