"Italy’s Public Squares Turn Violent: Signs of Coordination Behind Escalating Clashe" by Carlo Coppola
Questo articolo di Carlo Coppola è apparso in versione italiana sul periodico "In Città Giovinazzo" diretto dal prof. Antonio Calisi al presente link:
Իտալիայի հանրային հրապարակները բռնի ուժգնությամբ են լցվում. համակարգվածության նշաններ սրվող բախումների հետևում: Կառլո Կոպպոլայի հոդված.
Organized unrest, attacks on institutional communication and rising tension ahead of the constitutional referendum
In recent months, Italy’s public squares have ceased to be mere arenas of protest and have increasingly turned into battlegrounds, where legitimate dissent blends with organized violence. According to figures released by the Ministry of the Interior, incidents involving injuries and damage to property are steadily increasing. These are no longer isolated outbursts, but symptoms of a growing instability that poses a serious challenge to democratic order.
A clear pattern links the violent clashes in Turin, the physical obstruction of a government press conference last week, and the mounting tension surrounding the upcoming constitutional referendum. This connection does not pass through democratic debate, but through a deliberate pursuit of confrontation—of the incident engineered to become a tool of political pressure.
Preventing government officials from holding a press conference falls outside the traditional boundaries of parliamentary or civic opposition. It represents the application of physical force to political dialogue, an attempt to replace the weight of argument with material obstruction. This marks a dangerous shift: from criticism to impediment, from dissent to the denial of others’ right to speak.
The episode in Rome, where institutional representatives were physically blocked from addressing citizens, has therefore assumed symbolic value. The objective was not to challenge ideas, but to silence institutional communication itself. In both physical and digital public spaces, democratic speech was targeted directly, transforming a press briefing into the stage for a premeditated assault on dialogue.
It is in Turin, however, that the deeper nature of this dynamic becomes most evident. The seizure of an arsenal—including Molotov cocktails, improvised explosive devices filled with nails, catapults, and communication-jamming equipment—points to planning and technical expertise incompatible with spontaneous protest. This was not accidental disorder, but organized action, conceived to turn chaos into a political instrument.
Behind these events lies a long-standing ideological hostility toward law enforcement and public authority, rooted in radical political subcultures that have never fully disappeared. Even more concerning is the hetero-directed nature of many of these operations. The level of coordination, logistical support, and tactical coherence suggests the presence of structures operating beyond the visible groups in the streets—networks that plan, supply resources, and exploit militants as tools within a broader strategy.
The apparent aim is to provoke an extreme reaction from the police, one that can then be used to reverse the narrative: to portray aggressors as victims and those defending public order as oppressors. In this inversion, violence becomes spectacle, and legality is recast as repression.
This escalation unfolds at a particularly sensitive moment. Public support for the “Yes” vote appears to be gaining ground, while the referendum approaches amid fragile political balances. In such contexts, attempts to poison the public atmosphere intensify—seeking to create a perception of systemic instability capable of influencing the vote or, subsequently, of calling its legitimacy into question. The tensions now extend well beyond the substance of judicial reform, touching the foundations of democratic trust itself.
Yet responding with excessive polemics or symmetrical confrontation would be a strategic mistake. Democracy cannot defend itself by mirroring the violence it faces. What is required instead is firmness combined with clarity and restraint. The rule of law must be applied in a consistent, predictable, and equal manner, reaffirming certainty of enforcement without theatrical escalation.
Above all, a clear distinction must be restored between legitimate dissent and organized violence, between democratic opposition and the deliberate strategy of physical confrontation. Failing to draw this line—whether out of ambiguity, opportunism, or cultural indulgence—risks further eroding institutional respect and normalizing the very dynamics that threaten civil coexistence.
Only through this clarity can the fragile fabric of democratic life be protected, at a time when political conflict increasingly seeks to replace persuasion with force.
.jpeg)
