In the one hundred and fifty years after it became the capital, Rome was badly governed, except for a few brief parentheses which altogether covered just twenty years. The judgment of historians on this is unanimous. Politics has not been able to address and solve the problems – first of all promoting a modern and resilient productive structure and a more balanced and inclusive urban growth – which the different stages of development of the city have gradually placed the directors. Only three exceptions can be found in the long span of time that separates us from the taking of Porta Pia: the syndicate of Nathan, the five years of Argan-Petroselli and the first syndicate of Rutelli. Despite the obvious historical and political differences, there seem to be some positive traits that unite the "happy trade unions" and on which it may be useful to conduct a reflection to identify the common traits of a well-administered Rome.
The main salient trait of "good governance" mayors was having a "strong idea" about the problems to be addressed and having demonstrated the ability to solve them or at least to initiate solutions. In the case of Nathan's union, his political project was addressed on various fronts: contrast to urban income, safeguarding the consumption of the less well-off classes, increasing citizen participation, the Municipality's active role in the management of public services, then in the hands of private monopolies. In the case of Argan and Petroselli, the idea of the city that guided them was inspired by the political objective of bringing decisions on the future of the city back to the public administration, which for years had been strongly conditioned by the "rent party", and by the social objective of reunifying the city by shortening the distances between the center and the periphery. In the subsequent narrative, there has been a tendency to give greater value to Petroselli's two-year period for the work of rehabilitation of the villages; in reality, I believe that the continuity of that five-year period should rather be emphasized since the policy of recovery of the suburbs and the first measures were initiated with the union of Argan.
Finally, Rutelli: a trade union animated by a strong idea of modernizing the city; if one re-reads his program today, almost thirty years later, one has the sad perception of how much those problems already so well identified then are still the same. And how the strong idea behind that plan still holds true today:
“Our two keywords: more solidarity to have even more efficiency. A combination that provides the measure of the degree of civilization of a modern metropolis [...]. Both [values] aim at satisfying the rights of citizens, especially the weaker ones, who are the predestined victims not only of the void of solidarity but also of the most widespread inefficiencies"
The city government caught up with Rutelli undoubted results in viability, decoration and redevelopment which also partly affected the suburbs, in the corporate structures and in the recovery of the efficiency of the municipal companies, in the organization of the municipal administration, in the cultural revival of the city. However, it was the object of criticism from two sides: the policy towards Roman entrepreneurship – the one that counts, i.e. the builders – which, according to the critics, would have been able to direct the urban policy agenda in its favor and a subordination in relations with the Vatican in the management of the Jubilee. Both criticisms find some foundation, even if they do not undermine, in my opinion, the basic judgment. The first criticism goes so far as to affirm, but in an oversimplifying way, that the city government has assumed the same vision of the Christian Democrat trade unions in urban planning policy in an almost total continuity of the "urban regime" of Rome.
In reality, Rutelli followed the old political strategy to "occupy the center" by widening political and social alliances and therefore also addressing a part of those forces which, as Goffredo Bettini, exponent of the Democratic Party and maïtre à penser of Roman and more recently national politics, were been "harnessed" (but the term is perhaps a bit misleading) in the system of building speculation and corruption. And this strategy was translated into that urban instrument – the Plan of Certainties – which, we will come back to, was a concession, but one that was difficult to avoid, to the interests of income; overall, the policy of appeasing building interests will characterize Veltroni's union in a more marked way. Rutelli's management of the Jubilee also responded to a logic of increasing his consensus, this time with the ever-influential Roman Curia – I have already drawn the reader's attention to some aspects – and this explains the generally less positive judgment on the second union.
The Rutelli administration was then the object of criticism "from the left" and accused of neoliberalism also for its policy of privatizing some companies in the municipality. Here I really feel like I don't share that criticism: it was a policy also adopted by the national government, led by Ciampi, not exactly a liberal, and was aimed at remedying the inefficiencies and clientelism that characterized the management of municipal companies. If one criticism must be made, it is that it was a partial privatization that did not affect two large municipal companies - that of public transport and that of waste management - which remained under the control of the Municipality, a control that was badly exercised, with effects that citizens Romans could "appreciate" in the following decades. The second trait that unites the three unions is that Rome, in order to start solving its problems, needs to be fueled by "high" political and ideal seasons at the national level.
These were reflected in the appointment of innovative mayors, of "change", who were also the fruit of the spirit of their "political time". This was the case for Nathan, an expression of a more general trend of those years, even if not lasting, in favor of the so-called "secular blocs". So it was for Argan and Petroselli who benefited from the climate of national unity governments. So it was for Rutelli who was elected in a moment of political-institutional turning point – the sunset of the First Republic and the first direct elections of mayors – and supported by the affirmation of a new reformist culture. And these seasons have been reflected in the unions which have expressed a discontinuity in the idea of the city and in their management. Another fundamental ingredient derives from the harmony with the national political moment: the support of the central government. Nathan's syndicate it is characterized by a strong consonance with the government of Giovanni Giolitti who offered a firm political shoulder to the Capitoline administration. In reality he was more than a shoulder: Giolitti was well aware that the capital needed special care: "Rome makes certain expenditures in larger proportions because it is
capital of the Kingdom".
An orientation already reflected in his first law in favor of Rome which dates back to 1904, therefore before Nathan's election, aimed at dealing with emergency situations above all in the field of construction and financial recovery and then confirmed with the provisions of 1907 and 1911. Also Argan and Petroselli - who succeeded Argan elected in 1976, who resigned for health reasons, and who was later confirmed in the 1981 elections - benefited from a different role recognized for the PCI in national politics. Even if the season of the "historic compromise" ended with the general elections of 1979, there was a carry-over effect in the immediately following period which affected a legislative initiative of great importance for Rome, then translated into law in 1981: promoted by the Republican Party and with the contribution of Antonio Cederna, it allocated 180 billion lire for the archaeological heritage (the interventions were implemented with the subsequent union, always of the centre-left, led by Vetere).
In Rutelli's case, for five of his seven years in the union, the leadership of the country was in the hands of the centre-left. The legislative vehicle for making funds flow to the Municipality was the law on interventions for Rome Capital which, although approved at the end of 1990, financed the Capital for over twenty years, given the possibility of using unspent funds in subsequent years and of allocating new ones . Overall it is estimated that they have been allocated up to 2007 over two billion euros of which 1,1 billion transferred to the budget of the municipality of Rome. The law was very ambitious: it envisaged an action plan for the redistribution of management structures in the city; the adaptation of infrastructures and services for mobility; the requalification of the environment and the territory; the conservation and enhancement of the historical-artistic heritage; the qualification and strengthening of the university and research system; the strengthening of activities and structures in the field of entertainment, communications and exhibition and congress activities; the adaptation and redistribution of the headquarters of international institutions in the city.
Then Rutelli was available also funding for the Jubilee where large sums have been spent. The important role played by the support of national governments explains the success but also the fragility of successful unions. The support of central governments is inevitably transitory (also considering the lack of stability of national politics). This is the case with Nathan when, at the first signs of an economic crisis and with the fear of a new socialist advance, Giolitti seeks new alliances with the clericals. On the other hand, that the secular bloc that Nathan supported was a fragile construction and not the sign of an economic and social evolution of the city was already intuible from an analysis of the 1907 electoral results: in a city of half a million inhabitants the vote was exercised by less than half of the 41.000 citizens who had the right to vote, precisely because of the abstention of the Catholics. The case of the end of the center-left juntas at the turn of the XNUMXs was not dissimilar, to which the change in the national political climate was not unrelated: the affirmation of the five-party government and the political competition of the socialists against the pci, initiated by the Craxi secretariat.
Even in the case of the end of the centre-left juntas at the turn of the century, the resounding defeat of 2008 in Rome accompanies (and in part reflects) the equally heavy defeat in the national elections where the centre-left loses 5 million votes compared to the elections of just two years ago. The incapacity of "good administrations" to establish themselves as permanent leaders of the city also derives from the difficulty of dealing with urban planning issues. Nathan had opposed the rent: he imposed taxes on building areas and proceeded with some expropriations, applying what the Giolitti government had already established at the state level. But the revolt of the landowners was not long in coming and some local power groups (aristocratic families owning land and buildings, construction companies, banks linked to the Vatican), coalesced against the junta. The defeat in the 2008 municipal elections also partly reflects the failure of the attempted alliance with the building block. Bad difficulty in dealing with urban planning issues they don't just have to do with "the party of rent".
Even the relationship with the historic city is a source of political controversy: for example, it was the internal disagreements on the left over the "Fori Project", i.e. the hypothesis of replacing via dei Fori Imperiali with an archaeological park, which undermined the junta led by Vetere . Returning to the ingredients of good trade unions, the last one to draw attention to is the ability to involve technicians or personalities from the cultural world with a strong innovative drive alongside the mayor to produce ideas and implement policies that have characterized, albeit in variable combinations those experiences. Rutelli called Campos Venuti to collaborate on the Master Plan. Nathan entrusts the drafting of the Regulatory Plan and the interventions for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Rome Capital to Edmondo Sanjust di Teulada, then chief engineer of the civil engineering of Milan, a technician unrelated to the Capitoline environment, and appoints Giovanni Montemartini, economist, much appreciated by Einaudi and Pareto (even if of socialist ideas) councilor for technological services, a position from which he carried out the municipalization of electric services and a reorganization of public transport.
The discussion that then took place in the city council on the organization of public services and on the pros and cons of municipal property reveals a lively intellectual climate, with articulated visions on the functioning of services and on the public-private relationship that are still current. In comparison, the non-discussion in the City Council in 2018 and the ideology expressed by the mayor Raggi on the occasion of the referendum promoted by the radicals on the introduction of competition in the management of public transport, are emblematic of the poverty of today's Roman politics. The exceptional nature of good politics in the century and a half of Rome's life as a capital reflects the lack of a reformist social bloc that carries on political battles for more efficient public services, for more sustainable urban growth that respects the city's historical heritage, for the solution of the housing problem, for a municipal administration at the service of the citizen and not of his employees.
From this point of view the Capital is no exception compared to the country where the weakness of reformist cultures is a characteristic trait of the political scenario. In order for reformism not to be only an ethical orientation, a cultural propensity of small groups, of scholars and at most of a few enlightened politicians, it would require political work aimed at making the majority of citizens mature, or in any case in a conspicuous part , a favor towards reformist policies. Which is exactly what has been missing, in Rome as in the rest of the country. And this for at least three reasons: short-term reforms are costly for some groups and institutions as they displace resources and decision-makers may lack the political capital to overcome vested interests; our ruling class is mainly engaged in short-term distributive conflicts while ideological and conflicting visions regarding long-term reforms prevail; there is a lack of widespread sensitivity for collective goods on the part of the entrepreneurial class.
**************
To continue reading, you can download the e-book clicking here
