Il popolo viola su Open Democracy

I’m my personal revolution: the Purple Movement in Italy

Emanuele Toscano, 26 May 2010

What has allowed Italy’s ‘purple movement’, growing out of a relatively small number of web users, to mobilise dissatisfaction across the country from north to south? The answer holds up a cruel mirror to the old collective forms of resistance, as well as sending a warning to Italy’s governing class

After December 5th – the date that will be remembered in Italy’s history as ‘No Berlusconi Day’ – the colour purple gained sufficient media attention to guarantee it significance beyond any momentary trend. It’s the symbolic colour of a battle for the affirmation of democracy, for the respect of our Constitutional Charter as the foundation of civilised living, for the defense of a free and plural information system, for the construction – in short – of that cultural and political renovation process that has been far too long delayed in this country.

The “purple” movement was born on the day after the failure to pass the Lodo Alfano law in the Constitutional Court, at the beginning of October 2009. An anonymous citizen – hiding behind the pseudonym of San Precario – sensing the rising wave of popular indignation against the arrogant reaction of the Prime Minister when the law was declared unconstitutional (a law that would have protected the four bigger leadership positions of the State – President of the Republic, President of the Senate, President of the House of Commons, Prime Minister – from being prosecuted for any charge), decided to organise a big demonstration calling for the dismissal of Silvio Berlusconi. The contacts on the Facebook page (the social network created by a young American university student in 2004 that now connects more than 400 million registered users all over the world) set up to organize the demonstration grew and grew. Local groups sprung up all over, where people shared their skills and time to design flyers, to feed information into the demonstration, and grouping to share travel arrangements with people coming by car or to fill the coaches that would head towards Rome on the day of the demonstration.

This was how the first internet auto-promoted demonstration managed to bring at least one million people to Rome, without the mediation of political parties, trade unions or associations. Ordinary citizens met in San Giovanni square, the square traditionally used for protest by big trade unions and political parties, for ease of access in organizing transport, and the logistics of speech-making from the stage. A “connective intelligence”, to quote the sociologist de Kerckhove, running through the web, affirmed the rights “from below”, above all by those who feel themselves more and more marginalised. The first of these rights is to live in a country where the principles sanctioned by the Constitution are respected by their political representatives in government.

December 5 was just the first in a long series of public initiatives organised by the purple movement. All these demonstrations, both local and national, have followed the same scheme of the NBD: they were auto-organized through the web; no politician was allowed to make speeches from the stage; and the focus is on our Constitutional principles.

It’s worth asking oneself why such a self-initiated movement, born and reared on the web, transversal from a social and cultural point of view, albeit with a huge, fresh influx of young participants, could mobilise and inspire hundreds of thousands of people around the issue of the defense of the Constitutional principles and what they have to say about how we live together as civilians and democrats. In fact, in Italy, the Internet is used by just 20 million people, only 7 million of whom use it regularly and actively (according to Osservatorio Permanente data on digital contents).

The answer to that question is to be found in one excerpt of the records of the Constituent Assembly – namely, a dialogue between Aldo Moro and Palmiro Togliatti about the opportunity, subsequently rejected, to insert an article that would sanction the individual right to resistance in our Constitution: that is, resistance against a State aiming to use its sovereignty to threaten those principles.

This is the thread that unites this new “public opinion 2.0.” born on the net through social networks.The “purples” are the expression of this sense that it is the right of individuals, even if not sanctioned by the Constitution, to resist the State, not to subvert the established order, but to protect it, and to protect democracy.

A movement such as this, expressing a wide dissatisfaction that spreads across the country from south to north, cannot be described as representing an “antipolitical” sentiment (an accusation often visited on it by shallow critics, including those politicians who have found themselves its target).  The purple movement, just like any free form of aggregation and expression – gathers together the excellence and virtuosity of individual intelligences, just as Pierre Levy emphasises, but it can also attract the lower forms of fanaticism. Up till now, the “purple” movement has succeeded in keeping its different souls together, as a unique, pooled energy – not just one of many political subjects in a crowded arena – forging individual and collective experiences in the common battle in defence of the Constitution, for free expression and information and for individual citizenship rights.

This emerging of the purple movement definitely confirms and highlights the crisis of representation that’s been hitting political parties and trade unions over the last decades. These public entities look, by contrast, completely unable to respond to the challenges caused by the complex political, social and cultural changes brought about by the third millennium. The crisis of representation manifests itself in the way this movement was born: through the Internet. The net is – with all the limitations connected to this definition – an open, fluid, space, where the rules are self-determined by the community willing to represent itself (i.e. the global community feeding Wikipedia, the free and opened encyclopedia). The net is a natural incubator of dissent, connected to the scarcity of trust in the political class which is, with just a few exceptions, more and more distant from its electorate – a political class which is disconnected from civil society and perceived as administering rules and norms that it doesn’t itself respect.

This latent mistrust, often translated into opened hostility, is protected by the movement from the risk of being instrumentalized by traditional political forces, which in the past did contaminate them. It has challenged them to criticize their own actions, denouncing their inadequacy.

Instead, the purple movement has been working on the creation of a common front, fuelled by opposition to the “Berlusconian” cultural model and the aim to stop the authoritarian trend practised by the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi; an opposition that could be the starting point for fundamental renewal of a country that has been weakened by the economic crisis, brutalized by the dominant TV culture and mortified by reactionary legislation.

The strength of the purple movement lies in its capacity to use the web as a tool to both spread information and as a source of socialized forms of communication. These forms of communication allow people to express individual dissent through what Manuel Castells calls “mass-self communication”: a type of communication that is both autonomous and interconnected in its production of content, in its way of spreading and receiving communication, inside a “many to many” frame.

This allows an expression of dissent and opposition to dominion that can be autonomous from that of constraining collectivities – political parties, trade unions, associations – once the only protagonists of political, social and individual dissent. This kind of action in which the social actors lost their individual drive in the collective goal has now been replaced by one where the construction of dissent derives first and foremost from an individual drive and its need to express itself. This individual drive is connected to hundreds of thousands of people through the web.

Certainly, the purple movement is an experiment in the delicate phase of its development; and indeed these new forms of expression are already suffering to a degree from what we might call a ‘strained horizontality’, which prevents the emergence of leadership and a construction of consent as responsive as it can be on the web.

The future of the purple movement relies on its capacity to keep alive the dynamism that has characterized it, its ability in creating “biodegradable nets”, able to be born and die according to the logic of the single events that provoke them, to be born again in new forms, over and over again.

If the movement maintains its fluidity and its ability to create connections between different realities without any prejudice, then it will keep on being a remarkable “box” for all the cultural, social and political subjectivities fighting for renovation.

Open Democracy

2 Risposte to “Il popolo viola su Open Democracy”

  1. Felix Buechner maggio 26, 2010 a 7:43 pm #

    I wholly support “Il Popolo Viola” from the very beginning; this movement has long been overdue.
    I start with this expression of support because I do have some words of warning to say in the interest of this movement gaining, not losing influence.

    Dissatisfaction is not enough. Protest is not enough.

    Any protest movement that I have seen – even if it initially seemed to make a big impact somewhere – after a while came to an end, fizzled out into oblivion.

    The main problem is, of course, that too many participate simply because they are dissatisfied.
    Protest is a very valid reason for speaking up, dissatisfaction is a very powerful motivator for organizing oneself into a larger group.

    But questions are left open:
    Who are “we”?
    What are our aims?
    Are we united only in our refusal, or do we go beyond a common negative and share a common positive, too?
    Beyond saying “No”, do we have aims at all?
    If we have common aims, how do we propose to realize them?

    These are crucial questions, and they cannot go unanswered for long.

    I argue that today is the time for “ll Popolo Viola” to start the process of finding the answers.

    This is daunting, difficult and hard; however it is possible and absolutely neccessary.

    To support the argument, I would like to make a couple of observations, from present time and from history.

    Today, when I browse through the many comments on the web-site of “Il Popolo Viola”, I repeatedly read all sorts of encouraging voices. From time to time, though, I find statements like “We need a strong man”, or even “We need a kind of dictator to sort out this mess”.
    These persons in all probability do not feel themselves as participants of a political movement to defend the constitution. Instead, they are just opting for what they perceive a simple solution to all problems.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with political orientation: The theme of the “strongman” usually invokes pictures of fascist “leaders” and some of the extreme commentators seem to lean that way; but the same goes for the extreme left. For a present example, have a look at this fan photo – Stalin – and the poster’s comment “Non c’è figura storica che possa ispirare il Popolo Viola meglio di Stalin …”

    But surely these voices do not represent the mainstream of our supporters. Really? We might just be hoping.
    Who are “we”?

    Back in the nineties, when Mr. Berlusconi got himself elected for the first time, his “party” had a distinct flair of protest, while avoiding to be too specific in what they proposed to actually do. If I’m not completely wrong, he even deemed unneccessary to hold a national party congress until AFTER his first election to PM.
    By emphasizing dissatisfaction, Mr. Berlusconi effectively created a widespread hope that with him, the bad old ways would vanish. Exactly how he would acheive this, he was curiously reluctant to say.
    Characteristically, until today he often strikes a note AGAINST the state (judiciary and media). Against all probabilities, given his position in the state, he tries to appeal to a common sentiment of dissatisfaction, which works since the protester often is seen as superior to the protested.

    Still further back, from 1925 to 1933, Adolf Hitler, in his drive to gain supreme power in Germany, was endlessly touring the Weimar Republic, holding ever more speeches – in which he would always smash the republic to pieces, but almost never even only indicate what he actually proposed to do.
    This is not to say that the German people were kept in the dark about his aims, as from before 1925 he frequently spoke about them and had them published very often. But in his personal appearances in the last years before dictatorship, he avoided to name specific political steps, because he knew full well that to express dissatisfaction in the status quo is an effective way to attract masses. NOT stating any concrete political measure avoids dissatisfaction of the same masses with yourself.

    While dissatisfaction is a good point to start from, in itself it is not enough. If a movement aims to bring about change in a democratical way (as opposed to above examples), it must evolve from the seductive starting point of dissatisfaction towards a political movement where concrete political proposals are publicly debated.

    In recent days there is much talk about the political class in Italy, specifically about its many shortcomings (in Germany this class is not entirely different, to say the least). I have seen a good number of Italian governments of all sorts.

    For the first time, and with real joy, I can now witness this already large movement of protesters, obviously with very many competent, educated and politically awake persons. But I fear that it will come slowly, but surely to a full stop.

    To avoid this, it should – and could – undertake to actually make politics. In my eyes, this is imperative. For, if this work – slow, hard, painful, dangerous, uplifting, demoralizing, rewarding, liberating – is not undertaken, what hope is there?

    In short: Start a party, and with a real program.

  2. roberto settembre 15, 2011 a 7:59 pm #

    mi psigate perche non sieta mai in tv nei programmi di dibattiti politici esempio a ballaro o a porta porta e altri per sputtanare qui parolai

Lascia un commento

Inserisci i tuoi dati qui sotto o clicca su un'icona per effettuare l'accesso:


Stai commentando usando il tuo account Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto Twitter

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Twitter. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Google+ photo

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Google+. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Connessione a %s...

%d blogger cliccano Mi Piace per questo: