social movements and public administration: spontaneus citizens’ committees in florence

Social Movements and PublicAdministration: Spontaneous Citizens’Committees in Florence*

DONATELLA DELLA PORTA AND MASSIMILIANO ANDRETTA

Ecological issues and urban protest: an introduction

The end of the 1990s witnessed an explosion of local conflicts around environmentalissues. Different — at least in part — from the ecological protests of the 1970s and 1980s,the protest campaigns of the 1990s have not been distinguished by the prominence ofecological or environmental groups and associations, but more by the actions of dozens oflocal groups, which are often referred to in the press and in political debate as ‘citizens’committees’. Citizens’ committees usually mobilize around issues that affect a smallterritorial area; they use various kinds of protest and are organized in very looselystructured forms. The issues they raise range from pollution to security, from townplanning to local community services. Citizens’ committees mobilizing around the issueof pollution, in particular, often enter into complex relations of cooperation, as well as ofcompetition, with local branches of environmental associations. In a sort of politicalexchange, the environmental associations offer organizational resources and mediateprotest through institutional channels, while the citizens’ committees offer the humanresources for protest activities. Local newspapers, individual administrators and even thedecentralized institutions of local government may join these campaigns, for differingreasons. The rise of citizens’ committees seems to generate hope and fear amongobservers, and has been seen as both a threat to and a resource for urban government. Onthe one hand there is the risk of fragmented, diffuse protest jeopardizing public decision-making. In a situation in which political parties no longer act as mediators of consent(intermediaries between the needs of the population and urban government), questionsthat were once addressed to the territorial sections of political parties, finding a point ofmediation there, nowadays tend to be organized and presented directly to the publicadministration. Since they have not been developed within more general ideologicaldiscourses, these issues enter the political system in a particularistic and localistic form.On the other hand, however, the debate about democratic governance has long insisted onthe need for participation from below (Bobbio, 1996). Social pacts, dialogue andparticipation in planning have been proposed within new models of policy-making andimplementation, which, overcoming the illusion of rational planning, evolve insteadthough incremental adjustment processes (Bobbio, 1994).

ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

* Translated from Italian by Karen George. A different version of this article, entitled ‘Movimenti sociali erappresentanza: I comitati spontanei dei cittadini a Firenze’, was published inRassegna Italiana di Sociologia42, 41–76.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Volume 26.2 June 2002 244–65

Within this picture,citizens’ committeeshavesometimesbeenseenasNimbyist(‘Not in my back yard’) — characterized by conservativebehaviourand selfish,materialist motivations, potentially resistant to social change.At other times, incontrast,theyhavebeenseenasnewformsof grassrootscitizens’participation (Gouldet al., 1996: 3–4). In one form or another,thesecommitteesseemincreasingly toinfluence local government choices. As Luigi Bobbio has written, localisticmobilization ‘is the direct daughterof democracy, of its promisesof citizenship,self-governmentandof the right to the pursuitof happiness. And at the sametime itconstitutesa challengefor democracysinceit opensa divide . . . betweenthe generalandtheparticular,betweenthenationalandthelocal,betweenthecomfortof themoreandthesacrificeof theless’(1999:187).It is, in addition,a by-productof demandsfordirect participation and the spreadof protest skills acquiredin previous forms ofcollective mobilization. Our researchaims to understand the spreadof suchforms ofcollective organization,their strategies,their purposesand their resources,startingfrom their embeddedness in a social and territorial context that, although it isconstantly beingreshaped,definesthe relationship betweenthe actors,their resources(cognitiveaswell asmaterial)andtheway theyconceivethemselveswithin thesocietyin which theyoperate.Our initial hypothesisis thatsocialconditionsin modernurbancentresgeneratetensionsbetweendifferent typesof city users,whoexperiencethecityin different ways. Environmentalissueshavebeenraisedespeciallyby residentsofhistoriccity centres,who live with thenegativeconsequencesof chaotic‘invasions’—during the day,by peoplecomingto work or study,andat night, by peopleusingthecity centre’sculturalandrecreational facilities.Conflict oftenarisesbetweenresidents,who want restrictionson privatetraffic, andshopkeepers,who aretraditionally hostileto any interventionthat regulatesindividual mobility.

In this regard,one hypothesisthat has emergedfrom recent thinking on urbanmovements and urban governanceis the rise of a new conflict between‘urbanregimes’, orientedtowardslocal economicdevelopment, andloosecoalitionsof actorsresistingthe ‘growth machine’.According to this hypothesis,economicandpoliticalintereststend to convergein local economicdevelopmentpolicies. Facedwith thefiscal crisisof thewelfarestate,local governmentstry, throughinvestmentsin humancapitalandinfrastructures,to replacedecliningpublic fundswith privateinvestments.Therefore, local governments are working as enterprises,in unceasingcompetitionwith oneother(ThomasandSavitch,1991).Local politiciansattemptto raiseelectoralsupportby generatingeconomicdevelopment,allying themselves— on theseissues—with economicinterests,which areorientedtowardsincreasingprofits (Elkin, 1987).Trade unions may also join this coalition, becauseof their interest in reducingunemployment. However,growth coalitions are unableto integratemarginal socialgroups (which are the losers in this type of development) or those who expressenvironmentalconcerns(StoneandSanders,1987;Le Gales,1995).Political andsocialconditions may help or hinder the developmentof growth coalitions (Logan andMolotch, 1987;Orr andStoker,1994).

Another aspectworth emphasizingis the relationshipbetweenthe structuresofpolitical representationandthe forms andorganizationof ecologicalprotestin the city:herewe drawon someof thesocialmovementliterature(e.g.Tilly, 1984;Tarrow,1998).The crisis of traditional political parties explains the proliferation of committeesrepresentingsinglestreetsor squares,in partasa surrogatefor thedisappearingterritorialpartystructuresof thepast(dellaPorta,2001).In theabsenceof alternativeformsof partymediation,demandsfrom citizens’ committeestend to remain fragmented.However,forms of coordinationof local protestareemerging,often via the formationof networksinvolving both citizens’ committeesandmoretraditionalecologicalassociations.

For the time being, our researchhas concentratedon the situation in Florence,privileging committeesas a sourceof information relating to their own organizational

ß Joint EditorsandBlackwell PublishersLtd 2002

Spontaneouscitizens’committeesin Florence 245

forms, their strategiesfor action and the way they interact with other existing socialactors,whetherinstitutionalor not. In the first partof this casestudy,we outlineda mapof the presenceof committeesin the urban area of Florence (see Figure 1). Weascertainedthe territorial spreadof the phenomenonand then senta letter to about40committeesin Districts1, 3 and5 of thecity, in which we askedwhethertheywould beavailable to meet us. The mapping of thesecommitteeswas made possibleby thecollaborationof Florence’sOffice for a SafeCity.1 Of these40 committees,21 repliedpromptly, indicating stronginterestin the researchwe weredeveloping.Our sampleofcommitteestherefore consistedof more than 50% of the population of individualcommitteesin the three districts. We asked them to complete a questionnaireandinterviewedthemin depth(seeAppendix),aswell asrequestingany materialsthey hadproducedup to thenand,wherepossible,a review of the presscoverageof their protestcampaigns.Additional interviews were conductedwith local institutional actors,whowere askedfor their point of view on the activities of the committeesthey had to dealwith. For the momentat least,this forms the empiricalbaseof our work.

Committee for what? Betweenlocalism, security issuesandparticipation

Citizens’ committeesoriginateprimarily in two typesof issue,both highly relevanttocurrent public debate: environmental issues and those relating to security. Whilecommittees on environmental issues have often been suspected of ‘Nimbyism’,

1 We havenot yet mappedcitizens’ committeesin Districts2 and4, andthereforetheseareexcludedfromour analysis.

Figure 1 Distribution of individual committeesin Florence


246 Donatelladella Porta and MassimilianoAndretta

committeeson thesecurityissuehavearousedstill moresuspicion.Althoughcommitteeswhich originate in action againstpollution by traffic or againstmajor infrastructureordumpingsiteshaveoften beenstudied— evenif with somedoubtaboutthe ‘purity’ oftheir inspiration— ascomponentsof a broaderenvironmentalmovement,committeesonissuesrelatingto securityhavegenerallybeenrapidly identifiedwith mobilizationsof theright, evenif theyarenotdirectly racistor xenophobic.In termsof scientificresearch,thishasled to a renunciationof the useof analyticalcategoriesthat seeprotestas rationalactioncarriedoutby actorsmobilizedon thebasisof sharedidentity,andto areturnto theanalytical categories of the old structural-functionalist and psycho-sociologicalapproaches,which saw protestas an emotionalreactionto systemicdysfunctionsand/or to individual frustrations.Thus,analysesof mobilizationsaroundthe issueof securityoftenstressthat it is somehowirrational to feel insecure,givenanoverall reductionin thecrime rate.The sourcesof insecuritieshave,therefore,beenattributedto the increasingstandardizationof societyandthe lossof ties andtraditionalvalues(e.g.Palidda,2000).In line with hypothesesthat masssociety is disintegratingsocial linkages,analysesofmobilizations around security issuesoften stressthat racism and an obsessionwithsecurityareinterlinked in the irrational searchfor a scapegoatfor individual discontent.In a frequent collateral hypothesis,committeeson security have been defined asexpressionsof theeconomicinterestsof shopkeepers.Researchonmovementsthatplacesmoretrust in the rationality of collectiveactorshasstressedtheir capacityto manipulateframesin order to increasethe potentialfor mobilization (SnowandBenford,1988).Inthis approach,movementsarenot seenas irrational actorsmobilizing aroundproblems,but as ‘entrepreneurs’capableof mobilizing individuals on the basis of ‘credible’definitionsof the situation(McAdam et al., 1996).

A first observationfrom our datais that only sevenout of our 21 committeeshaverelationswith shopkeepers’organizations,and only three of theseare mobilizing onsecurity.In contrast,all thecommitteesareengagedin a discoursethat is predominantlyaboutdefendingor improvingthequality of life in a definedterritory, andin this contexttheissueof securityandthatof theenvironmentoftenbecometightly interwoven.As canbe seenfrom Table1, half our committeesdealwith both theseissuesat the sametime,andall thecommitteesthataremobilizing onsecurityalsotackleenvironmentalissues.Infact, theDirectorof theOffice for aSafeCity observedthatmanycommitteesareshiftingtowardsthe issueof security,including thosethat dealwith cultural issues,with trafficrestrictionzonesor with other traffic issues(Interview D).

Wheresecurity(Table2) is the main issue(for 10 out of the 21 committees),mostactors stressthe problemsof criminality, drugs and prostitution without necessarilylinking them to the phenomenonof immigration. In replying to our questionnaire,onlytwo of the 10 committeeson securityexplicitly referredto immigrationgenerically,andthe figureswerenot different for illegal immigration.Generally,proposalsto tackle theissueof securitygo beyonda purely repressiveresponse.Also, althoughsomeof themplaceemphasisonpoliceactionand‘law andorder’ demands,manyothersemphasizethe

Table 1 Securityand environment

Security Environment TotalNo Yes

No 1 10 119% 91% 100%

Yes 10 10100% 100%

Total 1 20 215% 95% 100%



multiple dimensionof the problemof security,often referring to interventionsaimedatredefiningurban— and,therefore,town planning— policy for thedistrict or thestreetinwhich theyaremobilizing: this wasthecasewith no fewerthansix out of 10 committeesthat weretackling securityissues.2

In fact, the representativeof the San Pierino committee,a shopkeeper,thought agreaterpolice presencewould certainlybe neededto solvethe problemof security:

. . . but the police cannotcontrol all the streetsevery day: more structural interventionsareneeded.What’s more, we need to reclaim our squaresthrough a series of initiatives:demonstrations,festivals etc. And here we immediately come up against the problemsofbureaucracy:to hold a demonstrationwe generallyhaveto apply to theCity Governmentthreemonthsin advance,with a wholesheafof requests,andwe haveto payfor thepublic spaceandso on. This bureaucracyis killing the community(Interview 1).

One of the representatives of the Sant’Orsola committee, at the same time asdemonstratingconcernat the concentrationof illegal immigrantsin the area,suggestedredefining urban policy as a way of solving the problem of security that is clearlymanifest in deprived areas (Interview 2). However, the coordinator of the JointCommitteesagainstthe Third Lane cautionsthat the issueof securitymust be handledwith care,becauseit often risks sliding into racism:‘a lot of peoplecomeout with theideathatoutsidersto thecommunityarethecauseof thecity’s securityproblems.This isnot true,becausetherearemanyItalianswho do muchworsethings’ (Interview 3). It ismainly illegal immigration that tends to be stigmatized— as, for example,by therepresentativeof the IntercommitteeCoordination,who said:

I do not agreethat the problemof securityrelatesto racism. . . however,it is clear from thestatisticswe havethatcrimesarecommittedby immigrantswhosepapersarenot in order.Thishasnothingto do with racism,it is just acknowledgingreality . . . Therearea goodnumberofoutsiderswho integrateandwantto work, andtheywork moreandbetterthanwe do— but youcannotignorereality (Interview 4).

So, citizens’ committeesmobilizing aroundsecurity in Florencetend to presenta non-racistimageof themselves,proposingcomplexsolutionsto theissueof criminality. Also,accordingto theDirectorof theOffice for aSafeCity, citizens’committeesdonotpresentthe issueof criminality in racistor xenophobicterms,nor in radical tones:

Somepeoplehavepolitical experience,otherspolitical aspirations,while othershavespecialinterests— not in a negativesense— andeveryonehasa strongcivic awareness,anattachment

Table 2 Mobilization on issuesrelating to security

Number % Response

No security-relatedissues 11 34Anti-drug 7 21Anti-crime 6 18Anti-prostitution 2 6Anti-illegal immigration 2 6Anti-immigration in general 2 6Other 9 9Total 32 100

2 It is alsotruethat in somecasesproposedtown planninginterventionssatisfy— or areaimedat satisfying— applications to ‘exclude’ marginal groups, such as the poor or immigrants (especially illegalimmigrants).In this respect,seethe excellentcollectioneditedby Ugo Brunello (1996).



to the city. From the point of view of party politics, they are not right-wing; indeed,I havefound peoplewho havehadpolitical experiencein left parties.You do not find that the right-wing and security issues coincide. There may be a perception of insecurity linked toimmigration,andprisonstatisticscanleadyou to equatethem.However,therehaveneverbeenrequeststo excludethesepeople,just a desirefor a pragmaticsolution.Also, shopkeepershaveneveraskedfor extremesolutions,but for thecreationof anareawithout illegal trading.We’vealsomet representativesof their associations— thereis onelady who is involved in forming acooperativeof immigrantworkers,trying to get themhired to work for thecommunity. . . Andwe havetalks with Senegaleseyouth, to try andfind a solution: they don’t representa publicorderproblem(Interview C).

Turningto thecitizens’committeesmobilizingonenvironmentalissues(Table3), wewere not surprisedto find that the most frequentlycited problemswere pollution andespeciallytraffic. However,it is surprisingthat the committeesaremoreproactivethanreactive. In fact, only two of the committeesinterviewed are engagedin mountingoppositionto the implementationof infrastructureprojects.Thereare five committeesmobilizing againsttown-planninginterventionsof varioussorts,but no fewer than 11promotingnewenvironmentally-friendly town-planninginterventionsappropriatefor theterritory. Many areoftenaskingfor theconstructionof parks,gardensor otherplacesformeetingand socializing.Therefore,it is not always true that committeesmobilize forclaimsof the ‘why just here?’type; they often providewell-formulatedsuggestionsandresponsesto the questions‘where?’ and ‘how?’.

It seems,therefore,that citizens’ committeeshave their origins in more complexproblemsthat relateto the territory definedby stressingthe dimensionof belonging,ofidentity. So the security of the territory becomesjust as important as respectingits‘natural’ characteristics:bothareinescapableaspectsof theresidents’quality of life, andthey will mobilize to defend both. However, the importanceof territory does notnecessarilymeanthat citizens’ committeesact only on thebasisof proximity. Although,as we havealreadysaid, they havebeenaccusedof being interestedonly in their ownpatch,our datashowa morevariedsituation.Besidesthesevencommitteesdealingwiththeproblemsof theparticularstreetwheretheir memberslive — oftendismissedby morestructuredcommitteeswith the term ‘manholecover committees’(Interview 7) — wefound seven ward committees(which substantially limit their action to within theconfinesof the districtsasthey existedbeforethe reform that createdthe current,largerdistricts), four district committeesproper, defining themselvesas actors of socialintegration in the district where they operate(Interview 8), and two committeesthatextendtheir activities outsidethe confinesof the city, covering the whole provincialterritory (Figure2).

Table 3 Mobilization on issuesrelating to the environment

Number % Response

Pollution 2 5Opposinginfrastructureprojects 5 13Opposingtown planninginterventions 5 13Anti-traffic 9 23Opposingincinerators 1 3Protectingmonuments 1 3Protectingthe naturalenvironment 1 3Promotingtown planninginterventions 11 27Environmentaleducation 2 5Changingattitudes 2 5Total responses 39 100



We canaddthat— andthis hasalreadybeenshownby otherresearch(for example,Petrillo, 1999)— committeesarenot typical of thesuburbs,nor of areaswherehardshipis great in absoluteterms.In fact, the district with the most committeesis the centralDistrict 1 (with 17 committeesrecorded,asagainst14 in District 3 andeight in District 5— the mostperipheralof thoseunderconsideration).This providesfurther proof of theimportanceof the centre in political participation: in this case,‘centre’ as metaphorcoincideswith the actual territorial meaningbut doesnot lose its social connotations,although it stops short of ecological analysis. Thirteen of the 21 committeesweinterviewedwerein District 1, which is about70%of thosethat exist,while six wereinDistrict 5, and only two in District 3. If the readinesswith which citizens’ committeesrespondedto the stimulus of this researchsayssomethingabout their organizationalcapacity,thenthis factagainreinforcestheideathatcentralityis animportantexplanatoryfactor.

If the phenomenonof citizens’ committeescan, as we have hypothesized,beunderstoodwithin a moregeneralprocessof the restructuringof political representation— evidencedmainly by the decline of the parties’ capacity for social and territorialrootedness,the lossof their hold on civil societyandthe weakeningof their capacitytobring togetherdemandsand influence decision-makingprocesses— then the birth ofcitizens’ committeesshould obviously coincide neatly with the emergenceof theseelementsof crisis in thepolitical system.Figure3 showsthat, in fact, thephasein whichcommitteesstartedto organizemoreoftencoincidedwith theyearsof thepolitical crisisin Italy that hasbeendefinedin successivestagesas ‘the crisis of the First Republic’.Eighteenout of the21 committeeswe interviewedhadbeenformedsince1994,andtherewasa growing trendover the 1990s.However,this fact shouldbe viewedwith caution,becausepastresearchhasdemonstratedthatoneof thecharacteristicsof thesenewformsof organizationis their extremetransience.Therefore,it couldbe that committeessetupin theyearsprecedingthecrisisdid notstandthetestof time,andthereis noevidencethatthosecreatedduringthesecondhalf of the1990swill beanymoreresilient.However,thepicturewe gainedfrom the institutionalactorswe interviewedsupportsthe ideathat thephenomenonis in rapid growth.

The issueof thecrisisof representationwasraisedby thesamecommitteememberswho often lamentthe disintegrationof society’sinstitutionsand their inability to solvepeople’sconcreteproblems.For example,the chairwomanof the Via Lauracommitteesaid: ‘Citizens’ committeesproliferate becausethe administration is inefficient and

Figure 2 Citizens’committees:levelsof mobilization



respondsso slowly. But, evenmoresignificantly, politics is not in a position to dictaterules for peopleto live togetherin civil society’ (Interview 5). The coordinatorof theJoint Committeesagainstthe Third Lanewasevenmoreexplicit:

We areawarethat thereis a movementof opinion; in reality, we arecompletelydetachedfromtheinstitutions,completelyseparate— it’s asif we areliving on two differentplanets.Onewayof looking at it is to saywe aremobilizing againsta projectthat hasbeendecidedin Rome—but anotheris to observethat local institutions,at the level of the region,the provinceandthetradeunions,havecompletelyabandonedtheir citizens(Interview 3).

Other committeesprovide evidence that political parties have lost the capacity torepresentcitizens’ interests.For example,an activist in the Terzollecommitteesaid:

Thecommitteestry to put citizensin touchwith theadministration.Partymeetingsdon’t do thisany more,becausethey aretied to party lines.The thingsthey areaskingfor area function ofthe party organizationitself: they are never disinterested.They mobilize for party ends,forpolitical ideology.Thingsarechangingbecausepeopleno longerwantto give powerandcushyjobs to theseparties.Peoplewant to solve their own problems:it’s not important to themwhetherit’s the left or the right or the centrethat helpsthemdo it. So we don’t haveany sideinterests; we are completely apolitical and non-partisan.Our interest is in solving realenvironmentalproblemsin relationto society— people’sproblems. . . All the committeesarenow somuchlike this andhavetakensomanyinitiatives that they havetakenoverwhat wereoncethe parties’ functions(Interview 6).

It is perhapsrelevantto point out that this activist told us that he had earlier beenamilitant memberof a left-wing party.

Anotheractivist from the samecommitteeoffereda moreprofoundanalysis:

Figure 3 Yearsin which citizens’committeeswerefounded



The truedifferencebetweenthenandnow is not thatcommitteesdid not exist. In fact, evenearlier— in the1970s— committeesexisted,becausepolitical partieswould setthemup todeal with more generalproblems, like district activities or social activities.However,theyarenow forming in responseto problems astheyarise.For example,a committeewill besetup to tackletheproblemof traffic in a certainarea.In thepast,this wasanexpressionof thesocialfabric anda responseto thedemandsof community, socialdemands. Now all this hasbeenlost . . . However,we arebecomingthelink betweenthedemandsof thepopulationandtheparties.Thepartiesgetto know aboutpeople’sproblemsat committeemeetings,andthisgoesjust as much for the Chairmanof the District Council. Otherwisepeoplewould notevenhavethe possibility of meetinghim. The Chairmanof the District Council oncecameto me and said ‘‘Take me aroundthe areabecauseI don’t know it’ ’ — you see!(Interview6).

The parties’ loss of rootednessseems,therefore,to have stimulatedforms of protestrather than hindering them. Where demandsused to be channelledby the partiesthroughtheir meetingsor otherconsensus-building‘terminals’ in orderto penetratetheinstitutions of government,the attention of administratorsis now sought insteadbyapplying directly to the public sphere,through protest actions capableof attractingmediaattention.In the past,trust in parties(in particular,in the party onebelongedtooneself) encouragedpeople to postponetheir claims over time, through the typicalmechanismof representation.Nowadays,in contrast,lack of confidencein partieshasled to withdrawal of these ‘blank proxies’ and to mobilization around one’s ownimmediateneeds.

Spontaneity and participation? The organizational structure ofcitizens’ committees

Thereare certainobviouscontinuitiesbetweenthe organizationalstructureof citizens’committeesandthesocialmovementsof thepast.In somecases,theserelateto networksof belonging.The literatureon socialmovementshasoften highlightedthe relevanceofmobilizationresources— amongthem,thepresenceof densesocialnetworks(dellaPortaand Diani, 1999: chapters5 and 6). In the caseswe studied,friendshipnetworksandprevious membershipof other organizationsformed the basis for many citizens’committees.The pictureof committeerepresentatives’pastexperiencesis rathervariedand relatesto party activity as well as to associationism,voluntary social serviceandactivity in tradeunionanddistrict councilorganizations.Somecommittees(TerzolleandPeretola,for example)drew on friendship networks establishedduring strugglesforschoolcouncilsanddistrict councils,andotherson sharedmembershipof environmentalorganizations(Terzolleagain,Idra, Il Giardinodei Leoni).Moreover,committeeactivistshavefrequentlyhadexperienceon other committeesin the past.The experienceof thecoordinator of the Joint Committeesagainst the Third Lane, although not unique,illustratesthis phenomenon:

Whenthe bypasswasplanned,therewereseveralmeetings,bringing togetherpeoplewho felttheprojectwoulddefacetheenvironment.We cameto theconclusionthat if wewereto win wewould haveto unite the variousprotestsin a singlevoice — andwe did. After 18 months,theproject was completely abandoned.At least sevenor eight committeeshad been formed,involving volunteerswho wereactiveon a regularbasisandpeoplewho gavesporadicsupport.The committeesremainedafterwards,andthe experiencemeanttherewasmutualesteemandfriendshipbetweenthe volunteers.So,a year later,whenthe issueof extendingthe motorwaycameup,we decidedto meetin Galluzzo,in orderto establishthattheroutewouldbypassthere. . . Theproblemwasthattherewasa nationalinterestwhich wasno longercompatiblewith oursituation.We thenstartedgoing aroundsuburbanareasthat shouldhavebeeninterestedin theextension,and where there were no committees,sometimesjust individual protesters.We



encouragedthesetting-upof committees,whichhavebecomepartof ourJointCommittee— soit now consistsof 18 committees.3 A battle began,culminating, in 1998, in a parliamentaryquestion,to which no answerhaseverbeengiven (Interview 3).

Shopkeepers’networksrepresentanothertypeof socialnetworkinvolvedin theformationof somecommittees.They often generateinformal streetassociations,and this was thecasewith sevenof the committeeswe interviewed,aswe havealreadyseen.

However, resemblancesto movementsof the past are particularly visible in theorganizationalforms chosen.Social movementshave been defined as ‘networks ofnetworks’, or networksof informal groupswith weak internal coordination.Citizens’committeesassumea lessstructuredform than the organizationof movements,with alower level of coordinationand less consistencyin terms of numberof activists andmaterial resources.Informality seemsto be the main characteristicof these microorganizations:thedegreeof division of labouris minimal andrelatesto a very restrictednumberof people.

Table4 showsthatonly two of the21 committeeshavemorethan20activemembers— and 14 committeeshave under 10. Not only is the numberof memberslow, butcommitteeshavenot beenconsistentlyableto increasetheir membershipover the yearsof mobilization:only two committeeshaveincreasedthenumberof activistsbeyondwhatthey hadin the year they werefounded,andmosthaveremainedthe same— while, insix, the number of membershas actually fallen. Moreover, of the 21 committeesinterviewed, only five have registeredand gained regular associativestatus.Cross-referencingpositionin acentraldistrict (District 1) or aperipheraldistrict (Districts5 and3) with official registrationof a committee,we observethatthelevel of structuringis stilllower in the historic city centre,whereonly oneof the 12 committeesinterviewedhassucha status;while in theperipheraldistricts,no fewerthanfour out of eightcommitteeshaveofficially registeredwith the authoritiesasassociations.

Finally, a lower level of structuringis alsoconfirmedby the availability of materialresources.Most committeesdo not showtheamountof materialresourcestheyusein thecourseof a year’sactivities,becausethey do not keepbooksandtheir expensesconsistmainly of telephone,fax and postage,which are difficult to quantify. Only twocommitteesderivedincomefrom sourcesother than their members:this camefrom thelocal administration(of the districts concerned),becausethe group had decided,forexample,to organizea ward festival or cultural event.In addition,budgettrendsshowthat the groups are not in the course of becoming structured: in fact, only threecommitteeshaveseentheir resourcesincreaseduring their yearsof activity.

Table 4 Numberof membersactivein citizens’committees

No. of members Frequency %

1–5 6 96–10 8 3811–20 4 1921+ 2 9Subtotal 20 95Missing from system 1 5Total 21 100

3 According to an interview given by the coordinatorof the Joint Committeesagainstthe Third Lane, inSeptember2000thereweresome70 committeesinvolved (http//www.lavocedifirenze.com).



The organizational structure of movements is based on networks: variousorganizationsare linked through formal and informal ties, with varying degreesofdensity. One of the difficulties in defining citizens’ committeesas belonging to amovementis certainly the relative isolationof eachof them.However,our researchonFlorence gives evidence of some attempts at coordination. Of the 20 committeesinterviewed,no fewerthan14declaredthattheyhadcontactswith othercommittees,withan averageof five contactsper committee.The frequencyof contactsis equallyhigh incentralandperipheraldistricts.Thesecontactsareoftenwith committeesmobilizing in anadjoiningarea,asis thecasewith committeesfrom thecentraldistrict; othercontactsarebetweencommitteesmobilizing on similar issues,like the Third Lane (that is, thewidening of the Florenceto Bologna motorway),or private traffic in the city. Thesecontactsare sometimesstructuredinto coordinatingorganizationsinvolving about 10committees (like SOS Alberi, the Intercommittee Coordination, the Third LaneCommitteeand Idra — this last brings togetherall committeesin the Florenceareathat areopposedto high-speedtraffic).

Our interviewsshowedthatacoordinationinitiative is oftenledby activistswhohavepreviously alreadybeenmilitant in somecommittee,and who seekto go beyondthelimits of actionthat they view astoo circumscribedandobjectivesthat aretoo specific,convincedthat bringing togetherpointsof view andplanningprojectsthat relateto theurbanfabric asawholecanleadto betterresults.Thecoordinatorof theJointCommitteesagainstthe Third Lane,for example,saysthat this structurewascreatedat:

a meetingof committees,wherea big argumentbrokeout: in practice,sevencommitteesmeanssevendifferent opinions,becauseeachoneis taking careof its own patch— that’s somethingelsetypicalof committees.Thinkingaboutit, I realizedthatthiswouldn’t getusfar. SoI tried toget to the heartof the matter,with a resolutionthat the motorwaysimply hadno placein theurbanfabric.Thatmeantwe couldall agree,andwedecidedto producea paperon it andto joinforces(Interview 3).

The representativeof the IntercommitteeCoordinationconfirmed that the needto bemoreeffective influencedthe decisionto ‘join forces’:

We joined forces in this Coordinationbecauseit was very convenientfor the Council thatcitizens’ committeesshouldbe looselystructured,and therewasan idea that eachcommitteewas cultivating its own patch. So the idea came up that committeeswith very consistentnumbers— about40 — could cometogetherto changethings,becauseit is very hard to goagainstorganizedcitizens(Interview 4).

It shouldbe said,however,that the possibility of coordinatingall the committeesoftenarousesscepticism,giventheir heterogeneouspositionsanddemands.In thefirst place,acommonplatform is required.So, for example,in meetingsof committeesopposedtocity-centretraffic in Florence,thepossibilityhasbeendiscussedof summoningacitizens’committeeassembly,proposingas a referencebasethe Aalborg Charter,approvedbyparticipantsin theEuropeanConferenceonSustainableCitiesin 1994,whichprovidesforforms of participantplanning to tackle environmentalproblemsin the city. However,suspicionsthat they may be opento useasinstrumentsof variouspolitical forcesareatthe root of a certainmutualdiffidencebetweenthe groupingsof committees.

Anti-political or alternative political? Forms of action andstrategies

Havingestablishedthattheterritory is thecentralnodefor mobilizationof committees—or at leastfor their rhetoric— andthattheir organizationis weaklystructured,weneedtolook at the way they present their requestsand interact with institutions and the



surroundingenvironment.In otherwords,we haveto understandtheformsof actiontheyuseandthestrategiestheyadopt.Drawingon studiesof collectivemovements,it canbehypothesizedthat thereshouldbe an obviousrelationshipbetweenforms of action andforms of organizationand, in particular, that a low level of structural organizationcorrespondsto a more radical repertoireof action (Piven and Cloward,1977; Gamson,1990).Moregenerally,it hasbeennotedthatlackof powerresourcestendsto makeactorsuseprotestasa political resource(Lipsky, 1965).

The first variableon thebehaviourof citizens’ committeesrelatesto the typeof actiontheyfavour,whethertheyusepolitical pressureor preferprotest,whetherthey‘practisetheiraim’ (that is, they themselvesproduce the service they demand,which could involvemonitoring the environmentor the safety of residentsin their district, cleaninggardens,helpingchildrenor theelderly),or whethertheyhavegaineda channelof accessto politicalelites and thereforecan representthe intereststhat they articulate through mediation inappropriatecouncilsor relatedinstitutions.Previousresearchon citizens’ committeeshasnotedthat the typeof actiontheypreferis protest.This seemsto beconfirmedby our data,as can be seenin Table 5, with 90% of the committeeswe interviewedhaving usedthismethod.However, it is interestingto note that 13 committeesregularly use lobbying toinfluence decision-makingprocessesand that no fewer than five committeesexplicitlymentionedpolitical representationas their usual form of action — by which they meanparticipationin appropriateconsultativecommittees.Althoughwe alreadyknow thatprotestis typical of committees’repertoiresof action,it is usefulto askwhat formsof protesttheyprefer. They may be moderateor else radical; they can aim to gain consensusin publicopinionthroughappealsandleafletdistributionor throughstreetdemonstrationsor evenbyactingdirectly on the political elites.

Table6 showsthat themostradicalprotests,thosedefinedasconfrontational(that isblockades,sit-ins or evenoccupationsand hungerstrikes)are relatively rare, and thatcitizens’committees’repertoiresof actionmoreoftenconsistof directactionintendedtoinfluencepolicy-making— suchaspetitions,lettersto the administrationor petitionstothe RegionalAdministrativeCourt, or elsedirect appealsto the public throughculturaleventsor pressconferences.Moreover, protest seemsto be highly ‘mediated’, withappealsto public opinion launcheddirectly on the local pagesof newspapers.Ninecommitteesdeclaredthat they had frequentcontactwith the press,some— like thecoordinatorof SOSAlberi (Interview 11) — evenreferring to the internal headingsofnewspapers’local sections.Easy accessto the media reducesthe needto use radicalrepertoires.

All thingsconsidered,it alsoseemseasyto gain direct accessto institutions,andsocitizens’ committees— in Florence,at least — do not seemto have any interest inradicalizingencounterswith institutions,preferringto try to interactwith themin suchaway as to influence their choices.From our interviews with some of the citizens’committees’representatives,it becameapparentthat — despitetheir harshcriticismsofpartiesand the political classes— they do not seethemselvesas being a factor in the

Table 5 Typesof action usedby citizens’committees

Number % Responses % Cases

Lobbying 14 33 67Political representation(consultativecommittees) 5 12 24Protest 19 43 90Servicesto membersandassociates 2 5 9Servicesto others 3 7 14Total responses 43 100 204



delegitimizationof political representation.In fact, they feel they are driving forwardcitizens’demands,andoffering the informationandsupportthat the institutionsneedforgoodadministration.We havealreadycited someinterviewsin which representativesofcommitteesassertedthat they are acting as a structureof political mediationand thusreplacingthepolitical parties.Someothercommitteesstatedthat their aim wascertainlynot to createrevolution,but to act moderatelyin orderto achievetheir objectives.This,for example,appliedto the Sant’Orsolacommittee,whoserepresentativesaid ‘we havetried to be extremelycordial. We have sent very civil letters to the mayor. We havecontactedthe press,who havehelpedus out to a really enormousextent’ (Interview 2).Therepresentativeof theVia SantaChiaracommitteestatedthat ‘we arenot in favourofsensationalactionor radical protestactions.We know how to dealwith politicians andhow to talk to them.Themostviolent reactionshavecomefrom thosewho areculturallylesswell-equipped,paceKarl Marx, Lenin, theSocialEncyclicalsetc.’ (Interview10). Infact, thecommitteeshavedefinedtheir objectiveasbeingto solveconcreteproblems,andtheformsof actionconsideredmoreusefulto thispurposearemoderateones,with radicalonesoften stigmatizedascounter-productive.

However,if we look at thestructureof thealliancesformedby citizens’ committees(Table7), political parties— eventhoughtheyareviewedasinefficient — continueto beseenas necessaryinterlocutors:19 out of the 21 committeesdeclaredthat they haverelationswith them.It is well-known that citizens’ committeeshavedefinedthemselvesasapolitical andoften excludefrom their organizationpeoplewho arealreadyactive inparties,in ordernot to risk beingused.However,they explicitly statethat they do havecontactwith politicians,so that they will be heardby the institutions.It is interestingtonote that 18 of our committeeshavecontactswith centre-leftparties,while only sevenhavecontactswith thecentre-right.This mayreinforcetheideathatrelationswith partiesareviewedasinstrumental:committeesmaintainrelationswith thosepartiesthatoccupythe decision-makingpositionsin the local administration(and, in Florence,this means

Table 6 Typesof protestusedby citizens’committees

Number % Responses

Actions aimedat policy-making 34 32Direct appealsto the public 51 48Demonstrations 14 13Confrontationalprotest 8 7Total responses 107 100

Table 7 Citizens’ committees:contactswith social,public andprivate-sectoractors

Type of actor Number %

Organizationsin the environmentalmovement 14 67Legambiente 14 67Organizationsfrom othermovements 6 29Variousassociations 6 29Tradeunions 2 9Organizationsof entrepreneurs,shopkeepers,artisansetc. 7 33Political partiesin general 19 90Centre-rightparties 8 38Centre-leftparties 19 90Churchor otherreligiousgroups 8 38



thoseof the centre-left),andonly when the issueis particularly contesteddo they alsoseeksupportfrom oppositionparties.Furthermore,our indicatorsonrelationswith partiescontradictthe widespreadimpressionthat committeeson security favour contactswithright-wing parties:all our committeesthathadcontactswith centre-rightpartiesalsohadthem with centre-left parties. Moreover, it should be noted that only four of thecommitteesmobilizing aroundsecurity issueshavecontactswith partiesof the centre-right, while five of themhavecontactsonly with partiesof the centre-left,andonewithno party (Table8).

Although parties are more frequent interlocutors,other types of actors are alsoconsideredstrategicallyimportantby committees.Among movementorganizations,theenvironmentalistonesare more popular, and among them Legambientewas the onementionedmost (all committeesthat have contactswith environmentalistassociationsalso have them with Legambiente).Among special interest organizations,those ofshopkeepers,artisansor entrepreneursare contactedmore than trade unions; and theparishes,often usedas meetingcentresby committees,are held in high regard.Theprivileged relationship with environmentalistorganizationscan be explained by thepertinencefor citizens’ committeesof defendingterritory. However,these‘pragmatic’alliancesdo not precludea certain diffidence towards some associations,which areviewed as an integral part of the structuredpolitical representationthat can stifle thespontaneityof committees.This wasinstancedby our interview with the coordinatorofIdra,whichbringstogetherseveralcommitteesopposedto thehigh-speedrailway system:

Theseassociationsare not only the environmentalistones,and there is a kind of geneticmutation of the role that theseassociationsplay: some have tendedto drive politics in aparticulardirection,but mainly — partly becauseof the essentialfinancing they receivefromthe private sectorand partly becauseof their equally essentialpublic-sectorfunding — theyhave,onemight say,movedawayfrom a Utopianoutlookto a considerationof thepossible,thepracticable— and,therefore,themarketable.They fight battlesusingimages,andso theywillshowyou thehistoriccentreof Florence,andthingslike that— but whenit comesto structuralinterventionsthat could defacethe city, like high-speedrailways, when they’re askedaboutthemin public, theysaythattheycando nothingmore.And sowe do otherthings.Theyaretooattachedto their cushy jobs, so the official environmentalistposition is to stick to a jointposition and to reject conflict. Another aspectof the so-called ‘modern’ environmentalistassociationsis that theyhavebecomea kind of client — theygeta lot of commissionsfrom theinstitutionsto studyandplan so-called‘environmentalprojects’ (Interview 9).

As we havealreadyseen,citizens’committeeshavea pragmaticattitude:their formsof action are moderate,protest is consideredan extrememeasure,and they generallyprefer direct contactwith institutions to tackle everydayproblems.From this point ofview, relationswith political partiesareonly oneof themovesin a very complexgame,involving electedadministratorsaswell asthebureaucracy,membersof theCity Counciland Chairsof District Councils.Thus, this flexible form of pressureon the centresof

Table 8 Committeeson security: relationswith centre-rightparties

Securitycommittee Centre-right TotalNo Yes

No 7 4 1164% 36% 100%

Yes 6 4 1060% 40% 100%

Total 13 8 2162% 38% 100%



power seemsto be exertedalmostexclusivelyat local governmentlevel, rarely goingbeyondtheconfinesof theRegion.Althoughno fewer than20 out of our 21 committeeshavecontinuousrelationswith thevariousinterlinkedpartsof theCity Government,and19 havesimilar relationswith theChairsof District Councils,only threecommitteesarein contactwith the Provinceandsix in contactwith the Region(Table9). The fact thattheydonotactmuchbeyondtheregionallevel is understandable:their claimsoftenrelateto areasof competencewithin thesphereof local government,andat thesametime theirweak organizationalstructurepreventsthem from exercisingsteadypressureon higherinstitutional levels. Relationswith those who hold political power are, therefore,ofcrucial importanceandrepresenttheir channelof mobilizationagainstinefficient politicalrepresentation;moreover,their activities may, in showing up the weaknessesof theadministration,to someextentre-legitimizetraditionalchannelsof mediation.Whentheadministration‘opensup’ (seethenextsection),it mayseemthattheyarejust respondingsymbolically (Edelman,1964) to concreteproblems — and often does seem so tocitizens’committees;however,thefact thatmanyof themtakepartin adhocconsultativecommitteesshowsthat interactionand mediationwith the public administrationare, infact, accessible.As can be seenin Table 10, no fewer than 13 citizens’ committeesparticipatein district-levelconsultativecommittees,while eight do so at the level of theCity Government.

It might be expectedthat greaterpropensitytowardsforms of political mediationwould correspondto morestructuredforms of organization.However,cross-referencing‘being registeredand having articles of association’,which indicate organizationalconsolidation,with participation — or not — in the City Government’sconsultativecommittees,we observethat only threeof the eight citizens’ committeeswith regularregisteredstatusparticipatein city-level consultativecommittees.

To conclude,therefore,it would seemthat their weakly structuredform doesnotinhibit citizens’ committeesfrom using a conventionalrepertoireof well-consolidatedactions,which permits,andevenfavours,contactwith institutions.

Table 9 Citizens’committees:levelsof institutional contact

Institutional level No. of committees %

Europeaninstitutions 2 9Stateinstitutions 2 9Regionalinstitutions 6 29Provincial institutions 3 14Local authority institutionsat City level 20 95District institutions 19 90

Table 10 Citizens’ committees:participationin consultativecommittees

Participationin consultativecommittees No. of citizens’ committees %participating

Regionalcommittees 2 9Provincialcommittees 2 9City committees 8 38District committees 13 62



Administration and committees

Local governmentseemsto seethe needto respondto the crisis in the political parties’ability to mediate,by allowing previously excludedsocial actorsaccessto mediationbodiesandpublicdecision-making.This is evidencedby thenumerousagreementssignedwith environmentalistassociationsby both thecity andthe region;by extensionof somebodiesthat interactwith the public (like the Secretariatof the City Council’s TransportandMobility Department);and,aboveall, by theopeningof ad hocoffices— organizedto varyingdegrees— to improvethequality of life throughinteractionwith citizens,likethe Office for a SafeCity andthe Office for a SustainableCity. Our interviewswith themanagersof someof theseoffices showedtheir high level of awarenessof changeinmechanismsfor transmittingdemand,with theadministrationtendingincreasinglyto playa role in mediationand in channellingconflicts. As one of the seniorofficials of theSecretariatof the City Council’s TransportandMobility Departmentobserved,citizens’committeesnowadayspresentdirectly a seriesof requeststhat usedto arrive alreadyfiltered throughthe parties:

Citizensareaskingfor changesin the way parkingis regulated,andfor well-madepavementsandstreets.Whatwe do is to maintaincontinuousrelationswith thesecommitteesandonceweare awareof their need— which often is just what is really needed— we contactour localoffices to carry it out . . . The political partiesarelosing contactwith citizens,soour technicaloffices are turning into receptaclesfor citizens’ requests.And they do come in — in theirhundreds.I mustsay,they areon the increase,there’sa big increase. . . therearepeoplewhoevenwrite in four timesa day . . . andmy reply is: ‘‘Letters like yoursact asa stimulus:theybring thesesorepointsout into theopenandshowuswhatneedsto bedone— andhow muchneedsto be done’’. We get 400 to 500 lettersa year (Interview A).

However,makingdemandsdirectly to theadministrationcannotbeexplainedsolelybytheweaknessof othermediationbodies:it alsoresults from growing awarenesson thepartof citizensof a seriesof rights.‘Citizensnowadaysknow that therearelawsguaranteeingthemcertainrights’ (InterviewB); thus,‘ascitizensacquirethisawarenessof theirpowertodemand,to attend,to participate,theythrow themselvesinto it. This convictiononly cameto aheadafew yearsago. . . andnowcitizensarestrengthened by their rightsandcomeoutwith their demands,so we do what we can’ (Interview A). Therefore,someoffices aretaking on the function of directly receivingandtransmittingdemands:

We arethe link connectingcitizensto the administration,anda thorn in the sideof the officeswhosejob is to get things done. . . Requestscometo us abouteverythingfrom securityandquality of life to sound-absorbentroadsurfaces,speedhumps,pavements,zebracrossingsandthepositioningof wheeliebins,right throughto transportandmobility plansfor agivendistrict.We eachget about40 telephonecalls a day from outside. . . Individual citizensaskfor smallinterventions;the committeesgenerallyhavea broadervision. Becausewe know the City’stransportand mobility programmes,we can speedup interventionson the basisof citizens’requests,andwe do so fairly often. I havebeenin contactwith about15 committees.A goodnumberof requestscometo us from the districts, and they can act as a good link with CityCouncilDepartments,becausemanycitizensput forwardtheir requirementsto theChairmanoftheDistrict Council or to theDistrict’s seniorofficial for transportandmobility . . . Obviously,thosewho exertmorepressuregeta quickerreply — andthesamegoesfor thedistricts:thosewho aremoredivided exert lesspressure(Interview B).

Relationswith citizens’ committeesaresoughtafter,althoughin varyingdegrees.Inparticular,the Director of the Office for a SafeCity, institutedin 1999by the Mayor’sOffice, stressesthat interactionwith citizens, in particular with organizedcitizens, iscentralto his work:

We havemadeuseof the Mayor’s positionon the CommitteeFor Law And OrderandPublicSafety to try and get contactsin some districts to put us in touch with the situation of



associations,in orderto find out their problemsandreportthemin theCommittee,throughtheMayor. Often the citizens’ committeeshavecontactedus,sometimeswe havecontactedthem,wheretherehavebeenknownproblems:in particular,given that we areguidedby theconceptof integratedsecurity,we havecontactedcitizens’committeesbeforetakingdecisions,in orderto find out whattheproblemswereandhowtheythoughttheyshouldberesolved.TheOffice ispart of a civic network.We havemet citizens’ committeesjust to get to know them:we havehadcontactwith 30 to 40committeesandassociations. . . I really think our relationswith all thecommitteesandassociationsarea positive thing (Interview C).

One objective of this Office is in fact to coordinatethe various committeesand tostructuretheir interactionwith the public administration.The Director evensays:

I would like to succeedin bringingtogethercitizens’committeesandcreatinga relationship—a communicationsstrategy— throughwhich I couldgo someway towardsservicingthem.I’dlike to setascaleof priority for requests,whichwould thenallow me,in my privilegedposition,to contactthe variousadministrations.We havea securityagreement,the first onehereon theFrenchmodel— theChairmanof theDistrict Council is a permanentmemberof this,alongsiderepresentativesof the forcesof law andorder,andfrom time to time the citizens’ committeesbecomeinvolved, to tackle their district’s problems.It’s very important(Interview C).

Even though they emphasizedit less, the City Council’s Transport and MobilityDepartmentdemonstratedthattheypaysomeattentionto directcontactwith citizenswhoget in touchwith theadministration:‘In general,it is thecommitteeswho contactus.Wereceivesomanyphonecalls.Theywrite to us,tell uswhattheyneed,we contactthemorleave them a telephonenumber, or trace them through the addressesof the firstsignatories.Thenour technicaloffice makesan on-the-spotinvestigation,decidingwhatis to bedoneat streetlevel, draftinga smallplanandshowingit to them.Thenextphaseis to put it into effect’ (Interview A).

Bringing togetherdiverseinterests— ‘to createsynergybetweenpeople,resourcesandcontacts’— wasrepresentedto usasa basicfunctionof theOffice for a SustainableCity, setup in 1997to facilitate Agenda21 beingcarriedout:

Thefunctionof theOffice is to bring thevariousactorstogetheraroundthetable,find a way ofmediating between them, even intervene to a certain extent, to open up a processofparticipatoryplanning.It’s not enoughto signa petition: thingshaveto be broughtto fruition.For example, we launchedAgenda 21 in District 4, in this case from above, with theenvironmentalistassociationsand the Chairmanof the Council of District 4 . . . We choseanareaandheld a meetingwith all the offices in the district. We setup meetingswith schools,becausethey includethis projectin their curriculum.This is the ideaof participatoryplanning:we went to people’shouses,to the parishes,to political associations.We providedthemwithpremises,but they had to managethem themselves— for example,opening and closing,cleaningetc.Thesearesmallformsof participation.First thecoordinatorsmustbefunctional,inorder to enterinto a processof interaction,and thenpeoplecan talk aboutthe solutionstheywant to see(Interview D).

In addition to this trust in cooperative(‘win-win’) moves,there seemsto be a hopeemergingthat citizens’ committeescancontributeto civic growth.As thedirectorof theOffice for a SustainableCity said to us:

There is a needfor the committeesto createa minimum strategy,including things that it’sfeasiblefor themto do autonomously.Thereneedsto bea recoveryof local societythatwill becapableof overcominga numberof local problems,andthat will allow themto do somethingdirectly for themselves,for their own quality of life. After all, this kind of action has apsychologicaleffect: they feel theycanbypasstheadministration,insteadof just settlingdownto wait (Interview D).

However,thereis alsoa perceptionthat citizens’ committeesrisk fragmentingdemands.In fact, someintervieweesdrew a cleardistinctionbetweentypesof committees:



Sometimes,in reality, a committee is one person with 15 signatures,while others havesignificant capacitiesfor planning. Often a committeedefendsonly its own area,withoutunderstandingthat in doing so it is pushingtraffic into otherareas(Interview B).

Committeesarespringingup like mushrooms,evenstreetby street.Without losingsightof theneedsof individuals,theadministrationhasto look after thecollectivegood.Fromthis point ofview, committeeshavea commondenominator:improving conditionsin the placewheretheylive. In somecases,this is just onestreet,but in the enormousmajority, it is within a broaderarea.Thosewho areinterestedin just onestreetmakeme think that they areout for their ownpersonaladvantageandtheyaresimply movingthemessinto thenextstreet. . . Thosewho areinterestedin a broaderarea,however,are trying to restorequality of life to a district, and Ibelievethattheir work is for thegoodof thewholecity. However,thosewhoareinterestedonlyin onestreet— or stretchof street— areworking for themselves(Interview A).

This mistruston thepartof theadministrationdoesnot, however,arisesolelyout offragmentationof demand,but also out of internal fragmentationbetweenoffices, localbodiesand public participationcompanies.Thus, theseoffices often bring into contactrepresentativesof variousCity Councildepartmentsanddistrict councils,public bodiesatvariouslevelsandpublic participationfirms, aswell asassociationsandcommittees.Thiscomplexityof interventionis seenasnecessitatingcoordinationandmediationactivities,both inside and outsideinstitutions: ‘you haveto answercomplexity with complexity’(InterviewD). Interventionon security,for example,is presentedas‘flexible, globalandinterinstitutional’:

Citizens’ committeesareasking— often with an undueemphasison problems— for a policepresence,butthis is notalwaysasolution.Sometimestheyalsoraiseproblemsthatdonothavetododirectlywith security,but indirectly— cleaning,urbanregeneration,lighting. Theirproblemsoftenrelateto ‘soft’ crime— minor infringements— or elseareexpressionsof malaise,whichmakepeoplefeel insecureaboutgoing out: in fact, thesego hand-in-hand. . . andthey haveaconsiderableimpacton people’sperceptions.This hasled, for example,to our emergencycallpoints in parks.Often the perceptionis the true problem.For us, security is not simply theoppositeof criminality: it is linked to improvingthequality of life in general— lighting, streetcleaning,meetingplaces— and to the presenceof committeesand associationsthat are insynergywith theadministration.I amconvincedthatit is really importantto succeedin creatinganetworkof participants— not to act aspatrols,but to signalproblems(Interview C).4

Conclusions

In summingup,wecansay,on thebasisof our interviewswith 21citizens’committeesinthe Florencearea,that mostof themwereorganizedin the secondhalf of the 1990sorlater.Their distributionseemsto bemoreor lesshomogeneousin all districtsof thecity.Our focuson Districts1, 3 and5 showedthat thethemecommonto citizens’committeesis defenceof the quality of life on their own territory. Seenfrom this point of view,security and the environment are not alternative themes but complementaryones.Moreover,evenwhenthey mobilize on securityissues,citizens’ committeesrarely referto immigrationasa causeof nuisanceslike drug-pushingor prostitution;they tendto beaskingthe administrationfor a redefinitionof town planningpolicy ratherthana simplelaw andorder intervention,althoughthe latter is alsoconsideredfundamental.

4 There are also difficulties emerging in the interaction between managementand the executive,administratorsand politicians, especiallyin relation to financing various interventions.As one of themembersof theCity Council’s TransportandMobility Departmentstressed:‘The role of managementisnow mostimportant.We makepolitical inputs,but if theDirectorhasnot planneda particularexpenseweareblocked.The administrationis not immovable,but movementdoesnot alwaysgeneratea product. . .that is the problem’ (Interview B).



Friendshipandneighbourhoodnetworkslie at theoriginsof thesecommittees,asdoassociativeexperiencesof varioustypes.The previousexperienceof many activists inpolitical parties,associationsand tradeunionshasprovidedthe secureknowledgebasenecessaryfor collectiveorganization.Somecommitteesarefoundedon functional,ratherthanterritorial, solidarity — notablythat of shopkeepers.However,thereis no evidenceof differencesbetweenthestructureandactionof committeesthatdependon thepresenceof shopkeepersand those made up of political activists and membersof voluntaryassociations.

From the organizationalpoint of view, citizens’ committeesseemto be structurallyweak (as alreadyevidencedby other research):ours often had no more than 10 activemembers;their budgetswerelimited andcamedirectly from members;only five of themhadregularizedtheir status.However,theyoftenmobilize beyondthe level of thestreet,covering the ward or the district, or sometimeseven the province.Comparingcentraldistricts with thoseon the peripheryshowedthat most of the committeeswith regularstatusandthosewith a moregenerallevel of mobilizationarefoundon theperiphery.Asregardsformsof actionandstrategies,we notedthatprotestremainsa basicresourcefortheseorganizations,but that it hasassumeda moderate,mediatedform andtendsto bedirectedat influencingthe decision-makingprocessratherthanconstructinga collectiveidentity. Relationswith public authorities,with partiesandpolitical institutionsarealsoconsideredmore relevant than relations with other, movement-typeorganizationsorassociations.Environmentalistorganizationsrepresentan exceptionto this, especiallyLegambiente,which is oftenmentionedasanimportantally. Anothersignificantaspectisthat of growing interactionsbetweencommitteesseeking to generalizethe level ofmobilization and, therefore,the issueson which they protest.This fact is important,becauseit could indicatethat a collectiveurbanmovementis in the making,mobilizingon issuesof servicesandquality of life in the city.

Their critical attitude towardsexisting forms of political representationdoesnotpreventcitizens’committeesfrom regularlyparticipatingin activitiesthatputpressureonpublic authoritiesand also — despitetheir low level of formalization — in regularconsultativecommitteesandpolitical mediation.Citizens’committeesseemto achieveacertainsuccessin their interactionswith institutions.In exertingpressureto blockprojectsdecided‘at the centre’,they find allies in local bodiesandin the bureaucracy,andtheyoften also succeedin theseintentions,blocking infrastructuredevelopmentswith highenvironmentalimpactandbringing an influx of public resourcesinto the protestarea.

Thus,thecrisis in thepolitical parties’capacityfor mediationdoesnot seemto haveled to a reflux in theprivate,nor to ananomicexplosionof conflicts.On thecontrary,theweaknessof party patronageseemsto haveliberateda seriesof energiesandcapacities,built up duringearliermobilizations,andto be directingformsof engagementno longertowards ‘absolute politics’ (Pizzorno,1996), but towards a condition experiencedas‘immediate’ and presentedas ‘limited’. Resourcesfor collective action have beentransferredfrom thecollectivemovementsof thepastto newmobilizations,bringing thecapacityto promoteprotestandto useit throughthecommunicationsmediaandwith theinstitutions.It alsoseemsasif pastmobilizationexperienceshaveleft other institutionsbroadly — if selectively— open to negotiating,at least with thoseactorsconsideredworthy of recognition.Thus,in thepast,theproblemof conflict managementwaslinkedmoreto thestrongideologizationof theactorsof protest:nowadays,in contrast,it seemsto derive from the political institutions’ weak capacity for creating ‘high’ collectiveidentities, thus postponing the achievementof objectives over a long period, andmediatingbetweenthe egoismsof individuals.

The activitiesof citizens’ committeesseem,therefore,to be adaptingto the gradualweakeningof the parties’ capacity to act on two fronts of representation:that ofidentificationandthatof efficiency(Pizzorno,1996).Identificationactivitiesare,in fact,becoming the prerogative of new subjects, while the parties maintain control of



representativeinstitutions and, therefore, of efficient activity. Through their ownadministrators, theytoo interactwith theactorsof protest,presentingthemselvesasmoreor less close to them, mediating,seekingsolutions — but are no longer capableofdevelopingor promotingthe acceptanceof comprehensiveinterpretationsfor causesofdissatisfactionor for possiblesolutions.However, this identification activity is beingcarriedonby groups,voluntaryassociationsandcommittees,whichaddresstheir requeststo institutions,bypassingparty mediation.So the weakeningof the partiesseemsto behaving an effect on the typesof collective identity emerging,which in fact reject themajor ideologies,the questfor the universaland the postponementinto the future ofsatisfactionof one’s own claims. In both spheres,even if in very different ways,interventionis concentratedat the local level andseeksto havean immediateeffect.Fortheparties,thisseemsto meansettingthemselvesthegoalof adaptingto theroleof ‘high-efficiency’ mediatorsof identity built elsewhere.However,for protestentrepreneurs,whofind themselvesmanagingconsiderablecollectiveactionassets‘in thehereandnow’, thestakeseemsto bethecapacityto give stability over time to manymobilizationresourcesthat appearvery ephemeralat the moment.

Thesechangesmake it necessaryto adjust the instrumentsused for analysisofcollective movements— starting with redefining the concept of movement itself.Although, traditionally, the intervention of movements has been conceived aspredominantlylimited to mobilizing public opinion— andthroughthat,political parties— nowadaysthe analysishasto extendto otherphasesof the decision-makingprocess.Analysisof political opportunitiesfor protesthasshownthe role of the partiesasallies,but recent researchsuggeststhat, alongsidethe electoral arenaand the channelsofdemocraticrepresentation,the policy arenais anothervery important areafor protest,with its channelsand rules that go beyonddemocraticrepresentation.Relationshere,whetherof cooperationor of conflict, arenot developingmainly with theparties,butwiththeir representativesin governmentand in the administration.

To conclude,it seemsthateventhoughthereis a disjuncturebetweenidentification-based representationand efficient representation,the role of interactions betweenmovementsandinstitutionsremainsimportant,if typically very differently from thepast.Organizationsof movementsareacquiringconsiderabledegreesof freedomin relationtothetraditionalactionsof ‘patronage’maintainedby political partiesin thepast.Sincetheycanno longerusea privilegedrelationshipwith thepartyastheir mainkey for accesstoinstitutions,movementsmust be equippedto accomplishsomefunctions‘on their ownaccount’, using a multiplicity of organizational forms, ideological discoursesandstrategiesfor action — which we have alreadydescribed.Despitethis, the ‘new-newmovements’do not appearto be completely deprived of channelsof accessto theinstitutions.Indeed,it seemsthat thereis a gradualopeningof theadministration— andin particularof electedadministrators,that is, representativesof theparties— towardsadialogue with any emergent interestedparties. Dramatically aware of the gradualcrumblingof their ‘core support’,theparties— or at leastadministratorsbelongingto theparties— seemto be graduallymorepermeableto accumulateddemandsfrom below.

Therefore,althoughwehavecapturedsomesignsof thevariousactorsadaptingto thenew connotationsof representation,there are also visible difficulties in this transitionphase.As far astheorganizationof movementsis concerned,whatis at stakeseemsto bethe capacityto build lesslocalistic andmore lasting identities.The role of the politicalpartiesin a variedstructureof representationwill certainlynot becomeoutdated:still themainactorsin selectingthepolitical class,theycanalwaysbecalledon to fulfil importantmediation and guaranteefunctions. It will certainly not be easy for them to adaptorganizationallyand, especially,strategically to a situation in which the making ofidentitiestakesplacepredominantlyelsewhere.This raisesnot only theproblemof tryingto mediatecontinually betweenlocalistic — and often opposing— pressures,but alsothat of the needto maintaina type of participationnot orientedsolely towardsmaterial



incentives.Although the tradition of attachmentto one’sown privatepreservecanbeanobstacleto understandingemergingrequirementsandidentities,excessivepermeabilitytoparticularisticdemandscan reducethe capacity to carry out ‘efficient representation’activities.

Donatella della Porta ([email protected]) and Massimiliano Andretta ([email protected]),University of Florence,Dispo,Via Valori 9, 50132Firenze,Italy.

Appendix: Interviews

(a) With committees:

Interview 1: Representativeof the SanPierinoCommittee,District 1Interview 2: Representativesof the Sant’OrsolaCommittee,District 1Interview 3: Coordinatorof the Joint Committeesagainstthe Third Lane,District 5Interview 4: Representativeof the IntercommitteeCoordination,District 1Interview 5: Representativeof the Via LauraCommittee,District 1Interview 6: Representativesof the TerzolleCommittee,District 3Interview 7: Representativesof the Borgo di PeretolaCommittee,District 5Interview 8: Representativesof the EnvironmentalDefenceCommittee,District 3Interview 9: Representativesof the Idra Committeeagainsthigh-speedtraffic, District 5Interview 10: Representativeof the Via SantaChiaraCommittee,District 3Interview 11: Coordinatorof SOS-Alberi

(b) With public administrators:

Interview A: Representativeof the Secretariatof the City Council’s Transport andMobility Department,InspectorBencini

Interview B: Representativeof the Secretariatof the City Council’s Transport andMobility Department,InspectorOttanelli

Interview C: Director of the Office for a SafeCity, Dr FilucchiInterview D: Managerof the Office for a SustainableCity, Dr Pozzi

References

Bobbio, L. (ed.) (1994) Di questo accordo lieto. Sulla risoluzione negoziale dei conflittiambientali. Rosenberg& Sellier, Turin.

—— (1996) La democrazianon abita a Gordio. Studio sui processi decisionali politico-amministrativi. Angeli, Milan.

—— (1999)Un processoequoperunalocalizzazioneequa.In L. BobbioandA. Zeppetella(eds.),Percheproprio qui? Grandi operee opposizionilocali, FrancoAngeli, Milan.

Brunello,U. (ed.)(1996)L’urbanisticadel disprezzo.CampiRomesocietaitaliana. ManifestolibriSrl., Rome.

della Porta,D. (2001) I partiti politici. Il Mulino, Bologna.—— andM. Diani (1999)Socialmovements. Blackwell, Oxford.Edelman,M. (1964)Thesymbolicusesof politics. University of Illinois Press,Urbana,IL.Elkin, S. (1987)City and regime. University of ChicagoPress,Chicago.Gamson,W. (1990)Thestrategyof social protest. 2nd edition, Wadsworth,Belmont,CA.Gould, K.A., A. Schnaibergand A.S. Weinberg(1996) Local environmentalstruggles. Citizen

activismin the treadmill of production. CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge.Le Gales, P. (1995) Du gouvernementdesvilles a la gouvernanceurbaine.RevueFrancaise de

SciencePolitique 45, 57–95.Lipsky, M. (1965)Protestin city politics. RandMcNally & Co., Chicago.



Logan,J.R.andH.L. Molotch(1987)Urbanfortunes.Thepolitical economyof place. UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley.

McAdam, D., J. McCarthy and M.N. Zald (eds.) (1996) Comparativeperspectiveon socialmovements,political opportunities,mobilizing structures,and cultural framing. CambridgeUniversity Press,CambridgeandNew York.

Orr, M. andG. Stoker(1994)Urbanregimesandleadershipin Detroit.UrbanAffairs Quarterly30,48–73.

Palidda,S. (2000)Polizia postmoderna. Feltrinelli, Milan.Petrillo A. (1999) Insicurezza,migrazioni,cittadinanza.Unpublishedmanuscript.Pizzorno,A. (1996)Mutamentinelle istituzioni rappresentativee sviluppodei partiti politici. In P.

Anderson,M. Aymard,P. Bairoch,W. BarberisandC. Ginzburg(eds.),Storia d’Europa,Vol.V: L’Europa contemporanea, Einaudi,Turin.

Piven,F.F. andR. Cloward(1977)Poor people’smovements. Pantheon,New York.Snow,D.A. andR.D.Benford(1988)Ideology,frameresonanceandparticipantmobilization.In B.

Klandermans,H. Kriesi andS. Tarrow (eds.),From structureto action, JAI Press,Greenwich,CT.

Stone,C. andH.T. Sanders(1987)Reexamininga classiccaseof developmentpolitics. In C. StoneandH.T. Sanders,Thepolitics of urban development, University Pressof Kansas,Lawrence.

Tarrow, S. (1998) Power in movement.Social movementsand contentiouspolitics. 2nd edition,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge.

Thomas,J.C.andH. Savitch(1991)Introduction:big city politics, thenandnow.In H. SavitchandJ.C.Thomas,Big city politics in transition, Sage,NewburyPark,CA.

Tilly, C. (1984)Socialmovementsandnationalpolitics. In C. Bright andS. Harding(eds.),State-makingandsocialmovements:essaysin historyandtheory, Universityof MichiganPress,AnnArbor.



social movements and public administration: spontaneus citizens’ committees in florence

Documents