Tensions within the Forum
Tensions in
alliances within and between trade unions and social movements are normal and
the Italian water movement was no exception in this respect. First, there were
tensions inside CGIL, the largest Italian trade union confederation. While
Funzione Pubblica – CGIL (FP-CGIL), the largest Italian trade union federation
organising public sector workers, strongly supported the movement against
privatisation from 2004/2005 onwards, the smaller federation FILCTEM – Chimica,
Tessile, energia, manifatture, which actually organises workers in privatised
water companies, played no role. Having a much more narrow vision of its tasks
as a trade union, it argued that it does not matter whether a company is
private or public as long as the workers of these companies have good salaries
and working conditions. In the end, CGIL as the confederation came down on the
side of FP-CGIL during the referendum campaign. Nevertheless, there had been
genuine concerns about unsettling the balance between forces on the right of
the union, focusing on social partnership and social dialogue with employers
and the government, and forces on the left and their emphasis on broader
alliances and wider struggles.
Moreover, for
some within the Italian trade union movement there had been concerns about
co-operation with other, often more radical organisations which were outside
their control of trade unions. The G8 meeting in Genova in 2001 and the
violence occurring around the large counter-demonstration at the time were
still fresh in the memories of union activists. Many argued that trade unions
cannot co-operate with these people of the black block, regarded as prone to
violence. By contrast, the rank-and-file unions USB and Cobas, also actively participating
in the Forum, have had no problems with this, being already involved in all
kinds of networks and alliances as a result of their very different
constitution and ideological outlook.
Inside the
movement, the large FP-CGIL struggled with the form of co-operation, in which
each organisation had the same weight regardless of the number of its members.
The national Coordination Committee, which is composed of representatives from
territorial committees and national associations, is the main decision-making
body. Every water committee, even if it is from a small village, can send a
representative with an at least formally equal say in decisions, as, for
example, the large FP-CGIL. From a representative democracy perspective, this
was regarded by some as undemocratic. At the same time, however, it is pointed
out that the Forum is based on consensus and that while every representative
has an equal voice, in practice those representing large organisations have
carried a greater weight in discussions and, therefore, decision-making.
On the other
hand, many social movement activists had concerns about co-operating with trade
unions, which they perceived to be conformist and part of the establishment.
They accused them, for example, of over-looking the plight of the increasingly
large number of precarious workers. The Comitato Italiano Contratto Mondiale
sull’Acqua (CICMA), the Italian wing of the world water contract movement, was
also slightly critical of the involvement of trade unions, perceived to
represent special interests. People would be citizens first with a human right
to water, and workers second. The campaign could not really incorporate issues
such as workers’ pay and working conditions and remain broad and inclusive at
the same time, it was argued.
Finally, the
left-oriented network of social centres ARCI (Associazione Ricreativa e
Culturale Italiana) was a member of the Forum as well as the catholic network
of social centres ACLI (Associazioni cristiane dei lavoratori italiani).
Although they deal with similar social problems, they come from rather
different ideologically backgrounds. While ACLI is affiliated to the Catholic
Church, ARCI is a left-wing, antifascist movement. How was it possible to unite
such a variety of different organisations successfully?
Water as the rallying
point on the road towards victory
It was
especially the single issue of water, which made the large alliance possible.
There had been many concrete examples, which demonstrated that privatisation
had not resulted in more efficiency, lower prices and higher water quality. The
necessary investment in infrastructure had not been made and prices had gone
up. While CGIL federations are in disagreement with USB and Cobas on all trade
union issues – the latter accuse the former of having regarded themselves as
co-managers of capital since 1992/1993 – water privatisation and its negative
implications for workers and users allowed them to come together in a joint
campaign.
 |
| Photo by Daniela Napoli |
Moreover, the
theme of water also included symbolic power with water being understood as a
fundamental source of life, as a human right and commons. This discourse
resonated with the Catholic Social Doctrine, facilitating ‘the mobilisation of
Catholic groups, particularly during the referenda, and contributed to
highlight the moral, symbolic and cultural aspects of the contention, consolidating
a broad popular consensus over the principles of social justice and
universality that should inspire water management’, according to Emanuele
Fantini.
Underlying the
victory in the referendum was the success of the campaign to dominate public
discourse. As Fantini
states, ‘the 2011 referenda marked the success of the Italian water movement in
framing the issue of water services management in terms of human right, the
commons and democracy, against competing frames referring to the technical
aspects or to the governance of the water sector’.
Importantly, the
main frame combined three sub-frames, the cosmopolitan, local and radical
sub-frames, which overlapped while at the same time attracting different
groups. The opposition to water privatisation was, thus, transformed into a
struggle for a new type of democracy and against the commodification of life.
The perceived violation of a human right, the right to water through
privatisation was an important motivation for people to identify with the
movement and become actively involved.
And it was not
only different organisations, individual citizens too rallied around the theme
of water and voted ‘yes’ in the referendum. While centre-right parties such as
the Lega Nord had not endorsed the referendum, many people who normally vote
for centre-right parties also supported the referendum.
The wider implications of
the Italian water movement
After the victory in the referendum in June 2011 (see Tommaso Fattori), the Forum was disappointed to see that the implementation of the referendum outcomes was delayed and partly even blocked (see also La Lotta Continua). And yet, it would be incorrect to argue that the Forum’s struggle had been in vain. First, although re-municipalisation of water did not occur on a large scale, the further privatisation of water companies was stopped in Italy.
The focus on
water as a commons, the organisation of which requires a new form of democracy,
is clearly one of the key contributions by the Italian water movement. It
offers a new, an alternative way of how to organise the economy beyond this
distinction between public and private and, therefore, indicates a clear transformative
capacity. Is this notion of the commons only suitable in the case of water, or
could it be extended to other general services such as education or health? The
answer to this question could be important for the wider organisation of
resistance to privatisation beyond the struggle for public water.
This post was
first published on the Progress in
Political Economy blog of the Department of Political Economy at Sydney
University, 15 October 2014: http://ppesydney.net/the-struggle-for-public-water-in-italy/
Prof. Andreas Bieler
Professor of Political Economy
University of Nottingham/UK
Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk
Personal website: http://andreasbieler.net
13 November 2014
Prof. Andreas Bieler
Professor of Political Economy
University of Nottingham/UK
Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk
Personal website: http://andreasbieler.net
13 November 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!