ARGUMENTATIVE HYPOCRISY AND CONSTITUENT DEBATES: THE ITALIAN CASE

Abstract

Jon Elster suggested that even speakers who are not moved “by aconcern for the common good”, but whose concerns are “purely self-interested”,may be still forced or induced “to substitute the language of impartial argument forthe language of self-interest”. This substitution would be the fruit of the civilizingforce of hypocrisy. This argumentative hypocrisy is a key concept forunderstanding a process of negotiation through persuasive strategies typical inconstitutional debates. Particularly, Elster believes that “the most importantrequirement” of a bargaining theory should be “that we are able to specify whatwill happen during a temporary breakdown of cooperation”. The constituents canget out of an impasse caused by a non-cooperative situation resorting toargumentative hypocrisy. The paper will analyse some examples taken from thedebate which led to the final version of the Italian Constitution.