Is it really violence of an ideological nature, or is it pure and simple thugs in desperation who, hiding behind any political flag, make themselves lawful to brandish it, using it as a pretext to be able to carry out criminal designs of a completely different nature. foundation?

From threats on social channels to Giorgia Merloni, accused of wanting to eliminate Citizenship Income, and therefore of "playing" on the desperation of the most fragile social classes exposed to need, to anarchist threats to the First Counselor of the Italian Embassy in Greece and sister of the candidate for the Secretariat of the Democratic Party Elly Schlein, Susanna Schlein, the waves of discontent expressed with the use of force seem to show no signs of abating. The latter, in particular, seems to have been the victim of the actions of a group of anarchists in solidarity with Alfredo Cospito who had been on hunger strike for about fifty days in the Sassari prison, Bancali, to protest against the provisions of article 41 bis, understood as a "regime of political extermination".

Reality surpasses fantasy, we would be inclined to comment, and the circumstance lends itself to serving as a clear pretext for giving free rein to the use of force as an instrument of social affirmation and power. Beyond the single episode, it is clear that we are faced with the expression not only of a social malaise that can no longer be contained, but also of extemporaneous forms of protagonism detached from any hypothesis of ideological contestation. There would appear to be no doubts on this point. Rather, the doubt, beyond the subjective motivations that lead unorganized individuals to act, arises when one is faced with the need to understand whether to face and discipline such "manifestations" considering them in their personalistic uniqueness, that is, and rather, making them fall within the context of a broader phenomenon but in any case of a more complex legal classification since, as we know, criminal liability is still personal and must be treated as such.

Let's be clear, however: what clashes, at least in the context of the individual episodes mentioned, is precisely the forced juxtaposition between "violence", understood as a "voluntary action, exercised by one subject on another, in such a way as to determine him to act against his will", and "politics", understood instead as the "complex of activities that refer to the life and public affairs of a given community of men". Two analytically and semantically distinct concepts, but which past and recent history has very often been able to hand down to us as inevitably connected. But if it is true, as it would appear to be true, that "politics" was born (or at least it should be) from the need to put a stop to the generalized struggle of individuals, then, probably, the extemporaneous or at least unorganized violent demonstrations , of criminal phenomena, could, perhaps, be inspired (or at least one could be led to believe it) by a loss of the role that "politics" would have been, and would be, called to cover, since it has itself become incapable of acting as an authority of regulation and regulation of human relationships in order not to be able to interpret their needs.

Far from the idea of wanting to justify such expressions of discontent, which are condemned without ifs and buts, it is evidently a dysfunctional gear that risks decentralizing the terms of a reasoning that would require deeper investigations to be inevitably reconnected to the mechanisms of understanding of the social and its innumerable nuances. Basically, and if we wanted to pause and reflect on it, the misunderstanding lies in the fact that the claims brought forward by the individual agents actually have nothing to do with the great ideological and theoretical models of reference (Right or Left) precisely in consideration of the transversal character easily identifiable with respect to the origin of the agents and the contents of their requests, however difficult to insert in a specifically understood category of class struggle.

The episodes mentioned are rather complex heterogeneous and fragmentary representations that seem to have nothing to do with politics and its programmatic decisions. To be able to talk in terms of dysfunction of the system, a real tumultuous collective action would be necessary as a homogeneous set, in terms of goals, of multiple subjects but interacting with each other for the achievement of the common goal, represented by a new order social, as right as possible in the minds of the agents, and more responsive to their primary needs.

In the specific case we are far, and fortunately, from mass mobilizations, but the index of suffering of individuals, however expressed, requires profound reflections on the political level, since their eventual neglect, or pure and simple condemnation (which must in any case be affirmed ), would not help to appease a phenomenon which in any case would seem to find its roots in a condition of economic malaise which must be stemmed with suitable measures to favor social stability and to allow even the minimum conditions of survival. It would not seem to be a question of ideology but of need, and if so, the mere reassurance on the point of who is called to govern should be more than sufficient to avoid future barbaric disputes. It being understood, and indisputably, that violence must always be condemned, never justified, for having to be the various but still respectful forms of protest.

We are slowly approaching forms of existential radicalism which, in addition to being promptly stemmed through pure and simple regulatory measures of a suitable social nature, or rather the expression of a functioning welfare in its basic expressions (and we realize that in the contingent context, with the meager resources available is not simple), should be studied and understood to truly be an expression of a social change that will condition the political and governmental management of the years to come. Governing today means above all thinking about tomorrow. Today is perhaps already too late, but tomorrow is yet to come.

Basically, the recent episodes of discontent, whether of a social or anarchist matrix, it doesn't matter, are not just unconscious manifestations of temporary tensions, they are the sprout of a conventional fracture in response to the apparent inability of the Government system as a whole to manage the economic chaos and social leftover from the two-year pandemic and the instability generated by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Labeling a phenomenon means limiting it, and speaking in terms of "political violence" specifically understood would not seem appropriate. One would perhaps be more inclined to qualify such episodes as a reflection of a lack of trust in the institutions broadly understood, represented from time to time by different subjective expressions identified as comfortable targets of protest only on the basis of the role covered.

The real distinction, as well as the solution to the cognitive "misunderstanding" that emerged from it, resides only on the content with which it will be decided, on a purely political level, to fill the space between governors and governed. Maximum solidarity therefore to our Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, and to the First Counselor of the Italian Embassy in Greece, Susanna Schlein, for the attacks suffered. We need the maximum cooperation and understanding between Governors and Representatives of Institutions in general and the Governed, because only constructive collaboration can support growth and social well-being. Violence only breeds more violence and destruction. Only a renewed relationship of mutual trust can represent the key to a satisfactory change.

Josephine Di Salvatore

(Lawyer – Nuoro)

© Riproduzione riservata