Trust in representative democracy between technocracy and claim for direct participation : a cross-border comparison on High Speed Railways

An often discussed question in environmental field is that of so-called NIMBY (Not-in-my-backyard) movements, local groups linked together in opposition to choices thought to be a threat for local life quality. This phenomenon is often seen as a conflict having its roots in the selfish localism of the interested populations, but in the opinion of many scholars [Bobbio 1999; 2002c; 2004c; Trom 1999; Latour 1999] this would be only the half part of the question, considering that, even if “Nimbysm” is a syndrome, it could be a consequence of another pathology: DAD (decision-announcement-defence) model of policy-making [Susskind 1985]. In such a model, central power makes its choices in complete insulation from civil society, and only then it announces them to the public. At this point, it can only defend them, without any possibilities of change even if protests arise. Participative democracy supporters underline it could be better not to trust too much in legal compulsion and technical reliability, following the “let sleeping dogs lie” principle referred to local communities, but on the contrary to involve all the potential stakeholders and to take protests into account before it is too late, avoiding to make them break out with already started works [Bobbio, Zeppetella 1999]. Some scholars think about 80% of environmental conflicts would be due not to an actual opposition, but to influence lack perception of local communities over question they are concerned [Ecosfera 2001, 155]. Exclusive approach can produce technically founded decisions in short times, but being based on a take or leave form, it could be too little flexible in case of oppositions. Inclusive approach, on the other hand, is thought to be the only way to solve protests before they break out, spending a little more time but avoiding work block. By a correct communication avoiding imposition it could originate, this is the idea, a more collaborative citizens’ behaviour. The underlying idea is based on the evidence it is no more possible to create negative outcomes for a group without acknowledging group’s right to express its point of view, according to the guiding principle of “no impact without representation” [Bobbio 2002b]. But what kind of representation? The simple fact we talk about need for representation seems to suggest that normal representative relations are by no means representative enough [Le Galès 2006], in the case of policies concerning irreversible localization of large infrastructure for which could be not only limitative, but most of all belated, to follow Schumpeterian logic and wait for the next election to reward or punish elected representatives. Indeed this is a policy sector in which representative institution are often crushed between the tendency to use a technocratic style of decision-making by the side of promoters, and the request for a deeper inclusion in more participatory processes by the side of impacted local populations. We can find a paradigmatic example of such a tendency in the notorious case of the Lyon-Turin TGV-TAV project. Thus this paper is based on my PhD thesis , concerning a comparative analysis between Italy and France about the influence of decision-making models (through the mediation of involved actors’ framing) on the outbreak of local conflicts related to high-speed railways localization. The research, which uses textual analysis of the claims produced by the actors involved on both sides of the border around the TGV project Lyon-Turin, is developed through the qualitative and quantitative techniques of political claims analysis, frame analysis and protest event analysis. Findings offer many cues about differences between the two sides of the border regarding the concept of representative democracy, its relationship with participatory forms of decision on the one hand and technocratic ones on the other, trust in representative institutions, social movements’ willingness to delegate, clashes between local and supra-local representation. Indeed, with situations quite similar in other respects, Italian and French cases of Turin-Lyon project seem to differ precisely on issues related to representation, which appear to influence both framing of the actors and emergence of social movements, and therefore the outbreak of conflicts.