Isolating violent protesters before they reach the march. How the ‘Rome method’ works

Rome. “We won’t do what they did in Milan,” say the students at the schools recently occupied in Rome this week, as they prepare for Saturday, when the announced and recurring protest by the 17 October Movement is set to arrive in the city (perhaps at the Circus Maximus, perhaps elsewhere, joining forces with other demonstrations against war and low wages, and in support of education and healthcare, and forming part of the wider mobilisation against ‘the government of rising living costs and rearmament’). “We won’t do as they did in Milan” is the mantra, but, given the messages leaked from certain chat groups containing phrases glorifying violence as the “only language” to “make ourselves understood” after other methods have failed, the attention of the City Council and the Police Headquarters is focused on ‘how’ to keep what has been termed the ‘Rome method for security’ functioning, in the face of an unstructured situation where students, social centres and anarchists could be joined by anyone. The approach, therefore, as on the eve of 17 October (which was very different in Rome compared to Milan), begins with constant monitoring (by the Digos, the Postal Police and the Provincial Carabinieri Command) of websites linked to the ongoing mobilisation, including mappadellarivolta.org, in an attempt to identify the organisers of the actions and establish a channel of dialogue with them. The aim: to ensure that violent individuals are isolated from within the groups themselves, reaching out to them — this is the core of the method — before they join the marches and become an unpredictable and uncontrollable fait accompli (as happened in Milan last Saturday). Efforts are being made to analyse this ‘unprecedented’ form, as President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella put it, by keeping a close ear to the ground and a watchful eye on social media. Because, as is repeatedly emphasised by both the City Hall and the Police Headquarters, there is a vast difference between today’s demonstrations and those of the past, marked by the distinction between what has a face and what remains faceless. But this does not refer solely to the hooded and masked troublemaker. Rather, it concerns the structure of the demonstration itself: the police headquarters receives a certain amount of advance notice, a certain indication, and a certain itinerary for the march. But then the internet takes over, profoundly altering the situation – or simply threatening to do so, as there are also many false alarms. It is a process of continuous adaptation to the situation. The aim is to act pre-emptively and to make headway, with the help of other demonstrators, through the indistinct mass of the mobilisation, to prevent violent individuals from arriving unexpectedly and ready to ‘smash everything up’.