Civil disobedience and democracy today

What they have in common the latest generation actions with the vandalism on the Montanelli statue? A widespread journalistic view sees these actions as protests as an end in themselves, driven by exhibitionist intentions and on issues not connected to the actions themselves.Even public positions closer to the climate and feminist causes have expressed skepticism in this regard because, while sharing the aim, they deplore the means whose striking and radical modality would risk alienating the public's sympathy.

Yet behind the refusal of principle or strategic skepticism lies a very common unsaid:If these causes and these strategies are not going well, what should we fight for today and how should we carry these requests forward?Age reasons (the population aged 0-14 is 12.4%, while the population over 65 is 24%, ISTAT 2023) and a good dose of intellectual laziness mean that a large part of Italian public opinion, especially that most visible in the mainstream media, is incapable of understanding the substance and nature of many current protests and, when things go well, downgrades them by comparing them with the social movements of the past.The myth of '68 or the heroes of sacrosanct causes now digested by everyone (Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Mandela) extend their shadow over the present, so much so that in form and substance it seems that every protest, more or less radical, must be equivalent or modeled on past ones.

But without denying the historical importance of those battles and those civil heroes, it is unfair and short-sighted to evaluate the present through the lenses of the past.There is a widespread paternalism that sees current causes as something for young people, and therefore evaluates youth protests as radical demands that will pass with age, even if the problems concern everyone and they are not just youth protests.

In essence, how can and should political battles be carried out in contemporary democracies?This question may seem idle.Mature democracies certainly have no shortage of places and channels of representation to manage all types of requests.But, on the one hand, it is known that the personalistic, populist and disintermediated evolution of contemporary politics only gives the impression of being able to channel different demands, while it only uses them to guarantee the affirmation of a leader of the people.On the other hand, activism is expressed freely on social media, like everything else.But, when the social dimension spills onto the streets, the public is not ready, or it is too ready, to draw improper conclusions or to accuse regardless.

In part, it can be said that these problems are part of the broader galaxy of the crisis of representation.The forms of collective activation increasingly take place on specific themes (environment, gender, immigration) rather than through party mediation channels which are unable to intercept these needs except to a minimal extent.This does not seem, in itself, so new because even the traditional point of comparison (the civil rights movements and '68) were largely extra-party.But the parties (as well as the unions) were there.

Furthermore, we must take seriously what is often stated by those who claim to engage in civil disobedience:the act of disobedience is performed as a last resort (he talked about it here Marisandra Lizzi on Blue suitcase), after more traditional and legal avenues have been pursued without success.Let's take the case of Ultima Generazione for example:after years in which the protest movement against inaction towards climate change seemed to have reached millions of people, culminating in mass participation in the Fridays for Future, the pandemic lockdown brought everything back.Yet the climate issue is a fundamental urgency.And in the face of political inertia and blindness towards the future - the activists argue - the only way left to make themselves heard has been, in the last year and a half, civil disobedience with sensational and symbolic actions.

But what does throwing paint on works of art and the Senate, or charcoal in the Trevi Fountain, have to do with paradigmatic acts of civil disobedience (the self-production of salt promoted by Gandhi, Rosa Parks' refusal to leave the place to a white person, sit-ins at white diners)?Even many who support the climate cause criticize Ultima Generazione because egregious actions of disobedience should be somehow linked to laws and contexts that are responsible for unjustified emissions.

The policy that criminalizes nonviolent civil disobedience by climate activists

There is no need here to defend the actions of Ultima Generazione (or of Extinction Rebellion), on which doubts could be raised, if only strategic.Moreover, sensational and iconic actions against works of art have now reached a point of saturation such as to make them ineffective if not counterproductive.And even non-violent actions can unintentionally cause harm and fatal consequences:it is a tragic and classic textbook case of the person whose death was caused by the delay of the ambulance obstructed by the protests for the climate cause.But beyond the unexpected consequences and dramatic coincidences, it is essential to understand the general meaning of this type of action.If there is one way to defend civil disobedience it is to understand it as an extreme form of democratic communication when other legal channels have proven useless.

Civil disobedience is, in fact, an action communicative which seeks to draw the attention of politicians and the majority to a problem otherwise unseen and underestimated.Already John Rawls in A theory of justice, in trying to make sense of the period of civil rights movements, insisted on this point:in a democratic and liberal state it may be justifiable to violate the law if it is the only way to shake the conscience of the majority.If today we are no longer faced with legalized racial segregation (although social discrimination certainly continues) there are many other issues that the ordinary channels of democratic deliberation (petitions, protests, political representation) are unable or unwilling to address.

In this sense, the actions of Ultima Generazione but also the defacement of statues of political figures that represent injustice (the statues of slavers dethroned by the Black Lives Matter movement or, closer to us, the statue of Montanelli) can be considered forms of civil disobedience because they try to send a signal.They are therefore forms of communication, even if radical and shocking, and in their own way they respect a canon of civility, if only because they greatly limit the damage and violence implicit in every illegal act.

Traditional supporters of civil disobedience (to systemic racism, colonial rule or war) have always argued that it is permissible only if done under the aegis of non-violence.Just to remember the highlights of the long and noble history, we can say that Gandhi was the inventor, Martin Luther King the greatest executor in the Western world and Aldo Capitini the most significant Italian representative.But currently this type of strategy can only be partially resumed.In fact, those who claim the tradition of civil disobedience intend to fight against widespread social practices and cultural symbols, rather than against directly unjust and discriminatory laws.Therefore in actions like those of Ultima Generazione (or like those against the Montanelli statue) the activists violate laws which are not in themselves a cause of injustice (for example, in protecting art and buildings) but which protect symbols or places linked to the causes of injustice.

Therefore, the controversy, even in good faith, against the presumed uselessness of symbolic civil disobedience misses the point and does not take into account the fact that the alternative could be even more radical and indigestible.In fact, activists could move from sensational, but purely symbolic and not truly harmful actions, towards harmful actions against the causes of emissions.As claimed (and practiced!) by Andreas Malm in Like blowing up an oil pipeline (Ponte alle Grazie 2022), climate activism should start carrying out sabotage to discourage unsustainable practices.Starting from the deflation of SUV tires and hoping not to have to reach the oil production and distribution plants, according to Malm, activism must abandon symbolic and civil politics to force (even before convincing) the majority to abandon oil .

So, perhaps, it is better to keep the protests symbolic and all in all civil, rather than slide towards widespread sabotage when the effects of climate change are increasingly felt.But, in addition to the climate issue, civil and uncivil disobedience is used in many other fields:the liberation of animals from farms or research laboratories, the help of migrants to cross borders, the occupation of unused properties for housing needs, the overcoming of copyright which blocks access to scientific knowledge, and much more.How to evaluate the validity of all these forms of disobedience?We cannot admit that every claim, even in good faith, can legitimize disobedience because, if we did, we would be admitting that laws in themselves are not binding.

There is no single answer and, even assuming that we must respect the laws of legitimate states, i.e. liberal and democratic, it can be conceded that sometimes disobedience can be justified if:

• The reasons underlying it are of particular importance, so much so that they overcome the inconvenience of violating the law.
• It is implemented in an acceptable way, preferring non-violent and communicative actions.
• There is the possibility of obtaining a result, since disobedience as an end in itself cannot be justified in the face of the general duty to respect the law.

The evaluation of the substance, form and effectiveness of disobedience can only be done on a case-by-case basis.But it would already be a significant achievement to be able to discuss it publicly.After all, without public discussion no real social change can be achieved.

*A broader discussion of the topics touched on in this article can be found in the book “Disobedience.If, how, when” (Laterza, 2024) of which Federico Zuolo is the author. Here is the book description.

Preview image via The third