Do you consider yourself a liberal? What does liberalism mean for you?

Liberalism for me is a philosophy for our time, a philosophy which aims at a world in which every human being can freely decide about his or her life. Of course, being an old socialist, I'm well aware that building a society which is for the many, not the few requires going beyond 19th century liberal regimes. Granting the freedom to live as you wish is not the same thing for those who have and for those who have not.

Socialism is a demand for freedom, not a demand for the state."

So there are two elements in your thought - socialism and liberalism. Is it true, however, that both of these have in a sense become obsolete in Europe for the very reason that they have become generally accepted?

You are right, of course. If you identify socialist doctrine with the instruments of the socialist governments of the 20th century, then you can easily conclude that socialism is over.
If on the other hand you define socialism as the original values of the socialist movement, it is a different matter. Socialism was built on the idea of equality: not equality in the sense of equal treatment by a paramount public force, but rather as the right to enjoy your formal freedoms.
Sometimes 18th and 19th century doctrines distort our perception of the historical meaning of equality. Equality has always been perceived by human beings as a comparison between themselves and others who enjoy freedoms.
Only in the 19th and 20th century, as a consequence of state intervention, did the fulfilment of equality, begin to focus on equal treatment. But this is not necessarily the meaning of equality - and that's why I don't think that there's a necessary conflict between socialism and liberalism. Socialism is a demand for freedom, not a demand for the state. If socialism complements liberalism, it ceases being for the few and it ceases being formal.

Today, European governments are deeply aware of having to be economically competitive, and of the problems of the increasing costs of pensions and of health care. How can you make sure that a left-of-centre government - a 'liberal-socialist government' if you will - will differ from a right-of-centre government on such difficult issues?

You are right that there are great constraints on the actions of those running our countries nowadays. These constraints make it difficult to distinguish between right and left. But think about a different issue - immigration and the rights of immigrants. Sometimes leftist governments, responding to the demands of lower-income groups, might deny immigrants the right to a better life even more than rightist governments, and this can be seen happening in our countries today.
Similarly, pre-existing social safety nets - welfare and so on - could be endangered or reduced for the sake of international competitiveness. These are the constraints and pressures which any government has to react to.
But I still expect left-wing govenments to be more respectful of the rights of immigrants. And I also expect them to be more far-sighted in the transformation and preservation of the social safety net. In fact, one of the few advantages of Europe in comparison to the United States is that we have social networks which reduce the pressures on our governments for protectionist measures.

So liberalism gives the right answers, and the main task of a liberal politician today is to convince the population to follow its prescriptions? Do you think that this is achieved by a forward-looking vision or are you primarily engaged in a defensive battle - trying, for example, to stop the erosion of immigrants' rights and the social safety net?

It's a little bit of both. Of course, you can plead for immigrants in the name of liberalism. You can talk about the liberal conception of fundamental rights. The problem here is not just to advocate the cause of immigrants in the name of liberal principles, but also to engage in proactive policies of integration which can reduce the mistrust for newcomers.

You're magazine is called The Utopian, though, and utopia should be closer to our philosophical principles than to our historical constraints..."

What ideal can these policies of integration invoke to lead the will of the population to integrate? Socialism had the slogan 'workers of the world unite'. Does liberalism...

...This is a good point. I often find myself in gatherings of people originally educated according to socialist principles. It's easy for me to remind them of international solidarity as one of the underpinnings of our political actions. Without international solidarity, we risk falling back on local and national forms of solidarity which deny the sense of that original doctrine.

So what is the liberal basis for international solidarity?

The liberal angle is that all human beings are entitled to the same rights and subject to the same obligations. There is, in principle, no difference between me and any other human being in the world. There is no reason for me to deny to others what I have for myself.

Does this apply to immigration? Should a native of Senegal have the same right to come and work in Italy as someone who happens to have been born in Tuscany?

Philosophically speaking, it is difficult to find reasons to reserve Italy for Italians and France for the French. However, we have organised communities with different laws and rules, with different traditions and with different ways of organising individuals into a collective life. History teaches us that there has to be a process of adaptation for newcomers, and therefore there is a quantitative limit for how many foreigners can be accepted. But this is a historical development - one that we must take note of pragmatically. You're magazine is called The Utopian, though, and utopia should be closer to our philosophical principles than to our historical constraints...

"Italy has room for many more immigrants than it is actually accepting."

So is the limit of immigration defined as the point at which it's impossible to integrate immigrants? Or at the point at which Italy might suffer economically?

It is necessary to provide transport and housing for immigrants. They need to be able to build the dignified life for which they came. Italy now is in transition. We are a small country and part of our territory is made up of mountains where nobody lives, so our population density is quite high. But we have a declining population due to our low birth rate. Italy has room for many more immigrants than it is actually accepting.

Is one of the obstacles to further immigration in Europe an idea of citizenship which continues to be ethnically based?

This is an inconsistency. After the French Revolution, the notion of citizenship was basically connected with loyalty to the nation independent of race, ethnicity and religion. But despite these principles, the fact is that nations like Italy, Germany, France, Spain and even the UK were built on the basis of a single ethnicity and almost of a single religion. This makes us quite different from those countries that were open to immigration from their creation; countries, in which immigrants became the core of the population. In the specific context of the mono-ethnic nationalities of several European countries, integrating newcomers is especially difficult. This makes the need for active policies greater than in other countries.

So if Italy needs immigration, as you say, then does it need to find Italian-looking, Catholic immigrants? Or does Italy have to change the idea of what it means to be Italian?

It has to change the idea of what it means to be Italian. Somehow it needs to become consistent with the principles I spoke about earlier - according to which you are Italian because you settled here, because you were born here or you have studied here, independent of your ethnicity, your race and your religion. It is not so at the moment. Taking Italian citizenship is now very difficult for newcomers.
Of course, the process of immigration is much easier if you're a Catholic in a country like Italy. Several studies of immigration in Italy have shown that Latin Americans and the many workers from the Philippines integrate more easily. If you share less cultural background - such as religion - with Italy, if you have habits and patterns of life that make you different, than integrating is less easy. But this is not a reason why we Italians shouldn't integrate you.

"The veil has to be allowed; the burka can be prohibited."

In France they have a different idea of religious freedom in the public sphere. Their notion of secularism is a notion based on the idea of religion as a private affair. Therefore, nothing to do with religion should be publicly visible in schools and even in the streets... We have a very different idea in Italy. There is nothing wrong in displaying signs of your religion in public if you think this is part of your freedom of religion.
But the burka, which doesn't allow the others to see a woman's face, is not accepted even in Italy. The fact that it is unacceptable in Italy is partly due to the fact that many Muslim women have written that they consider it offensive to the dignity of women to be prevented from having open relationships with others.

So to clarify - in what specific contexts is the wearing of a burka prohibited in Italy?

They are not allowed to cover their face. We don't have specific regulations about the burka, which is a special kind of thing, but we think that there should be a distinction between the veil, which only covers the head, and the burka, which entirely covers the face. The veil has to be allowed; the burka can be prohibited.

And this prohibition could extend to the wearing of burkas on Italian streets?

Yes, wearing a burka on the streets could be prohibited.

"If [like Berlusconi] you're very tough with immigrants, you're not directly promoting burning their camps. But burning their camps can be a consequence of these tough policies."

Let's end the interview by talking about the situation of the left in Europe. The right is in power in most European countries at the moment. What should the left do when it gets back into power - and how would that be different from what the right is doing?

First of all, it should take care of the purchasing power of low-income groups. Nowadays, salaries are stagnating all over Europe, while prices are increasing. It is extremely important for low-income groups to receive a signal that they are being taken care of.
This might be made by using taxes differently to the tendencies of right-wing governments, that is by cutting taxes for the poor, not the rich.

And do you think that this would be feasible in government? When you were first Prime Minister of Italy you had the same principles, but you famously asked Italians 'to put one hand on your hearts and, with your other hand, get your wallets out'?

In 1992 I could not do it, but it was a very special situation, an emergency. When I was Prime Minister for the second time in 2000-2001 we reduced taxes quite markedly.
I will give you a very simple example. The centre-right government of Italy [headed by Berlusconi] has begun by reducing the property tax on houses. It only applies to the first house, not if you have a holiday home, and only if your income is below a certain level. One might say that there are different ways of reducing taxes for the poor. But even the centre-right government, in other words, has done something to reduce taxes, and not just those on the rich.
I expect this to be the first concern of a centre-left government. Plus, of course, activating those policies I was referring to earlier in order to reduce mistrust and, if possible, to promote solidarity. I expect a centre-left government to take measures which defend the population against criminals, but also to adopt measures which express solidarity with newcomers who are not criminals. Otherwise, you do exactly what the right intends to do.
Right-wing governments don't necessarily confound immigrants and criminals, but it can become an implication - a sort of spill-over effect - of their policies. If you're very tough with immigrants, you're not directly promoting burning their camps. But burning their camps can be a consequence of these tough policies.

Do you feel that the current Berlusconi government is responsible in this way?

Somehow they have been responsible for this. But again, I couldn't say that they wanted it. But certainly, I repeat, it might be a spill-over effect. The author of the policy will say: 'I didn't want it'. I might counter: 'It may be true that you didn't want it. But without your actions, they would not have tried'.

If I may be polemical: you've given us two answers. First, you need to help lower-income people, and you even gave an example of the Berlusconi government doing this in certain ways. So the left may have more of an inherent sensibility for this, but it is not an area of inherent disagreement. Second, you have talked about a more humane stance on immigration, essentially with the goal of safeguarding the rights immigrants now enjoy. But is there anything which the centre-right is not attempting to do, a matter of forward-looking vision for a 'socialist liberal' in Europe which you would do in government today?

My main point is to stress the need to see the world we're part of from the perspective of a sense of solidarity between us and all human beings asking for dignity for themselves. Which is, if you want, the vision of Obama. This is exactly what Obama is preaching for the world, and I think this is a distinctive position. The European left perhaps can take this even further than Obama for the simple reason that, as I said before, we can afford to be less protectionist than the American Democrats.This sense of recognising new developments in the world, of aspiring to a higher dignity for all, is our best hope to prevent the weaker members of our society perceiving the outside world as the enemy.