Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T03:53:21.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Constitutional Position of the Partito Nazionale Fascista

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

H. Arthur Steiner
H. Arthur Steiner
Affiliation:
University of California at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the one-party states, of which the U.S.S.R., Germany, and Italy may be taken as the best examples, the definition of relationships between the party and the state has presented a major problem of constitutional theory. No two of these states have solved the problem in the same way. The C.P.S.U., engineering the dictatorship of the proletariat, depends upon methods which are constitutionally indirect. Only in the Commission for Soviet Control is there a constitutionalized inter-relationship between the mechanisms of the party and the state; for the rest, the party relies upon its political discipline over the public personnel. Indirect reference to the Communist party is contained in the new Soviet constitution, in the guarantee to citizens of the right of “uniting in the Communist party of the U.S.S.R.,” and in the incorporation of the hammer and sickle and the slogan of the party into the emblem of the state. On the other hand, the Nazi régime in Germany prohibited the formation of other parties than the N.S.D.A.P. by the law of July 14, 1933, and, by the law of December 1, 1933, proclaimed the formal union of the party and the state.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1937 , pp. 227 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Art. 126.

2 Art. 143.

3 RGBl, I, 479Google Scholar.

4 RGBl, I, 1016Google Scholar.

5 Hitler's speech at Nurnberg, in September, 1935, gave no evidence that the party has been “lost” in the state; see Sommer, W., “Partei und Staat,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, XIL (May 15, 1936), 593–597Google Scholar. The tendency to transform the state into the party-state, or into a “régime,” is also well illustrated in the integration of the People's Republican party into the governmental structure of Turkey, and in the transformation of the Fatherland Front in Austria, both accomplished during the summer of 1936.

6 Bortolotto, G., Lo stato e la dottrina corporativa (Bologna, 1931), I, 363Google Scholar.

7 Ambrosini, G., Il Partito Fascista e lo stato (Rome, 1934), 5–20Google Scholar; Costamagna, C., Elementi di diritto pubblico fascista (Turin, 1934), esp. pp. 283–302Google Scholar; Panunzio, S., Rivoluzione e costituzione (Milan, 1933), 176 ffGoogle Scholar; Bortolotto, op. cit., passim, esp. p. 364.

8 Marpicati, A., Il Partito Fascista (Milan, 1935), 19–40Google Scholar; Volpe, G., Lo sviluppo storico del fascismo (Palermo, 1928)Google Scholar, and his Storia del movimento fascista (Rome, 1934)Google Scholar; Canio, M., Il Partito Nazionale Fascista e la sua funzione nello stato (Nuoro, 1935)Google Scholar; Maraviglia, M., Alle basi del regime (Rome, 1929)Google Scholar.

9 Op. cit., pp. 177–178; Panunzio, , “Partito Nazionale Fascista in Italia e Partito Comunista in Russia,” Lo stato eorporativo, II (April, 1934), 72–76Google Scholar; Accardi, T., “Partito-Nazione-Stato,” L' Universalità Fascista, VII (February, 1935), 224–229Google Scholar.

10 No. 1848, G. U., November 8, 1926, no. 257, retained in the T. U. (Testo Unico) of June 18, 1931, no. 773, G. U., June 26, 1931, no. 146.

11 R. D.-L. December 12, 1926, no. 2061, G. U., December 15, 1926, no. 288.

12 Law, June 14, 1928, no. 1310, G. U., June 22, 1928, no. 145; this was amended by R. D.-L. October 18, 1934, no. 1779, G. U., November 12, 1934, no. 265, to give automatic recognition to the Fasci and Fascist federations constituted according to the statute of the party.

13 Law, No. 1019, G. U., May 21, 1928, no. 118.

14 No. 2693, G. U., December 11, 1928, no. 287.

15 Liuzzi, B., Il Partito Nazionale Fascista nel diritto pubblico italiano (Rome, 1930), 10 ff., 36 ff.Google Scholar

16 Chimienti, P., “Il Partito Nazionale Fascista nell'organizzazione nazionale fascista,” L'universalità fascista, III (1931), 27 ff.Google Scholar

17 Jemolo, A. C., “Natura giuridica del Partito Nazionale Fascista,” Rivista di diritto pubblico, XXI (October, 1929), pt. I, 544–555Google Scholar.

18 Panunzio, S., Sentimento dello stato (Milan, 1928), 227–233Google Scholar.

19 Op. cit., I, 368.

20 Mussolini, B., Scritti e discorsi (Definitive edition, Milan, 1934), VII (1929–1931), 127 ff.Google Scholar

21 No. 2099, G. U., December 16, 1929, no. 292.

22 Law of December 14, 1929, arts. 6–10.

23 No. 2137, G. U., December 21, 1929, no. 297. The party has had four statutes: the first was promulgated on November 23, 1921, under authority of the Central Committee of the newly-organized P.N.F. (Text in P.N.F., Le origini e lo sviluppo del fascismo (Rome, 1928), pp. 161–171); the second, dated October 8,1926, was approved by the Fascist Grand Council (Text in P.N.F., Il Gran Consiglio nei primi cinque anni dell'era fascista (Rome, 1927), pp. 219–228; the third was contained in the R. D. December 20, 1929, no. 2137, cited; the fourth (and present) statute is in the R. D. November 17, 1932, no. 1456, G. U., November 21, 1932, no. 268.

24 Cited above.

25 Mussolini, , Scritti e discorsi, VII, 192Google Scholar.

26 Relazione November 6, 1928, XXVII Legislature, Chamber of Deputies, Doc. 1638.

27 Relazione December 5,1929, XXVIII Legislature, Chamber of Deputies, Doc. 325-A.

28 Gabani c. Partito Nazionale Fascista, Trib. Ancona (Labor Section), February 13, 1932, Massimario di giurisprudenza del lavoro, 2 ser, VIII (June, 1932), 307Google Scholar.

29 Scritti e discorsi, VIII, 270Google Scholar.

30 Popolo d'Italia, March 24, 1936. By its resolution of November 19, 1936, the Grand Council appointed a committee of five, consisting of the president of the Chamber (C. Ciano), the secretary of the party (Starace), the minister of justice (Solmi), the minister of national education (Bottai), and the minister of corporations (Lantini), to formulate concrete proposals concerning the membership and organization of the new Fascist and Corporative Chamber. Definitive action is indicated during the course of 1937.

31 As, for example, the publication, Opere sul fascismo possedute dalla biblioteca delta Camera Fascista al 28 ottobre 1934 (Rome, 1935)Google Scholar, which bears the imprint of the Segretaria generale della Camera Fascista. In his foreword, Count Costanzo Ciano, president of the Chamber, refers to the work of the Fascist Chamber; and the compiler, Dr. Damiani, describes himself as librarian of the Fascist Chamber.

32 See Sofia, R., Le legge costituzionale e il Gran Consiglio del Fascismo (Palermo, 1931)Google Scholar.

33 Art. 9, Law of December 9, 1928.

34 Arts. 289, 290.

35 Art. 9, Law of December 9, 1928; Art. 22, Party Statute, 1932. Disciplinary action against Council members may be taken only with authorization from the Council; Fascist legislative members may be disciplined by the secretary of the P.N.F. (but not by inferior officers).

36 Electoral Law of May 17, 1928, no. 1019, G. U., May 21, 1928, no. 118, included in the Testo Unico of September 2, 1928, no. 1993, G. U., September 8, 1928, no. 210, supp.

37 No. 383, G. U., March 17,1934, no. 65, spec. supp; Steiner, , “The Italian Law on Communal and Provincial Government,” National Municipal Review, XXV (September, 1936), 524Google Scholar.

38 R. D. no. 31, G. U., January 20, 1923, no. 16.

39 Decreto del Capo del Governo, December 17, 1932, G. U., December 21, 1932, no. 293.

40 Art. 20 of the party statute of 1932 reads: “The Fascist who is expelled from the P.N.F. is banned from public life.” Whether this automatically applies to Fascist members of the legislature upon their expulsion from the party is not clear.

41 No. 4, G. U., January 23, 1937, no. 18, effective on the date of its publication.

41a Turati was summoned by R. D. December 16, 1928, G. U., December 27, 1929, no. 301; Starace, by R. D. December 14, 1931, G. U., December 19, 1931, no. 292.

42 April 21, 1927, G. U., April 30, 1927, no. 100. The publication of this party deliberation in the journal reserved for laws and decrees is a significant circumstance. Giannini, A., Tenderize costituzionale (Bologna, 1933), 265Google Scholar; Donati, D., “L'efficacia costituzionale della Carta del Lavoro,” Archivio di studi corporativi (February, 1931)Google Scholar.

43 Law of December 13, 1928, no. 2832, G. U., December 24, 1928, no. 298.

44 No. 296, G. U., March 28, 1930, no. 74.

45 No. 163, G. U., February 20, 1934, no. 42.

46 Petrone, C., “Il Partito e le corporazione,” Politica sociale, VI (May–June, 1934), 181–184Google Scholar. Secretary Starace reported in a similar vein to the National Directory, February 5, 1935, as quoted in Sindacato e corporazione, LXIII (February, 1935), 293–294Google Scholar (footnote).

47 No. 1746, G. U., October 5, 1936, no. 231; complete text in Popolo d'Italia, October 6, 1936. On the early function of the party with respect to prices, see Gardini, D. (chairman of the price committee), “L'azione del Partito sui prezzi,” Commercio, VII (June, 1934), 340–342Google Scholar.

48 Foro italiano, 1932, pt. II, 209Google Scholar, reversing judgment of the Court of Appeals at Naples, idem., note; also in Scuola positiva, 1931, pt. II, 505Google Scholar.

49 In the sense of Art. 207 of the Penal Code of 1889, then applicable: “Anyone who, by word or act, offends in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a member of Parliament or of a public officer in his presence and because of his functions, is punished ….”

50 The fundamental difference of opinion between the Court of Cassation and the court of appeals is reflected also in the opinions of writers. The following, among others, support the view of the Cassation: Caltelli, C. and di Falco, E. Romano, Commentario teorico-pratico del nuovo codice penale (Rome, 1930), II, pt. 1a, §810Google Scholar; Battaglini, E., “Diritto di censura e diffamazione anche in relazione alia natura giuridica del Partito Nazionale Fascista,” Giustizia penale, 1930, pt. I, 1004Google Scholar; Visco, A., Milizia, Partito e sindacati nell'ordinanento giuridico (Rome, 1931)Google Scholar; Verna, G., “Il Partito Nazionale Fascista ‘associazione privata“?,” Rivista penale, 1932, pt. I, 603Google Scholar; Jemolo, A. C., “Natura giuridica del P.N.F.,” Rivista di diritto pubblico, 1929, pt. I, 544–555Google Scholar; Messimi, R., “I gerarchi del fascismo e la pubblica funzione,” La pretura, 1932, p. 309Google Scholar. The following were in opposition: Liuzzi, B., Il Partito National Fascista nel diritto pubblico italiano (Rome, 1930)Google Scholar; Cassinelli, B., “Il segretario politico del P.N.F. non è pubblico ufficiale,” Scuola positiva, 1931, pt. II, 505–512Google Scholar; Manci, F., “Il segretario del P.N.F.,” Vita forense, 1931Google Scholar; and Levi, N., I delitti contro la pubblica amministrazione (Rome, 1930), 81 ff.Google Scholar

51 Dolce case, Tribunal at Turin, March 30, 1934, Giurisprudenza delle corti regionale, 1934, pt. II, 215Google Scholar; cf. Maresca case, Pret. Osimo, May 7, 1934, Foro italiano, 1934, pt. II, 373 nGoogle Scholar. The praetor at Caltanissetta reached a similar conclusion, without the same examination of principle, in the Tulumello case, April 24, 1930, Giurisprudenza italiana, 1931, pt. II, 133Google Scholar.

52 “B” case, Court of Appeals, Venice, December 16, 1932, Foro venezie, 1933, p. 723Google Scholar, on the M.V.S.N.; Marini case, Cassation, January 25, 1933, Foro italiano, 1933, pt. II, 438Google Scholar, on the Dopolavoro.

53 Bocelli c. Feder, Tribunal at Savona (Labor Section), November 19, 1932, Diritto del lavoro, VII (March-April, 1933), pt. II, 126Google Scholar.

54 Bellelli c. Paladino, November 30, 1931, Massimario di giurisprudenza del lavoro, 2 ser., VIII (June, 1932), 307Google Scholar; ibid., Naples Labor Magistracy, February 7, 1933, Diritto del lavoro, VII (March-April, 1933), pt. II, 124. Cf. La Torre, M., “Sulla figura giuridica degli impiegati del P.N.F. ed organi independent,” Massimario di giurisprudenza del lavoro, 2 ser., VIII (June, 1932), 308–314Google Scholar.

55 Scritti e discorsi, VII, 141. (Speech of September 14, 1929.)Google Scholar

56 Decision of the Directory of the P.N.F., May 17, 1936.

57 Steiner, H. A., “The Government of Italian East Africa,” in this Review Vol. 30 (October, 1936), pp. 884–902Google Scholar, at 886–887.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.