In recent years, we have witnessed setbacks on issues such as LGBTQIA+ rights, self-determination, and citizenship: who benefits from the status quo? And what is civil society lacking?
In this age of polarization—heightened and indeed cultivated by social media—it appears that the positions that prevail are the most extreme ones, capable of holding hostage those more moderate, dialogical, and pragmatic opinions. It is precisely these voices, which likely represent a significant portion of society (and, in part, also of the political sphere), that activists should seek to nurture. We should strive to return to dialogue, which today is suffocated by a communicative conflict that seems to exclude any compromise—yet compromise is the very essence of politics and of living together: seeking points of mediation in necessarily pluralistic societies, where the values at stake are many and, at times, even conflicting. Aiming for compromise is not a defeat but rather a reasonable victory: it means pursuing achievable change even when the (political, cultural, moral) winds appear to be blowing in another direction. I am convinced that we still do not fully grasp the extent to which social media have distorted public debate, fueling divisions and conflicts later exploited by extremists of all persuasions.
If tomorrow a group of ordinary citizens truly wished to influence legislation on civil rights, what is the greatest mistake to avoid and, conversely, what is the most underestimated lever?
It is difficult to think in terms of universal formulas, as each context may differ and require distinct analyses and responses. However, the first mistake concerns timing: action is often taken too late, when decisions have already been made and the margins for amending a measure under discussion are extremely limited. Closely monitoring the political debate—including through insiders—is essential, especially in a country such as Italy, where decision-making processes are opaque. If this procedural mistake can jeopardize an entire strategy, there is also a substantive error that is no less detrimental: perceiving parliamentary groups (particularly those most opposed to us) as homogeneous entities. Within them there may be multiple nuances, sometimes subtle, at other times more pronounced. Even within apparently cohesive majorities, there are politicians with differing sensitivities. This is the lever to be employed: attempting to bring these differences to the surface. Dismantling a legislative framework that runs counter to civil rights is undoubtedly difficult if the governing majority holds a fundamentally negative view of their expansion; yet it is far from impossible to mitigate its impact and soften its most critical aspects. I believe that the role of civil society, even in challenging times, is also to prevent the worst outcomes and to open dialogues even where they appear impossible.
The right to vote is formally guaranteed but substantively unequal: there is talk of a new form of civic exclusion that is “accepted” within the Italian public debate. What role can civic lobbying play in transforming out-of-town voting from an emergency measure into a structural right, and why has it not yet succeeded?
Civic lobbying has already played a substantial role in bringing to light an issue that for years had been denied. It is thanks to the Voto Fuorisede network—a coalition formed by civil society organizations led by The Good Lobby—that the press now regularly reports on the millions of students and workers living away from their place of residence to whom Italy continues to deny remote voting, a right recognized in the principal European countries. Grassroots mobilization has, on the one hand, contributed to changing the social norm: today public opinion acknowledges a problem that was largely unknown. On the other hand, it has decisively contributed to achieving the political advancements of recent years, which enabled the pilot schemes for the 2024 European elections and the 2025 referendums.
The critical issue remains general elections. On the one hand, there are objective (though surmountable) technical obstacles stemming from Italy’s complex electoral architecture. On the other hand, there is the fear of advantaging political opponents. This fear naturally increases as elections approach. Thus, a measure that should strengthen participation and democratic rules becomes politically charged.
Is European civic lobbying truly able to compete with that of large corporations, or is it confined to issues that are “ethically sound but politically marginal”?
In Brussels, civil society organizations defending the general interest are far more aware that engaging in decision-making processes is necessary in order to be effective. Central issues such as the Green Deal and the package of digital regulations have seen substantial participation by “civic lobbyists,” who—at least during the previous legislative term—achieved significant results. These results are now being called into question by a European Commission that is essentially rolling back the policies introduced in the previous cycle, demonstrating that it is beholden to large corporations and to those Member States (including Italy) that are more receptive to Washington’s influence. Data show that this Commission deliberately refuses to meet with civil society actors (environmental organizations, consumer groups, and others), to the clear advantage of private interests: according to an investigation by Transparency International, only one third of the Commission’s meetings with interest representatives take place with non-profit organizations.
Despite this evident and dramatic asymmetry—which European institutions had previously sought to rebalance—civil society remains active and engaged in far from marginal struggles. I am thinking, for example, of the work our colleagues at The Good Lobby in Brussels are carrying out alongside many others to counter the deregulation promoted by von der Leyen. This is a large-scale mobilization whose resonance scarcely reaches Member States, yet it is of crucial importance: on the one hand, it brings to the fore the kind of European Union we would like to see; on the other, it underscores the fundamental role of civil society in defending the general interest.
As an ordinary citizen who works, studies, and has little time, what is the most effective and realistic action I can take today in Italy to defend or advance a civil right?
I believe there are many actions within everyone’s reach, depending on the level of commitment one wishes to make: for example, signing a citizens’ initiative (also at the European level—the My Voice My Choice campaign for the right to abortion surpassed one million signatures and obtained a favorable vote in the European Parliament); participating in demonstrations; writing directly to our representatives. Voting is, of course, important, but external pressure is essential to embolden political forces and to advance proposals that might otherwise fail.
Can you recommend a book or a film to better understand your field of work?
The first book I would recommend is by Alberto Alemanno, the founder of our organization, entitled The Good Lobby. Partecipazione politica dal basso, published by Tlon. It explains what civic lobbying is through practical examples and concrete tools. I would also recommend New Power by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms, published by Einaudi, which helps us understand the new tools for mobilization and participation that we have—or might have—at our disposal today.