Italian
The controversy in Parliament regarding Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s reading of some passages from the Ventotene Manifesto has once again revealed how the Italian political debate is imbued with uncritical mythologizing and hysterical reactions. The session turned into a gladiatorial arena, with the opposition ready to revolt at the mere mention of certain passages from the text. But the issue is more complex: is the Ventotene Manifesto really the immaculate and untouchable document that is constantly praised? Or is it a text that, if read carefully, presents decidedly less conciliatory nuances than Europeanist rhetoric would have us believe?
ITALY. The opposition’s discomposed reaction, with cries of “shame” and grotesque demands to kneel before the Manifesto, demonstrates how lacking in critical thinking the Italian public debate is. The Ventotene Manifesto, written by Altiero Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi, and Eugenio Colorni in 1941, is considered a foundational text of the idea of a federal Europe. However, what Meloni highlighted in her speech – quoting phrases like “democratic methodology will be a dead weight in the revolutionary crisis” or “this dictatorship of the revolutionary party” – are not forced interpretations, but words in black and white in the document. So why be scandalized if they are read out loud? Perhaps because they reveal a side of the Manifesto that the dominant narrative prefers to ignore?
The idea that the Manifesto was exclusively an ode to liberal democracy and progressive Europeanism is an operation of historical revisionism. The text, while proposing a European federation as an antidote to nationalism, is imbued with a revolutionary language that would be unacceptable in any Western political context today. The concept of a socialist revolution as the sole instrument of European renewal is not a marginal detail, but a pillar of the authors’ argument.
The opposition’s hysterical defense of the Manifesto demonstrates a cultural shortsightedness: anyone who tries to reread it with a critical spirit is accused of offending the memory of Spinelli and his associates. The Democratic Party has even asked Meloni to “kneel” before the Manifesto, as if it were a sacred text and not a political document, born in a specific historical context, with all the limitations and contradictions of the time. This dogmatic attitude prevents a serious debate on the future of Europe, based on an honest historical analysis rather than on myths constructed afterwards.
The truth is that the Ventotene Manifesto is not the gospel of European integration that is often portrayed today. It was written in a time of conflict, with a vision that mixed federalist aspirations with authoritarian elements. It is no coincidence that many of its passages have been removed or reinterpreted over the years to make it more compatible with today’s democratic Europeanism.
The problem, therefore, is not Meloni reading the Manifesto, but the disproportionate reaction of those who refuse to accept its most problematic nuances. If we want a truly free and united Europe, we must have the courage to recognize that even its founding texts can and should be discussed without dogmatism. Otherwise, we risk replacing critical thinking with the religion of a perfect and immaculate Europe, a utopia that history has already disproved.
