Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
34
The events regarding the Strait of Messina Bridge seem to make an exemplary case in
the Italian social-political context. In spite of the fact that the Bridge was presented as a
crucial element in the context of a general modernization plan of Italy and became part of a
more complex road network envisaged by the EU (the Corridor 1 Berlin-Palermo), the lack of
social participation in the decision-making process and the ambiguous behaviour of some
local administrations triggered local actors’ opposition. As a result, the Bridge is only on
paper, the legitimacy of the Bridge is in doubt and the realization of the project appears far
from becoming a reality.
In short, well beyond the realization of the infrastructure, we have attempted to study
the effects of a unilateral governmental decision on a territory that tries to generate its own
autonomous socio-economic development, on which the presence of the Bridge could have a
frustrating effect. We have investigated the viewpoint of the local movement born with the
aim of contrasting the Bridge project, the ‘Rete No Ponte’ (literally, ‘Network No Bridge’;
from now on, RNP). We used qualitative methods, particularly the construction of case-
studies. The collection of the empirical material was organized in two main ways: in-depth
interviews with ten important members of the RNP movement, and the analysis of the
information given in the main national and local newspapers over the last five years. Useful
material has also been collected through participation in some demonstrations against the
Bridge organized in Messina between July and August 2010. The study of legislative
framework (national and local) and of socio-political literature on this issue also has provided
a useful database.
The first section of the discussion that follows explains the theoretical framework
adopted and the key-concepts used in this research. The second section offers a short story of
the Bridge. The sections from third to fifth focus on an analysis of the case study. The
concluding section summarizes our findings.
Social Movements and Conflicts: A Framework
Recently, an interesting study has analysed the complex issue of the legitimacy of governance
(Pardo and Prato 2011), showing how in a democracy the authority of rulers must be
recognized on
moral
and
legal
grounds because the democratic process is based on a
fundamental accord between the rulers and the will of the people. Consequently, social
conflict about policies can be seen as an expression of a failed connection between these two
aspects. It also leads us to reconsider citizenship as a ‘relationship concept’, for the way in
which governance is experienced by different social groups tends to reflect the existence of
different categories of citizens. From this viewpoint it is clear that social conflict can be
considered as a redefinition and a renegotiation of political power and of the legitimacy of
State actions in any context where public decision-making disregards local interests.
Some anthropological studies have also analysed how environmental movements use
discursive strategies in the social conflict as a kind of ‘transactional’ action (Tarrow and
Petrona 2006, Torsello 2011). In other words, these works have shown how, in order to reach
their goals, social movements manage to change their strategies according to the different
political and social actors with which they interact. These studies look at environmentalism –
