sign in sign up
<<
Home , Giorgio Napolitano, President of Italy

12

Italy’s 150th Anniversary: Commemorating the Past in a Divided Country

John Foot and Samantha Owen

On 17 March 2011, celebrated its 150th anniversary. On that day in 1861, Victor Emmanuel II had become the first king of Italy. This date, however, marked only a formal moment of annexation. It was not a day of revolution but instead a bureaucratic (albeit highly symbolic) political unification. The date 17 March was designated as a national holiday on a one-off basis in 2011, and on that day flags were raised across Italy to celebrate the nation’s 150th birthday. The central event took place at a parliamentary session where the two houses heard a speech delivered by President . Official celebra- tions were also planned for many key places linked to the history of the unification process and Italy in general. In , the sites for these ceremonies included Gianicolo Hill (where critical battles for independence had taken place in 1848), the Altar of the Fatherland (constructed for the fiftieth anniversary celebrations in 1911), and the Pantheon (where some of Italy’s monarchs are buried). Mimicking the long process of unification, the sesquicentennial commemorations, which began in 2010, continued throughout 2011, with further set pieces on 25 April and 2 June, and will be followed by a series of dif- ferent and ongoing events until 2020. This chapter will look in some detail at Italy’s 150th anniversary commemorations from the point of view of political debate, national

Italian Politics: From Berlusconi to Monti 27 (2012): 262–278 © Berghahn Books doi:10.3167/ip.2012.270115 Italy’s 150th Anniversary 263 identity, and divided or fractured memory. The commemorative cycle of events in 2011 served to highlight continuing discussions over the meaning of Italian national identity, the changing role of national sym- bols, and the presence and importance of regionalist and separatist movements in the North. The (LN, Northern League) openly challenged the commemorations during 2011 and, implicitly, the basis of the nation-state. It did this from a position of political power, at both the regional and national levels, with LN ministers in the central gov- ernment until the November crisis. After comparisons with two previous commemoratory years, 1911 and 1961, which, we shall argue, were marked by conflict over the meaning of and unity, we will discuss how the 2011 celebrations were similarly marked by considerable political disagreement over the content and form of these events. But the 2011 anniversary saw a different kind of battle take place: the sym- bols of Italy itself were challenged from within the very heart of the government by a powerful and well-organized political minority. Nonetheless, to the surprise of many (including the organizers), the 2011 celebrations saw widespread and sustained participation by Ital- ians across the peninsula and so proved to be a powerful moment of national unity at a time of considerable division. In some ways, this enthusiasm for the celebrations was a reaction to the activities of the LN (as was clear from the comments collected by journalists and by long-running campaigns over the use of the Italian flag) and to the deepening political crisis in Italy. Amid all this upheaval, the role of President Napolitano became increasingly central as the year progressed. It was Napolitano who led the celebrations at various key moments and who became increasingly identified with Italy itself. It could thus be argued that if 2011 was a battle between the nation and the anti-nation, it was Italy that came out as the winner. Before we deal with the specifics of 2011, however, we need to go back to those moments from the past.

Other Anniversaries: From 1911 to 1961

In 1911, Italy celebrated its fiftieth anniversary amid great pomp and circumstance. Italy’s ruling elites saw the celebration as an oppor- tunity to promote their understanding of how successful the Italian state had been in its attempt to “make ” and to present the Italian nation as a world leader, or at least as one of the stronger nation-states. In Rome, the Altar of the Fatherland—a huge marble memorial structure designed by Giuseppe Sacconi in the heart of the 264 John Foot and Samantha Owen

capital—was a tribute to Victor Emmanuel II and a direct attempt to underline the importance of a new kind of religion, that of the nation, with the king as its . Hence, the memorial’s inscription, “Patriae Unitati Civium Liberati” (Nation Be United, Citizens Be Free) resonated with the new patriotic language of Roman imperialism. The monument was inaugurated on 4 June 1911 in front of the largest crowd of “Italians” that had ever formed in Rome for a civil celebration. Those attending included the royal family, the govern- ment, senior government officials, Risorgimento veterans, mayors from all over Italy, and schoolchildren. However, not all political par- ties and institutions were present: those absent from the festivities included socialists, republicans, and the Catholic Church. They chose not to attend because they believed that the unification of Italy—like the Altar of the Fatherland—was still incomplete.1 Similarly, in his analysis of the fiftieth anniversary events, the liberal philosopher Benedetto Croce criticized the direction taken by ’s government. Croce claimed that Italy’s state of fragmentation per- sisted because “social unity” was being replaced by a new individu- alism that privileged self over public interest and created a situation in which the words “king,” “nation,” and “fatherland” did not hold a unifying meaning.2 Hence, despite the efforts of the celebration organizers to dis- guise it, and notwithstanding the pride engendered by its imperialist achievements, the Italy of 1911 remained a country with deep political and social problems, as well as regional fissures that threatened to tear it apart on a number of occasions. The structure of the state and the nation had been contested by many of those who had taken part in the Risorgimento. Moreover, anti-nationalist tendencies were a real force in Italian society, both on the left and in the South. The 1911 jubilee, therefore, was not so much about declaring the achievement of Ital- ian unity as it was about outlining what the government of the time believed would be the path to national unification. In short, Italy was still far from being “made.” In the late 1950s, the approaching centennial of Italian unification represented an opportunity for the post-war and post-fascist leader- ship to follow in the tradition established by previous national exhibi- tions by declaring that they were the leaders who could finally unite the nation and by using anniversary events to underline this ongo- ing success story.3 The first suggestion for a celebration was made early in 1956 by the former metalworker and partisan, Gioacchino Quarello, a Democrazia Cristiana (DC, Christian Democratic) sena- tor from Turin. Quarello proposed that, following in the tradition of 1911, Turin should host an Esposizione Internazionale del Lavoro (EIL, Italy’s 150th Anniversary 265

International Exhibition of Work) in the centennial year.4 Quarello argued that while 1911 was “the last great exhibition in a world that was about to die,” the 1961 celebrations would be “the first in a world that was about to be born.”5 In the end, it was decreed that the official celebrations, called Italia ’61, would be held in Turin. They would run from May to October 1961 and would comprise three exhibitions: historical, regional, and the EIL.6 The historical exhibition traced the development of liberal- ism on the peninsula up to the foundation of the modern nation-state and the naming of Rome as Italy’s capital. It included a final section on the Resistance, which was presented as a movement inspired by the ideals of the Risorgimento. The emphasis of the exhibition was on the foundational values that united Italy and appeared to flow from Turin. Any suggestion of violence or unrest in the unification process was removed or muted.7 The uneven effects of post-war development and the “economic miracle” were explained away in the regional exhibition through a phrase borrowed from the French Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “In any domain—whether it be the cells of a body, the mem- bers of a society, or the elements of a spiritual synthesis—union dif- ferentiates.”8 A new understanding of unity claimed that the aim was not to create the same level of socio-economic development across the nation but to achieve measured progress in all areas. Finally, the EIL was a massive exhibition on the subject “Man at Work.” It contained pavilion displays from 20 states and international organizations or institutions, including the Catholic Church, the , and the United States. As with the regional exhibition, there was a summary or unifying display in the center of the exhibition, and in this case it was the Italian contribution. Designed in this way, the EIL gave the firm impression that Italy was a European nation that embraced the principles of liberal capitalism and was building a thriving economy. Despite the high hopes for the Italia ’61 commemorations, the ambitious claims made in the exhibitions, and the gestures made toward inclusion, such as the establishment of a national organizing committee,9 the extent to which the centennial would act internally as a unifying event was questioned from the very beginning. In spite of assertions that the commemorations were concentrated in Turin to avoid reproducing the effects caused by the “fragmented” fiftieth anni- versary, there was a feeling that the city was being unjustly favored.10 For example, an editorial in the business paper Il Sole 24 Ore alleged that the 20 billion lire requested for the event was excessive and con- trary to the principles of a liberal democratic government, “especially 266 John Foot and Samantha Owen in a country in which hundreds of thousands of jobs and classrooms are needed.”11 Thus, while the controversies over the celebrations in 1911 and 1961 questioned neither the existence of the nation nor its central political structures (parliamentary democracy, the Constitu- tion), they did express an unease over the new politics being practiced, and both anniversaries sparked debate over the meaning of “Italy.” By 1961, however, Italy was a nation undergoing rapid economic growth and quickly moving toward modernity. The future appeared bright for the nation as a whole, right across the social spectrum. This was not the case in 2011.

Nation and Anti-nation, Italy and Anti-Italy

The year 2011 saw not just one central commemoration, but an intri- cate series of events stretching over the whole year. In reality, these began in 2010 and promise to go on, in one form or another, until 2020. The Risorgimento was a long and complex process, involving wars, plebiscites, secessions, and treaties, with changing capital cities (Turin, , Rome) and setbacks. Historians still disagree over its beginning, and its end. This fragmentation mirrored the history and interpretation of what was being commemorated and the crises that had beset Italy throughout its history. Most dramatically of all, during World War II, the nation had fractured into a number of constituent parts, and the capital city had shifted to the South as the bitter civil war of 1943–1945 saw competing claims to sovereignty. The histori- cal relationship with the Catholic Church has also been a key factor in the establishment of national identity, and the “Roman Question” remains an anomaly in Western Europe, given the presence within Italy’s capital city of a separate state governed by the , thanks to pacts signed in 1929 and 1984. It was thus never going to be easy to boil down this complex series of key historical moments and histories into a single set piece of commemoration. The Italian state opted, wisely, for a series of events that took in many aspects of this rich and varied past. On 17 March, for example, President Napolitano visited the sites of impor- tant battles of 1848, the Altar of the Fatherland (with its tomb to the unknown soldier, linked explicitly to the two world wars), and the Pantheon, with its connections to Italy’s first , King Victor Emmanuel II. This political balancing act was certainly auda- cious, but it also reflected and accepted the fractured and divided histories that had contributed to the creation and survival of the Italian nation-state. Italy’s 150th Anniversary 267

In the years leading up to 2011, the Italian state invested 33.5 mil- lion in an elaborate set of nationwide initiatives, which include a large-scale exhibition in Turin, Italy’s first capital city, and numer- ous local and regional events. Furthermore, the events planned to mark the 150th anniversary of unification, designed and organized by a number of different actors, institutions, and individuals, took place not only across Italy but also in almost every country where there is an Italian embassy and an Italian community. Commemora- tions, conferences, and exhibitions covered an extraordinarily wide range of themes, and Italian flags were flown from public and many private buildings. When the dust had settled, it became clear that the key political fact linked to the celebrations—particularly the set-piece events, which will be discussed in detail below—was the high level of participation in these events. Nobody had predicted this “patriotic” outcome, and it took a number of commentators by surprise. This was clear on the one hand from a reading of a number of volumes that appeared during 2011, with their pessimistic vision of what the commemorations signified. For example, Marc Lazar wrote in L’Italia disunita (published early in 2011) that “these celebrations show once again the problems that Italians have in dealing with a common past.” Sergio Romano wrote in the same volume: “[T]he truth is that we don’t exactly know what to celebrate.”12 Napolitano, writing toward the end of the year, however, argued that the commemorations had seen “spontaneous” participation by a “great number of different actors.” Napolitano asked himself the question “Did we expect this to happen?” and his reply was “to this extent, and with these tones, no … it has been a clear lesson for the skeptics.”13 It is within this context of participation and enthusiasm that the LN’s activities connected to the celebrations need to be placed. The year 2011, as we have noted, saw a direct political challenge to the commemorations, and this challenge came from within the gov- ernment itself. The LN had been in coalitions led by since 2001 (after their short-lived and acrimonious time together in government in 1994), and this alliance had governed Italy for 8 of the 10 years since 2001, with LN ministers in key cabinet positions, particularly following the 2008 general election victory. Moreover, the LN and Berlusconi’s party, Popolo della Libertà (PdL, People of Lib- erty), governed the largest regions in the North. In 2010, LN politicians had been elected as presidents of the and regional governments, and the party had finished second in (where it governs with the PdL). From this position of disproportionate local and national power, the LN contested both the form and the content of the 2011 commemorations. This ranged from open rebellion (the 268 John Foot and Samantha Owen refusal to take part in the commemorations or the use of alternative, anti-Italian symbols) to the use of counter-events. An example of the latter was the organization of a Giro di Padania cycling race in Sep- tember 2011 in direct contrast with the Giro d’Italia held in May–June, whose route and timing had been explicitly designed to boost the national commemorations.14 The Giro di Padania gained considerable coverage in the media and was marked by counter-demonstrations and attempts to halt the race. The LN’s challenge to the 2011 commemorations was thus carried out both explicitly through symbolic acts and implicitly through a fail- ure to acknowledge the importance of the anniversary at all. In addi- tion, well-worn anti-Risorgimento narratives have been unearthed in recent years and given new life across the peninsula.15 These divisions only highlighted the extraordinary political balancing act performed by Berlusconi in keeping together for over a decade a governing coali- tion of a nationalist right-wing party and a federalist regionalist party within the same alliance, despite deep tensions over so many impor- tant issues, including those concerning the use of patriotic commemo- rations and the symbols of Italian national identity. These debates cut through and across long-standing issues related to divisions over the past and how to understand them in an Italian context. Italy, as has been argued elsewhere, has created divided memories in relation to its own past, at the level of both public memory (monuments, anniversa- ries, commemorations) and private memories.16 Memory and the past have provided potent political resources for the mobilization of voters and supporters at local and national levels, and 2011 was to prove no exception to this rule. Attitudes toward national symbols and celebrations have shifted in recent years. With the increasing symbolic and political power of the LN, the left as a whole has moved closer toward the acceptance and use of national symbols. At times, this has created something of an unholy alliance between the nationalist right (whose position on the nation-state has remained constant) and the left. One example was the widely praised “show” by film actor and director Roberto Benigni at the San Remo music festival on 17 February 2011, which saw 19 million Italians tune in. Benigni’s fairly uncritical approach to the role, for example, of King Victor Emmanuel II during the unification period was applauded across the political spectrum, with the excep- tion of the LN. These are not new issues. For years, and especially since the rise of the LN in the North in the late-1980s, a long-running debate had taken place over the future of Italy as a nation-state. This ranged from the academic level through to journalism and popular narratives Italy’s 150th Anniversary 269 and can be summarized through the title of one of the most impor- tant contributions on the topic, Gian Enrico Rusconi’s Se cessiamo di essere una nazione (If We Cease to Be a Nation).17 This debate began to take place just as mass immigration started to influence the cultural identity of populations within Italy for the first time. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, there were over 5 million foreign immigrants residing in Italy. Italy was a multi-ethnic country, and this not only had called into question the meaning of italianità (Italianness), but also had created new forms of national identity (as “Italians”) in opposition to the identity of immigrants. Interest- ingly, the LN (which has rarely identified itself with a country called “Italy”) was at the forefront of anti-immigrant political campaigns, which tended to base themselves around narratives of “Italy for the Italians” and the defense of the nation’s borders.18 Debates over national identity, therefore, were never straightforward or linear, nor were the political debates that ensued from or were linked to national commemorations. In the academic sphere, many pointed toward new forms of national identity linked to the symbols and institutions of the Republic, above all the Constitution and the . A new form of “con- stitutional patriotism” has been identified, with support for the 1948 Constitution being seen as the glue keeping Italy together.19 The last 10 years have seen a flowering of new research into the history, politics, and culture of the Risorgimento. Inspired by the path-breaking work of Lucy Riall and Alberto Banti, among others, this body of work has repositioned the importance, understanding, and memory of the Risor- gimento within Italian and European historical circles.20 The Italy of 2011 was a nation very unsure of its future. A deep finan- cial crisis due largely to Italy’s long-term debt problems ran alongside almost daily reports of corruption involving politicians (from both the left and the right) and the business community. Berlusconi’s role in the government has been deeply divisive, and clashes between public institutions (above all, the battle between the judiciary and the politi- cal class) saw politics become ever more delegitimized in the minds of many Italians. Berlusconi and the LN’s leader, , were themselves, in part, products of an anti-political culture around the time of the Tangentopoli scandals, which swept away the political parties that had governed Italy since 1945. The success of a recent journalistic investigation into the privileges enjoyed by politicians in Italy21 and the high profile of anti-political movements, such as the Popolo Viola (Purple People) and comedian Beppe Grillo’s Movimento 5 Stelle (), provide further evidence of a system in deep crisis. In this context, the 2011 commemorations came at a very 270 John Foot and Samantha Owen

difficult time for Italy, in stark contrast with the economic and political situation in 1961, with its boom economy and political stability—a time when most people favored the big parties that had stretched their ten- tacles right across the country and into all spheres of life. In 2011, Italy was a country in the middle of a financial crisis that was threatening to bring down the . Berlusconi’s resignation in November 2011 and his replacement with a technocratic government (supported officially by the PdL, but with the LN setting itself as the main opposition) was a direct result of this crisis. It would be too easy, and an error, to dismiss the LN’s strategy regarding the 2011 commemorations as irrelevant and merely the work of a small minority of Italians. Certainly, all the evidence points to a large majority of Italians being in favor of the nation-state and hav- ing an attachment to the flag and to other symbols of national iden- tity. Yet the relationship between the Italian state and its people has always been marked by problems of legitimation, as has been argued elsewhere.22 Twenty years of agitation and propaganda about Padania (advocated by the LN as an autonomous entity in the North) has put this “place” on the political and ideological map. It is now a well- accepted historical commonplace that nations exist in the imagination and in the realm of ideas and emotions as much as they do on paper and in reality.23 It is also true that Italy, in the past, was the creation of a small minority of ideologically inspired and fervent patriots, as Banti’s influential work has shown.24 Yet while the publicity and accounts of the events of March and June 2011 were often centered on the activities of the LN, there is no doubt that they also revealed what appeared to be wide-ranging and often surprisingly high levels of participation on the part of the general population, from all walks of life and social classes. This was a rare moment of unity and national celebration in a country increasingly divided, not just at the level of politics, but also around the facts and truth of each individual narrative. During 2011, the dominant nar- rative changed from one that viewed the celebrations as a series of events that would underline how divided Italy is to a narrative that saw the commemorations doing the exact opposite of this—that is, serving as a sign of unity and connection with the symbols of the nation-state. This second narrative took on particular power as the year progressed, particularly after the June celebrations. It was pro- moted by the national press and, most crucially, by key national and local institutions, ranging from the president of Italy to many local mayors and other administrators, as well as in schools all over Italy. Given this development, we will now analyze in detail the key events linked to the 2011 anniversary. Italy’s 150th Anniversary 271

Set Pieces: 17 March and 2 June 2011

President Napolitano’s speech to all Italian parliamentarians in Rome on 17 March 2011 was marked by a high dose of nationalist rhetoric (despite claims in the speech that he was avoiding doing any such thing). Citing the king, Cavour, and Mazzini, Napolitano drew a tri- umphal picture of the Risorgimento. He spoke of “difficult and bloody battles, fought with great idealistic fervor and a heroic willingness for sacrifice by young and extremely young people, who were sometimes protagonists in the most audacious battles, including those destined to end in defeat.”25 Later in the speech, Napolitano concentrated for some time on the importance of the 1948 Constitution, which he called “a Charter that still represents a valid base for our common life together and which offers—alongside parts that can be reformed by working together—a body of principles and values with which we can all identify, since they make the idea of the fatherland a lasting, tan- gible, and fertile ideal as well as establishing a regulatory framework for free political, social, and civil conflicts.”26 This appeal to constitutional patriotism and to unity—whereby the president of the Republic, and not the political class below him, came to be seen as the key figurehead of the nation—was the most convincing and relevant part of the speech. Constitutional patriotism is a concept that has also been applied to other countries or transna- tional entities that have significant regional or linguistic heterogeneity within their borders, such as Switzerland, , and the .27 Napolitano concluded with a strong call for unity in the face of economic and political difficulties that were to worsen greatly in the rest of 2011, appealing for “a strong sense of national unity, not eroded or destroyed by blind factional struggles and the widespread loss of restraint and responsibility.”28 This constitutional patriotism has been seen in various ways in recent years, including the success- ful campaign against changes to the Constitution in 2006 and the use of the Constitution in political demonstrations and public events. The Constitution has been read aloud or simply carried as part of political protests on numerous occasions, and certain articles have been recited again and again (e.g., during anti-war demonstrations). Increasingly, it seems that the defense of the Constitution has become a strong element of national identity for many Italians. The presidential message to both houses of Parliament and its encapsulation in the institutional and personal figure of Napolitano was to strengthen throughout the rest of what was to be a dramatic year, with Italy often appearing to be on the edge of a political and eco- nomic abyss. This culminated in the strongest attack yet by Napolitano 272 John Foot and Samantha Owen

on the LN (which in the meantime had revived its secessionist calls) in a speech on 30 September, when he called the idea of Padania “gro- tesque” and stated that “there is no such thing as a Padanian people.” Moreover, he seemed to hint at a stronger line to be taken by the state when he recalled judicial investigations into separatist movements in in the 1940s. La Padania, the LN’s newspaper, replied with the headline: “I Exist and I Am Padanian.”29 Increasingly, throughout 2011 Napolitano himself took center stage. Berlusconi and PdL government ministers appeared at all of the commemorative events and occasion- ally made speeches, but it was Napolitano who was identified with the nation and its anniversary. Meanwhile, the Partito Democratico (PD, ) and the far left followed dutifully behind Napoli- tano, taking great care not to interfere with his central role or to create any kind of controversy at all. As a result, neither the PdL nor the PD made any distinctive mark whatsoever on the 2011 anniversary celebrations. The centrality of the president of the Republic increased still further in November with the resignation of Berlusconi and his government and the appointment of , a delicate opera- tion that Napolitano handled with great political skill. At the end of November, Napolitano published a best-selling book of his speeches from the 2011 commemorations, whose title, Una e indivisibile (One and Indivisible), cited the Italian Constitution.30 The book was a kind of manifesto for constitutional patriotism. The role of the LN throughout the year was to provoke reactions and to contest the commemorations at every opportunity. LN ministers voted against the creation of a national holiday on 17 March; instead, they adopted the slogan “we prefer to work” (thus reiterating the LN notion of the hard-working North and the work-shy South). The LN minister of legislative simplification, , called the holiday “unconstitutional.” In many areas, LN politicians refused to attend flag-raising ceremonies (with some calling them “fascist-like”). Only five LN parliamentarians took part in the official parliamentary session at which Napolitano made his speech to the two chambers. There is no doubt that this behavior was profoundly unpopular with the vast majority of Italians and caused problems within the coalition, which had held power for most of the first decade of the twenty- first century. The LN seemed to underestimate the power of national symbolic moments such as these in a divided country. Nonetheless, the LN also managed to get its message across, and its activities were widely reported in the press and on television, alongside official reports of the commemorations. The other big set-piece event of 2011 was the on 2 June, a national holiday commemorating the 1946 referendum Italy’s 150th Anniversary 273 in which Italians chose to end the monarchy and create the Repub- lic.31 Eighty foreign delegations came to Rome to celebrate this event, including Russian President Medvedev, US Vice-President , King Juan Carlos of Spain, President Karzai of Afghanistan, and the Secretary-General of the , Ban Ki-Moon. If the event on 17 March was largely inward-looking, centered on the political institu- tions of the Republic, the 2 June celebrations were aimed at the outside world, featuring a spectacular fly-past over the Altar of the Fatherland (with the Italian colors billowing from the back of the planes) and an elaborate (and largely military) parade through the center of the capital. The parade took 80 minutes with some 5,700 people marching past. Before the parade, Napolitano visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This event thus combined military pride and constitutional patriotism, a celebration of the Republic more than of the Risorgimento and the unification of Italy. During the course of 2011, as this chapter has argued, the focus tended to move progressively toward the Consti- tution and its guardian, Napolitano, and away from more outdated and potentially controversial symbols of Italy—Garibaldi, Cavour, Mazzini, and so on. In a manner emblematic of the shift, the events of 2 June were ever more centered on the institutional and personal figure of Napolitano himself, who was applauded by the crowds throughout the celebrations. Such recognition marked a victory: the constitu- tional patriotism that first and then Napolitano had fostered during their terms in office was beginning to bear fruit. Berlusconi and most of his ministers were present at the Festa della Repubblica but were forced into the background. For its part, the LN failed to turn up altogether on 2 June. The most notable absentee of all, Minister of the Interior , spent the day in the LN’s heartland, Varese, with the LN mayor of that town. Yet despite mild controversies in the press, it appeared that the LN had learned its lessons from March. It decided against an open challenge to the commemorations this time, and the huge crowds who turned out in Rome were a signal that this was the correct approach. Throughout its history, the LN has always tested the waters with its anti-Italian propaganda and tactics, while sending messages in part to its own grassroots and in part to its allies. This was another example of a tacti- cal retreat in the face of public support for the anniversary celebrations. Once out of the government in November, the LN unearthed some of its tried-and-true “institutions,” such as the Padanian parliament, but this all seemed much more destined for internal consumption, a way of bringing together a divided party, rather than aimed at the majority of Italians beyond the LN heartland. Moreover, the events toward the end of the year were totally overshadowed by debates over Italy’s financial 274 John Foot and Samantha Owen crisis. Now that the LN was out of national power, its antics concern- ing Padania (including the suggestion that it should introduce its own currency) seemed far more harmless than before.32

Divided Memory and the 2011 Commemorations

Unlike in 1961, many of the events linked to the 2011 commemorations were focused on discussing and highlighting the problematic aspects of Italy’s past, rather than simply celebrating a particular past. This was evident in the vast exhibition staged in Turin under the steward- ship of historians Walter Barberis and Giovanni De Luna and with the collective title “Fare gli italiani” (Making Italians). This interactive exhibition, designed by the highly successful artistic group Studio Azzurro, promised to “tell the story of the last century and a half in a critical way, showing what has held Italians together and the fac- tors that, on the other hand, have maintained or increased divisions. This will be done by using a wide range of stories and language.” Space was given over to difficult themes that had been avoided in 1911 and 1961, such as migration, immigration, and the Mafia, all of which were organized in thematic “islands” where there were instal- lations, film shows, music, and photographic materials on display. The migration island, for example, was overhung by a vast fishing net containing bags and boxes tied up with string, a reference both to the internal migration of the past (a crucial theme for Turin itself and a movement that had been at its peak in 1961) and to the migrants of today attempting to reach Italy across the Mediterranean Sea. The exhibition also included reflections on the use of memory and on past commemorations of national unification, including that of 1961. Thus, the celebrations of 2011 also saw a number of events that were not merely commemorative but were very much part of an interrogation about what constitutes “Italy,” a country that is unsure of its past and its future and that is riven by divisions over that past and that future. Moreover, newer historical methodologies were also employed in the make-up of these events linked to the 2011 commemorations. There was an acceptance of the way that Italy has been marked by a tendency toward what has been dubbed divided memory, where, as Luisa Pas- serini has put it, “memory is a battlefield, where nothing is neutral and where everything is continually contested.”33 Throughout Italy’s 150-year lifespan, in fact, “[e]vents have been interpreted in contrast- ing ways, and the facts themselves are often contested … Individual events as well as history itself have been understood in a bewildering variety of ways. The state and other public bodies have rarely been able Italy’s 150th Anniversary 275 to build durable and commonly agreed practices of commemoration. There has been no closure, no ‘truth’, and little reconciliation.”34 During the 2011 birthday celebrations, these divided memories emerged in a number of ways. They were explicitly acknowledged in some of the public commemorative events, such as the “Fare gli italiani” exhibition in Turin, and in numerous scholarly books, many of which highlighted the divisions marking Italy’s present and past rather than the factors that had unified the nation.35 Divided memo- ries were also evident in some accounts of the Risorgimento, which analyzed not only the more classic, commemorative, and celebratory strategies but also the “dark side” of the unification process, includ- ing massacres and the repression of civilian protests and uprisings.36 This approach to the Risorgimento was accompanied by the ongoing revival of long-standing anti-Risorgimento historical publications and narratives.37 Elsewhere, and especially in the official commemora- tions, there was a strong tendency to gloss over the more complicated aspects of Italy’s history: the relationship with the Catholic Church, the role of the monarchy, fascism, and the crisis of World War II. Napolitano tended to downplay the discontinuities in Italy’s past in his set-piece speeches to Parliament and foreign dignitaries. Thus, in conclusion, the commemorative events of 2011 were com- plicated and often contradictory in their outcomes. On the one hand, the enthusiastic participation of thousands of Italians showed that they still share a common belief in a nation called Italy and identify with its symbols—the flag, the anthem, the president of the Republic, the Constitution. Flags appeared all over the country on both public and private buildings, and they remained in place throughout the year, not only for key days linked to the commemorations. In March, April, and June, large crowds attended the set-piece commemorations in the big cities, and every municipality played its part. Exhibitions and confer- ences took place throughout the anniversary year. As 2011 unfolded, a narrative developed—backed above all by Napolitano—that the com- memorations had been a success, and this became the dominant view toward the end of the year. On the other hand, at times the celebra- tions were also an occasion for further division over Italy’s past and a more nuanced view of what that past represented. The popular and politically central role of President Napolitano dominated 2011, and the fall of the government in November only served to underline this centrality. The open challenge to the nation represented by the LN was defeated, at least for now. A new phase of Italian politics had opened up by the end of the year. It had been, at the very least, a long and dramatic anniversary. It remains to be seen if this new, fragile unity has the strength to last beyond 2011. 276 John Foot and Samantha Owen

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Fulvio Cammarano, an anonymous reviewer, and the editors of this volume as well as the participants in the Politica in Italia seminar in Bologna in November 2011 for their extremely useful reports and suggestions on an earlier draft of this chapter.

Notes

1. E. Gentile, La Grande Italia: Il mito della nazione nel XX secolo (Bari: Laterza, 2006), 56–62. 2. B. Croce, “Fede e programmi (1911),” in Cultura e vita morale: Intermezzi polemici (Bari: Laterza, 1955), 162. 3. A. M. Dogliotti, “Quattro anni di attività: Storia e compiti di Torino ’61,” Notizario Italia ‘61, 12 October 1961, 57. 4. G. Quarello, “È tempo che i torinesi si convincono di non essere da meno dei loro padri,” Il Popolo Nuovo, 23 September 1956. 5. “Lettera aperta dell’on Quarello al Sindaco di Torino: Celebrare degna- mente il centenario dell’Unità d’Italia,” Il Popolo Nuovo, 20 January 1957. 6. Law No. 1235/1959, “lstituzione del Comitato nazionale per la celebra- zione del 1° Centenario dell’Unità d’Italia.” 7. Comitato Ordinatore della Mostre, ed., Visioni della Mostra Storica dell’unità d’Italia (Turin: Tipografia Torinese, 1961), 34–41. 8. Comitato Ordinatore della Mostre delle Regioni, ed., Mostre delle Regioni, Catalogo Guida (Turin: Stampa Artistica, 1961), 1. 9. “Appello a tutti i sindaci per la manifestazione del ’61,” La Stampa, 18 May 1958. 10. Chamber of Deputies, 3rd Legislature, “Discussione del disegno di legge: Contributo straordinario dello Stato alla spesa per le celebrazioni nazion- ali del primo centenario dell’unità d’Italia da tenersi a Torino nel 1961,” 6 November 1959, 1589. 11. “20 miliardi per il ’61?” Il Sole 24 Ore, 8 January 1959. 12. The original Italian versions of these comments can be found at http:// meridionalistiitaliani.blogspot.it/2012/01/libro-litalia-disunita-di-romano- lazar.html. 13. G. Napolitano, Una e indivisibile: Riflessioni sui 150 anni della nostra Italia (Milan: Rizzoli, 2011), 7–8. 14. For the teams and route of the 2011 Giro di Padania, see http://www. cyclingforall.net/ciclismo-professionisti-archivio-38/7166-giro-di-padania- 2011-tappe-e-squadre.html. For the 2011 Giro d’Italia, see http://www. gazzetta.it/Speciali/Giroditalia/2011/it/. For the history of Italian cycling and its relationship with national identity, see J. Foot, Pedalare! Pedalare! A History of Italian Cycling (London: Bloomsbury, 2011). Italy’s 150th Anniversary 277

15. See, for example, G. Di Fiore, Controstoria dell’unità d’Italia: Fatti e mis- fatti (Milan: Rizzoli, 2010); G. Bruno Guerri, Il sangue del Sud: Antistoria del Risorgimento e del brigantaggio (Milan: Mondadori, 2011); P. Aprile, Terroni: Tutto quello che è stato fatto perché gli italiani del Sud diventas- sero ‘meridionali’ (Milan: Piemme, 2011). 16. J. Foot, Italy’s Divided Memory (New York: Palgrave, 2009). 17. G. E. Rusconi, Se cessiamo di essere una nazione (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1993). See also G. E. Rusconi, Patria e repubblica (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997). 18. For a recent stimulating discussion of the meaning of italianità, see S. Patriarca, Italian Vices: Nation and Character from the Risorgimento to the Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 19. See G. Nevola, “A Constitutional Patriotism for Italian Democracy: The Contribution of President Napolitano,” Bulletin of Italian Politics 3, no. 1 (2011): 159–184. The important role of various presidents in reinforcing or creating this constitutional patriotism should be underlined here. See in particular the tenures of (1978–1985), (1992–1999), and Carlo Azeglio Ciampi (1999–2006). See also G. Napoli- tano, Il patto che ci lega: Per una coscienza repubblicana (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2009), and M. Viroli, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). 20. For an overview, see L. Riall, Risorgimento: The from Napo- leon to Nation-State (London: Palgrave, 2009), and A. Banti and P. Gins- borg, eds., Il Risorgimento (Turin: Einaudi, 2007). 21. S. Rizzo and G. A. Stella, La casta: Così i politici italiani sono diventati intoccabili (Milan: Rizzoli, 2007). 22. J. Foot, Modern Italy (London: Palgrave, 2003), 54–62. 23. These issues were discussed in detail at a conference held in Milan in 2011. See http://www.unimib.it/open/eventi/Limmaginario-leghista-Genealogia- Mitologia-Clinica/5466173616398172287. 24. See, for example, A. Banti La nazione del Risorgimento: Parentela, santità e onore alle origini dell’Italia unita (Turin: Einaudi, 2000). 25. Napolitano, Una e indivisibile, 124. This book contains the entire speech from the 17 March 2011 event, alongside others made by Napolitano that year and in 2010. 26. Ibid., 139–140. 27. See J. Habermas, “Staatsbürgerschaft und nationale Identität,” in Faktizität und Geltung (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1992), 632–660. 28. Napolitano, Una e indivisibile, 140. 29. “Esist e sono Padano,” La Padania, 1 October 2011. 30. Napolitano, Una e indivisibile. 31. The 25 April 2011 national holiday had also seen special events linked to the 150th commemorations, alongside the usual celebrations of the liberation. 32. For the activities of the LN and the Padanian parliament after November 2011, see, for example, http://www3.lastampa.it/politica/sezioni/articolo/ lstp/432939/. 33. L. Passerini, “Memories of Resistance, Resistances of Memory,” in Euro- pean Memories of the Second World War, ed. H. Peitsch, C. Burdett, and C. Gorrara (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999), 289. 278 John Foot and Samantha Owen

34. Foot, Italy’s Divided Memory, 1. 35. Among the dozens of volumes that appeared, see, for example, Lazar, Romano, and Canonica, L’Italia disunita. 36. One example of such an account is Paolo Rumiz, “Il massacro dimenticato di Pontelandolfo: Quando i bersaglieri fucilarono gli innocenti,” La Repub- blica, 27 August 2010. Rumiz wrote a series of articles (with the collective title Camicie Rosse) that was published almost daily by in August 2010. 37. For an analysis of anti-Risorgimento narratives, see E. Dal Lago, “Risor- gimento and Counter-Risorgimento,” paper presented at the workshop “Debating the Italian Nation: Historical and Cultural Perspectives,” National University of Ireland, Galway, 27 May 2011.