Culture constitutionnelle,modèles étrangers et forme de gouvernement parlementaire en Italie: l'État libéral (1848–1922)

SUMMARY

The main aim of this article is to grasp the specific nature of the Italian case and the form of its government, as seen in particular in the analyses made by students of the constitution at the time. Fernanda Mazzanti Pepe considers two separate periods, the first during the formation and early actions of the parliamentary regime during the first thirty years after the grant of the Albertine Statute (1848), and the second in which amendments were sought, from the 1880s until the eve of the Fascist regime. The key concept for the constitutional culture of the first period was ‘parliamentary omnipotence’ in the English manner, while reserving real powers to the king. In the second period, full of far-reaching social and political changes, the erstwhile simple confidence in parliamentary omnipotence gave way to a growing suspicion and a diffuse search for guarantees, such as the continuance of a strong role for the Crown and a revitalization of the Senate as an institution representing ‘organized interests’. The catchphrases most used became the ‘correction’, ‘development’ or ‘adaptation’ of the constitutional system in face of the new reality, but these words were always linked with ‘limits’ which had to be identified to avoid dangerous innovations, whether progressive or regressive. Limits also had to be placed on the ‘flexibility’ of the Statute, and in this search for forms of stability for the constitution, the American model, long rejected, now also became a worthy one to follow.     

Public Opinion Surveys and USA Foreign Policy Towards Latin America in the Second World War

In this paper, the roles of public opinion polls and agency in foreign policymaking are examined. Based on documents uncovered from the National Archives and Rockefeller Archive Center, this paper presents a more comprehensive picture of the history of public opinion surveys and the shaping of US bureaucracy in their relation to foreign affairs. Further, the paper contends that policymakers are interested in public views pertaining to foreign policy issues, but that private interests (serving their own interpretations of national interest) shape public views, using new techniques as guiding tools.