Urbanities,
Vol. 4
·
No 2
·
November 2014
© 2014
Urbanities
45
made possible by the 2011 referendums and the subsequent abrogation of the legislation that
obliged local government to turn to the market for water resource management.
However, the problems in Naples are not over. The Campania regional government is
accused of maintaining control over large aqueducts with a view to selling them to private
companies. Also in this case, the Civic Committees, assisted by their lawyers, have suggested
legislative changes at a regional level, thus accepting to participate in the political debate
among the members of different political parties in the Regional Board. However, the
Regional Council recently approved a law that conflicts with the results of the 2011
referendums in so far as it invokes the respect of competition rules, prescribing submission of
the water service to market laws. This law has been challenged through an appeal to the
Constitutional Court.
Disconnected Governance and the Crisis of Legitimacy
In recent times the problem of water management in Italy has generated a sharp contrast
between citizens and government, pointing to a tension ‘between state morality, and
community and individual moralities as they are encapsulated in the processes of government,
bureaucracy and legislation’ (Pardo 2000).
The results of the 2011 referendums and the following rulings of Constitutional Court
gave Government and Parliament explicit legislative guidelines. It is also clear that any
intervention concerning water management must take into account the fact that Italian citizens
have clearly expressed their will: water management must be kept public, must not be
subjected to the logic of profit and must be efficient. The people participating in the National
Water Forum have expressed an alternative political will and viewpoint on the Law and its
application; the committees, associations and activists of the Forum embody a morality and
ethics now waiting to be converted into law in line with the Italian Constitution. We have
seen that this political will is accepted in some jurisdictional quarters, such as the
Constitutional Court, but is still not fully accepted by parliament and central government.
Borrowing from Pardo and Prato (2011), I have therefore titled this section ‘Disconnected
Governance and the Crisis of Legitimacy’. Here, the relationship ‘between those who have the
power to make decisions and those who have [to live] with the practical effects of such
decisions’ does appear to be increasingly difficult (Pardo and Prato 2011: 3). It is indeed
significant that the Forum has defined its fight as a campaign of ‘civil obedience’.
Hannah Arendt wrote that ‘Civil disobedience arises when a significant number of
citizens have become convinced either that the normal channels of change no longer function,
and grievances will not be heard or acted upon, or that, on the contrary, the government is
about to change and has embarked upon and persist in modes of action whose legality and
constitutionality are open to grave doubt’ (1972: 74). For the Forum, disobedience to current
laws is not ‘civil disobedience’; it is
obedience to
a different kind of political choice, a choice
highlighted by democratic participation recognized by the Constitution but cannot find the
way to become law. It is as if Government and Parliament base their reasoning on the
dominant economic theory, while the community lays claim to a morality and ethics
unmistakably alternative to the laws of the free market.
