Fighting for Justice in the time of the Anti-Gandhi Law

Insight by Chiara Pedrocchi

“I believe it is possible to outline a list of characteristics typical of what I would call ‘Ur-Fascism,’ or ‘eternal fascism.’ These characteristics cannot be organized into a system; many contradict each other, and they are typical of other forms of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough for just one of them to be present to form a fascist nebula.” This is how philosopher Umberto Eco wrote in his 1997 essay "Ur-Fascism". One of the key characteristics identified in his book is the relationship between criticism, culture, and fascism.

“Thinking is a form of castration. Therefore, culture is suspicious insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. From the statement attributed to Göbbels (‘When I hear the word culture, I pull out my gun’) to the frequent use of expressions such as ‘intellectual pigs,’ ‘eggheads,’ ‘radical snobs,’ ‘universities are a den of communists,’ suspicion of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism. (…) No form of syncretism can accept criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernity. In modern culture, the scientific community views disagreement as a tool for advancing knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is betrayal”.

For Eco, Ur-Fascism is a form of fascism that, while manifesting in different ways depending on the historical and cultural context, retains characteristic elements that can re-emerge at any time. This perspective, along with the theories of German historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt, can help us understand some phenomena we face today, in Italy and globally. In her 1951 work “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, Arendt warned about the dangers of a society that ceases to engage in critical thinking.

Demolishing democracy is a gradual process, happening step by step, first oppressing those already weak, creating insidious norms, or embedding them in larger projects to make them go unnoticed. An example of this is the bill 1660, nicknamed the anti-Gandhi law, because it aims to punish especially those who engage in passive resistance to public officials and those who use nonviolent methods as a form of protest. Approved in the Chamber of Deputies on September 18, 2024, the bill will soon be discussed in the Senate.

The main targets of this bill are civil society actors who mobilize, including through the principles of nonviolence, to express their dissent. The bill thus targets organizations such as Ultima Generazione, who protest with actions like road blockades (article 14), activist groups who oppose large public works (article 19), such as the No Tav movement or those opposed to the construction of the Messina Strait Bridge. Lastly, the law aims to further oppress already marginalized groups: for example, prisoners (article 26) who engage in passive resistance to public officials to protest their conditions and those in Detention Centers for Repatriation (article 27). This bill creates the conditions to label those who express dissent as dangerous to the state, branding them as potential "terrorists."

The problem is that the term “terrorist” is arbitrary and discretionary, and already in the second half of the last century, it was used widely to demonize those who disagreed with the power structure, thereby pushing public opinion to identify an “imaginary enemy”, justifying drastic actions against them.

During an event on the repression of grassroots movements organized by the Voice Over Foundation in Turin on September 25, 2024, sociologist Robin Piazzo explained that “repression doesn’t work by putting everyone in prison. It works more sophisticatedly. It needs to be an economic act, because the repressors can’t spend too much energy on it. If the judge or authority has a tool that is easily applicable and discretionary, it can intimidate. What the repressor seeks is to make the cost of individual action very high and difficult to calculate. By making the risk unpredictable, the number of participants is greatly reduced”.

On the same occasion, Luca Trivellone, an activist for Palestina Libera and Ultima Generazione, emphasized an important point: if the government adopts certain norms, it means they are intimidated by activists and by those who report on their actions.

According to Robin Piazzo, movements arise when a problem is identified and a solution is possible. If the government wanted, it could take measures to build a socio-climatic justice for all, but since it works in the interests of the elites rather than the public, it represses those who denounce, obstruct, and criticize the government’s actions.

Despite increasing forms of repression and intimidation, some adopt a broader perspective, trying to move beyond individual freedom to center collective freedom. “My individual freedom as a privileged Italian is no longer more important than the future of millions of people. So, let’s give up this privilege: the 24 hours I can spend in prison, with all the consequences and fear involved, are not that important. We must not be individualistic when approaching issues like genocide in Palestine and mass extinction. If it’s true, as Gandhi seemed to say, that first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win, we are going through all these phases. They have insulted us on TV, they have tried to belittle us, and now they are moving to fight us with the anti-Gandhi law,” reiterates Luca Trivellone.

Movements, Narratives, and Repression

Journalism plays a key role in narrating movements, as well as their repression. On one side, there is a type of journalism financed by interest groups and elites, which does not report dissent—especially when movements achieve victories. An example of this is the closure of two Elbit sites in the UK, complicit in the genocide in Israel, thanks to actions by the group Palestine Action.

On the other side, there is independent and “resistant” journalism, which chooses to report the facts, not through the lens of power but through the lens of justice. It is this kind of journalism that has been obstructed in recent years, not only through the anti-Gandhi law but also with intimidating lawsuits and constant threats, as highlighted in the report "Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic Drift" published in 2024 by the European Media Freedom Rapid Response Consortium, which tracks, monitors, and responds to violations of press freedom and media rights in EU member states and candidate countries.

According to sociologist Piazzo, the greatest danger comes from newspapers considered progressive but, due to the economic interests of the publishers, perpetuate a narrative complicit in serious human rights violations or environmental catastrophe. “We don’t vandalize, we paint. And we do so trying to highlight the colors of democracy, or the colors of dissent. But while the action itself is extremely important, it is even more important to find a way to tell it,” says Luca Trivellone.

Reactions: What to Do?

José Antonio Berdugo Vallelado, an activist from Ultima Generazione, who spoke at the September 25 meeting, described the current situation and the physiological anguish it causes: “They are repressing people who care for the soil and the earth. With what courage are they carrying out these actions against those thinking about future generations?”

There are two important issues to consider. The first is the existence of a youth that resists and, despite the distorted narratives of the mainstream media, seeks information elsewhere and takes to the streets. On September 25, there were demonstrations across Italy against Ddl 1660, as well as ongoing protests in major cities for Palestine and climate strikes organized by Fridays for Future. The streets, whether authorized or not, are a bulwark of resistance reminding us that we have a voice, and it can and must be part of the change.

But there is another element to consider, says Robin Piazzo: “If the risk is too high, the masses won’t participate. But the most committed activists are willing to take any risk: provocations increase their motivation and strengthen their fight. Even if it seems that repressing them would benefit the power, it doesn’t necessarily work that way. An example is what happened during fascism: all the moderate parties were repressed, leaving only the communist, radical one aimed at insurrection. During the Resistance, those who didn’t want to fight with the fascists fled to the mountains, and because there was no alternative, they joined the communists.

Eliminating moderate participation means forcing those who oppose power to do so according to the methods of the most radical group. This polarization can also backfire on the power itself.”

With a genocide underway, a climate crisis that is the result of years of predatory policies and rampant capitalist profit-making at the expense of the most marginalized groups, and an ever-widening inequality gap, protesting for justice is a duty for all citizens. Laws like Ddl 1660 should become a push for an even more collective and urgent claim. It is time to converge struggles—from climate to Palestine, from the right to work to healthcare—to expand the critical base and become a stronger political body capable of countering economic powers and increasingly fascist and reactionary governments. But it is above all necessary to build alliances between grassroots movements, narrators, journalists, and critical voices so that they are not left alone, and to amplify public information in service of communities. Only this way can we achieve a broader mobilization of citizens.