Abstract
The literature on strategic narratives has started to pay growing attention to the concept of “narrative dominance,” stressing the role played by counternarratives in hindering a wider acceptance of a specific message. However, limited consideration has been devoted to counternarratives, which have seldom been assessed in a systematic way. The aim of this article is to fill these gaps by examining the underrated case of Italy. The article investigates the main content of narratives and counternarratives developed by parties and peace movements regarding the decision to acquire the F-35. The article, which is based on primary and secondary sources, adopts a multidisciplinary approach, combining security studies and social movement studies.
A growing body of research in international relations has started to pay increasing attention to the concept of strategic narratives, defined as: “compelling storylines which can explain events convincingly and from which inferences can be drawn.” 1 Several authors have highlighted how the “effectiveness” of the strategic narratives crafted by policy makers deeply affects public attitudes. 2 Others have defined the criteria for a “successful strategic narrative” as clear aims or internal consistency. 3
Various European countries have been scrutinized as case studies, 4 while limited attention has been devoted to Italy, despite its relevant post–cold war military contribution to international security. Indeed, since the end of the bipolar era, Italy has regularly undertaken military interventions around the world. 5 Recent analyses have revealed the main contents of the narratives adopted by Italian decision makers to justify military operations abroad, providing an original framework for “effective strategic narratives” for the case of Italy. 6 However, the current literature on Italian defense and the related narratives has never devoted specific attention to security issues other than military operations. Moreover, the key features of counternarratives have never been assessed and the role of social movements in crafting counternarrative has been overlooked. Indeed, the rising debate on strategic narrative has been paradoxically separated from the social movements literature, which has traditionally focused on frames, 7 discourse, and changing political opportunity structures. 8
This article is an attempt to fill these gaps, trying to overcome the existing compartmentalization of the literature. The article examines the main contents of counternarratives crafted by political parties and peace movements to contrast the “story line” designed by Italian governments regarding one of the most hotly debated security issues in recent years: the acquisition of Joint Strike Fighters (JSF—F-35).
What have been the key elements of the counternarratives? What has been the “narrative dominance” (i.e., the “balance” between narrative and counternarrative)? By drawing on content and discourse analysis, the aim of this article is to answer these questions and to investigate how counternarratives have contested the official strategic narratives, shaping the debate on the JSF. Also semistructured interviews with political leaders and members of social movement organizations (SMOs) allow addressing the abovementioned questions.
After a brief review of the current debate on strategic narratives and counternarratives, the study illustrates its main contributions. A methodological premise is then followed by an empirical section that reveals the contents of the different narratives and counternarratives developed in the case of the Italian debate on the F-35, tracing the coevolution between the plots and providing some insights on the overall narrative dominance. The conclusion stresses the key findings and considers possible directions for further research.
Strategic Narratives and Counternarratives
Within the vast literature on public opinion and military operations, a growing attention has been devoted to the perceived relative value of interventions. 9 Several studies illustrate how the cost–benefit calculation made by the public is influenced by elite rhetoric in framing the interventions. 10 In other words, decision makers attempt to shape consensus and affect the perception of the costs and benefits of a military mission.
The concept of strategic narrative has been recently developed purposely to grasp the ways in which government’s craft convincing accounts to justify military operations abroad. 11 Narratives are “strategic” because they are deliberately elaborated to communicate a sense of purpose. Strategic narratives are “means for political actors to construct a shared meaning of the past, present, and future of international politics to shape the behaviour of domestic and international actors.” 12 A focus on strategic narratives, which set the “boundaries of public discourse,” 13 allows understanding how actors define reality as well as their identities, aims, and interests. Indeed, narratives are communicative tools through which political leaders attempt to achieve political goals. They differ from “propaganda” or “official discourses,” because rather than just “selling a war,” strategic narratives “develop in osmotic relationship to the formulation of political preferences.” 14
To convince, the narrative must relate to the audience’s culture and traditions. Narratives link together “otherwise disjoint events and trends by providing them a general structure through which war can be understood.” 15 The shared starting point for scholars adapting the concept of strategic narrative is that public make sense of security issues by means of stories. It is crucial to identify narratives at various levels, also by devoting specific attention to the phase of contestation.
Recent research has also illustrated the main features of a “compelling strategic narrative.” 16 A persuasive story line should be deeply rooted in national norms and values. In addition, clear aims, convincing cause–effect chains, and plausible potentials of success represent crucial factors that make a narrative appealing. A bipartisan consensus, coherence with the situation on the ground and the absence of shared counternarratives are endogenous elements that foster a wider acceptance of the message. For instance, the absence of a successful strategic narrative plays a relevant role in explaining why Italian public opinion has often opposed armed interventions. 17 In the case of Italy, decision makers have constantly justified the deployment of troops abroad through the plot of “peace missions,” which has been shared by all the center-left and center-right governments in the post–cold war era. 18 Decision makers, despite the U-turn in Italian post–cold war defense policy, surprisingly maintained the bipolar frames of peace and multilateralism. 19 However, although all the narratives contain elements of ambiguity and inconsistency with the operational context, contradictions are not crucial in terms of popular support unless other exogenous elements, such as counternarratives, emerge. 20
The scholarly literature has therefore devoted increased attention to the role played by counternarratives. De Graaf and Dimitriu consider narrative dominance as the relative weights of the official version and the counternarratives presented by the opposition. 21 While the lack of convincing counternarratives strengthens the existing official narrative, public support might be “eroded by compelling counternarratives designed to expose internal contradictions or weaknesses within the official strategic narratives.” 22 Thus, a careful investigation of the contents of counternarratives represents a necessary premise for a better understanding of the complex and elusive relationship between narratives, public debates, and security issues. While in its original interpretation the narrative dominance has been assessed simply by looking at the degree of public opinion support, this article moves away from a strict causal relationship between narratives and consensus. Narrowing its aims, the article provides a more dynamic account of “the battle” between narrative and counternarrative, highlighting how they evolve across time. Content and discourse analysis help in tracing the contents of such coevolution and their contribution to shape a “shared” public discourse (e.g., introducing new relevant frames later adopted by the mainstream plot, disclosing new perspectives, affecting the growing saliency of specific frames, etc.) on the selected issue.
The article, which mainly focuses on the nature of counternarratives, offers five main contributions to the existing literature. First, despite the significant transformation of Italian defense policy and the substantial contribution given by Italian armed forces to postbipolar multinational operations, the case of Italy has been overlooked by the literature. The article allows exploring in depth the national debate on defense and security issues. Second, while the few abovementioned studies on Italian defense strategic narratives focus only on military operations, the article illustrates for the first time the “battle for the narrative dominance” related to other domains, such as the military procurement. Third, while the strategic narratives literature has taken into account merely institutional actors, the role played by social movements has been almost ignored. 23 On the contrary, this article examines in details the ways through which peace movements have strategically developed alternative narratives on controversial and complex security issues. Fourth, and relatedly, no attempts have been made to associate the strategic narrative literature (which is deeply embedded within security studies) to the vast research on social movements. The aim of this article is to fill this gap, linking the blooming debate on strategic narratives to the framing perspective and its critics 24 and investigating the theoretical connection among frames, narratives, and the overall symbolic dimension of the collective action. The article examines the discursive battle engaged by SMOs in crafting compelling counternarratives. Most of research on strategic narratives emphasizes the theoretical and empirical association between political communication and strategic studies, but the connection between the framing analysis (which traditionally characterizes social movements research) and the strategic narrative literature has been deeply underestimated. For instance, distinguishing frames and narratives helps in better identifying all the elements of the discursive process and “how discursive codes take narrative forms.” 25 At the same time, the perspective on counternarratives allows confirming the relevance of alternative plots developed by civil society actors (rather than just political parties) in hindering the reproduction of mainstream stories regarding security issues, developing further the concept of narrative dominance. In addition, the article investigates the relationship between supporters and antagonists of movements and the changing “political opportunity structure,” conceived as a “playing field in which framing context occurs.” 26 Finally, while the literature has illustrated campaigns, values and structures of the Italian peace, and nonviolent networks, 27 all these elements have been rarely assessed in longitudinal analysis concerning defense and security issues in the new century. The research 28 on the new Italian social movements in the 1980s and the 1990s has supposed the losing centrality of “peace” in beliefs systems and public campaigns. The empirical section contributes also to assess such claims in the post-2001 era.
Methodological Premise
This article focuses on narratives and counternarratives crafted by Italian political parties and movements regarding the decision to acquire the F-35 warplanes. The time span of the analysis ensures a high level of variation in terms of political majority (center-left from 2006 to 2008, 29 center-right in 2008 to 2011, and cabinets supported both by center-left and center-right parties after 2011). Key factors such as the international scenario (post-9/11) and the political system (the so-called Second Republic) are parameterized.
The Italian case deserves specific attention for two main reasons. First, as already noted, although its relevant contribution to the post–cold war security, scarce interest has been devoted to Italy by the literature on strategic narratives (as well as by the existing studies on the F-35 30 ). Second, the case of Italy highlights several relevant aspects that are of general interest for the current research on procurement and narratives and also for those who aims at investigating further public debates on the F-35 in partner countries and especially in “nonpartner countries.” 31 Indeed, the case illustrates how, despite the absence of parliamentary debates (and without official reports, assessment, audits, etc.), the long-standing bipartisan consensus on the F-35 had been gradually eroded within a sudden polarized domestic political environment that actually influenced an “already made decision.” The “discursive battle” over the warplane in Italy reveals also the ways through which a traditional “gun for butter” rhetoric has been adopted, revised, and “exploited” in a country affected by a financial crisis. Relatedly, it is worth noticing how the two core elements of the Italian strategic and military culture (multilateralism/multinational interoperability and pacifism) clashed in the debate. In sum, all these peculiar traits of the Italian case may shed light on the broader interaction among compelling counternarratives, external crises, conflicting elements of national strategic culture, and procurement processes.
Due to the heuristic purpose of the article, the intrinsic importance of the F-35 allows an assessment of the role played by counternarratives concerning the most hotly debated security issue in Italy in recent years. Three reasons well explain the relevance of the selected case. First, despite the JSF is generally described as the “arms deal of the century,” 32 there is still little research on the procurement of the F-35 in Europe. 33 Second, the existing studies do not provide a systematic discourse (or content) analysis of the public debates. Third, the multinational nature of a fifth-generation warplane, and its raising costs in contexts affected by austerity measures, illustrates (potentially also in a comparative perspective) the relative weights of frames related to peace, interoperability, strategy, and financial aspects and the narrative dominance.
The article adopts a “relational” and “dialogic” perspective to the framing process, looking at the dynamic interactions among frames, narratives, actors, and political and social contexts. 34 Several scholars 35 have convincingly highlighted how it is methodologically problematic to identify a causal relation between social movements claims and specific outcomes, because of the interlinked nature of the processes scrutinized. Also public opinion literature 36 shares such concern, stressing the problematic identification of connexions between attitudes and political decisions. Therefore, given the complexity of current topic, the purpose of this study is not to trace statistical correlations between narratives and surveys (which are extremely limited on this specific issue). Instead, the article adopts both qualitative and quantitative approaches 37 to examine the main features of counternarratives, outlining the main contents of the plots. The goal is to emphasize a process of “coevolution” between narrative and counternarratives, tracing the influence of the alternative plot(s) within the public debate. Thus, as already noted, the configuration of narrative dominance cannot be assessed only by looking at the causal effects of the counternarrative in contrasting the mainstream story line on F-35. In that sense, the results obtained in challenging the cabinet (i.e., reducing the effects of the decision) or the degree of public opposition to the government acts could be relevant benchmarks. However, the ways through which the main narrative has complied with the alternative plots better illustrate the dynamic interactions between the story lines over the issue. According to some views, the counternarratives crafted by the movements have been irrelevant in affecting political decisions, public attitudes, and the mainframes of the narrative. 38 On the contrary, in line with the existing literature, 39 we presume that compelling counternarratives can shape the public debate, forcing the main narratives to “follow” the alternative story lines. Because of the efforts devoted by the peace networks to the anti-F-35 campaign and its apparently incisive communication strategy, we expect a convincing plot capable of altering the narrative dominance and affecting the frames and contents of the debate. Once again, the goal is mainly not to assess specific effects but rather to examine the whole process, the features, and the evolution of the narrative dominance. The article investigates in details the contents of narratives and counternarratives and the ways through which “peace movements” have influenced the whole debate over the F-35, by looking for instance at the overall attention devoted to the acquisition of the warplane (e.g., the number of parliamentary debates focused on this issue, the enhanced saliency of the frames, etc.) or at brand new arguments introduced in the public discussion.
A comprehensive methodological tool kit is needed to empirically examine such dynamic interaction between narratives and counternarratives. Through content and discourse analysis, 40 we observe the textual mechanisms, the “repeated metaphors and analogies with which meanings are created,” 41 used by Italian political leaders and the members of social organizations to deal with security issues. Discourse analysis, which investigates the “discursive battles over [the] meaning and definition of reality,” 42 scrutinizes texts in a systematic way, identifying the possible meanings assigned to them. Discourse-sensitive methodological approaches pay attention to movement actors as signifying agents who play a relevant role in interpreting and defining goals, highlighting the way in which the world is understood and the people mobilized. Specifically, we observe the structure of counternarratives by looking at the three levels of analysis illustrated by Fairclough: the features of texts in terms of wording, composition, and tropes (e.g., metaphors); the production, distribution, and consumption of the texts; and, finally, their effects (e.g., on public debate). 43
The article combines content and discourse analysis, focusing on the types of frames that contribute to building the story line. In line with existing perspectives, 44 frames are here considered as snapshots, as bricks that compose the plot, which are strategically employed for a purpose. 45 Strategic narrative “goes well beyond a concept of framing.” 46 The narratives do not aim at “framing an event for a temporary advantage,” while frames serve short-term purposes and “do not establish casual relationship between means, ways and results.” 47 In other words, narratives involve a different focus on temporality and space: framing has “a static and focused connotation while narrative emphasize all of the features set out blow.” 48
The literature distinguishes among “diagnostic,” “prognostic,” and “motivational” framing. 49 The first two of these framing tasks are related to the identification of a problem (attributing blame or causality) and the indication of a solution (aims, tactics, etc.), while motivational frames suggest a rationale for the action. In addition, “frame alignment” strategies (i.e., when specific frames become linked in complementariness) can be used to enhance the resonance of the frames. For instance, “frame bridging” 50 connects two ideologically congruent but structurally unrelated frames concerning a particular issue.
The article develops a coding strategy as follows. After having identified (for the purposes of discourse analysis) the types of frames adopted in narratives and counternarratives according to their tasks, features, and strategies, we elaborate selected (and theoretically related) conceptual categories for the content analysis. First of all, we distinguish among: (a) “peace frames” (frames that are based on traditional “pacifist” values, such as nonmilitary solutions to a specific crisis), (b) “effectiveness frames” (frames related to the effectiveness of the political decisions implemented, such as the savings connected with the F-35 or the problems associated with specific equipment or failures on the ground), (c) “strategy frames” (frames that emphasize the strategic dimension of the F-35 in the global arena), 51 (d) “aligned frames” (frames that link unrelated aspects with the goal of enhancing the resonance of the plot, such as a tie between expenditure on defense and other economic factors), and (e) “ambiguity frames” (frames that aim to emphasize the ambiguity or the inconsistency of the alternative plot, e.g., highlighting a lack of coherence between the government story of “humanitarian missions” and the acquisition of strike aircrafts).
The empirical material is coded combining deductive and inductive strategies, identifying the main features of narratives and counternarratives using Fairclough’s abovementioned three levels of discourse analysis as well as recurring to standardized content analysis to assess the frequencies of the frames on which narratives and counternarratives are based. 52 After having created a vocabulary of logically connected terms of different conceptual frameworks, we analyze the documents crafted by pacifist networks and all the speeches before the assembly and the commissions regarding the F-35. We examine the word frequency list, “keywords in context,” and the frequency of categories. 53
The selected categories (peace, “strategy,” “technological effectiveness,” and “economics”) are related to the abovementioned frames. But while those allow distinguishing the types of frames adopted in counternarratives through qualitative discourse analysis, the content analyses identify all the terms within the categories that are logically associated as bricks for building the story lines, both for narratives and for counternarratives. For instance, the conceptual framework of peace is related to the plot of “humanitarian and pacifist aims” of Italian foreign and defense policy (e.g., peac*, disarmament, etc.). Similarly, the category economics collects all the terms that share the same meaning and represent the “economic dimension” of the warplane (e.g., costs, jobs, etc.). 54 Strategy encloses the words that emphasize the strategic relevance of the F-35 in the global arena (e.g., geopolitics, alliance*, etc.), 55 and the category “technological effectiveness of the airplanes” refers to the plot of the actual “quality” of the JSF (e.g., delays, technological edge, etc.). While the four categories are related to the corresponding story lines, we examined also the general frame of “technology,” which is not linked to a specific narrative but helps highlighting the overall attention devoted toward such aspect.
The content analysis assesses the frequency of each category over time, looking at the parliamentary debates of the sixteenth and seventeenth legislatures (2008 to end of 2014), both in commissions (“foreign affairs” and “defense”) and in the assembly, 56 as well as at the main documents elaborated by the pacifists through the campaigns “Caccia il Caccia” (2009 to 2011) and “Taglia le Ali alle Armi” (2011 to ongoing), 57 which “strategically” pursue the goal of affecting public debate and political decisions on the F-35. 58 Discourse analysis also examines newspaper articles 59 and “new media” contents. 60
Finally, semistructured interviews with relevant “social movement organizations” 61 help in identifying the contents and nature of the main counternarratives crafted to challenge the mainstream “story.” 62 By looking especially at structured “networks” (e.g., with common documents, coordinators, etc.) allows reducing the inevitable heterogeneity of the movements. The next section illustrates the results of the empirical analysis.
Empirical Analysis: The Controversial Case of the F-35
Narratives
Discourse analysis of newspaper articles, interviews, and parliamentary debates in the last three legislatures pinpoints the frames adopted by political parties and leaders supporting the acquisition of the F-35. Over three legislatures (2006 to 2014), five governments changed, as did five ministers of defense. Each cabinet, majority coalition, and minister adopted specific approaches, but the overall narrative crafted to support the acquisition of the F-35 was based on several common elements. The narrative focuses specifically on the following key features.
First, the traditional rhetoric related to the peace mission was adapted to the case of the F-35 (peace frame). A controversial slogan crafted by the former Minister of Defense, Mario Mauro, well illustrates this approach: “If you love peace you should arm peace: the F-35 fulfils this demand.” 63 The parliamentary bipartisan motion (which delayed but substantially confirmed the acquisition) approved on June 26, 2013, contained several references to the peace principles expressed in the constitution (Arts.11, 52, 78 and 87). 64 “The F-35 will be used in the defence of peace. The aim is not a muscular exhibition of force. The action of defence depends on the repudiation of war as a way of conflict resolution and this is possible thanks to the efficiency of the armed forces.” 65 The Supreme Council of Defense also intervened in the debate reaffirming the necessity that Italy “effectively face the requirements of peace and security.” 66
Second, the narrative emphasized the strategic relevance of the warplane for Italian defense (strategy frame). Continuity of the dynamic post–cold war defense policy would depend on the quality of the equipment adopted in operations abroad. In the words of the Minister of Defense, Roberta Pinotti, “Do we need the Air Force? Do we need to protect ourselves from external threats?” The F-35 is also presented as a useful tool for improving “Euro-Atlantic integration,” interoperability, and “jointness.” 67 Moreover, the Renzi government decided to make the acquisition of the F-35 a condition for drafting a new White Book. 68 The strategic document defines the aims and needs of Italian defense. Thus, the acquisition of the F-35 has been linked to the new strategic review, while economic necessities in a context of crisis and spending review have been recognized as vital.
Third, the narrative sheds light on the economic benefits for Italian industry from participation in the multinational JSF program (effectiveness frame). As MP Francesco Boccia (Democratic Party [PD]) reported, military investment such as in the F-35 guarantees “economic earnings.” 69 Mauro defined the F-35 as a “programme of technological innovation and economic development.” 70 According to the former Minister Di Paola, almost “10,000 jobs” 71 would be at risk in the case of a withdrawal from the program. The JSF would replace “obsolete aircraft,” substituting hundreds of planes. 72 Mauro also stressed the lack of alternative adequate warplanes (capable of vertical landing) for the aircraft carrier Cavour 73 (effectiveness frame).
The broader program of equipment renovation has been strongly advocated also by the Italian armed forces, which crafted a narrative based on similar effectiveness and strategy frames. Indeed, they stress the urgent need to modernize the entire air fleet, replacing “the AV-8B Harrier aircraft of the Navy and the AMX of the Air Force.” 74 Moreover, the Italian armed forces have regularly highlighted the relevance of Italian participation in this multinational project, “fostering interoperability among NATO Air Forces” 75 as well as the capability of this fifth-generation combat aircraft to undertake a wide spectrum of missions. 76
Counternarratives
Political opposition to the F-35 has developed steadily over the years. Parliamentary activities related to the issue significantly increased after the Di Paola reform in 2012 (the so-called spending review) and particularly at the beginning of the last legislature (the seventeenth). Indeed, as reported by a relevant peace network: “Now, there is a majority for ‘No to the F-35’ in Parliament.” 77
Several factors seem to contribute to the change of the political opportunity structure. Firstly, the financial crisis surely represented a turning point for Italian parties and society, fostering a renewed attention to all the expenses approved by the cabinet.
Secondly, after the 2013 election, exponents of the campaign against the F-35 met dozens of MPs. At the same time, the number of debates and motions on the F-35 considerably increased after 2013. The role played by the Movimento 5 Stelle (Five Star Movement—M5S), which had already supported the campaign outside Parliament, was relevant. According to MP Massimo Artini, the Defense Commission in the seventeenth legislature worked “much more” than the previous ones and the M5S made significant “research efforts” to enhance its technical knowledge on the issues and, consequently, “its credibility” with the movements against the warplane. 78 In addition, some of the leaders of the campaign (like Giulio Marcon of SEL (Sinistra, Ecologia e Libertà)—left, ecology, freedom) were elected. The interviewees observe a renewed attention on the part of political parties to the demands of these movements. 79 A possible interpretation is that, after having suffered a considerable crisis of legitimacy, the political parties have tried to “enhance their connections with civil society.” 80
Thirdly, the “MPs for peace” (a network of MPs that goes beyond party affiliation and is composed of parliamentarians close to the movement’s goals) represented an important political interlocutor of the movements. 81 This initiative reopened a space for confrontation that had been closed for years, particularly after the deep crisis of far-left parties. 82 On the whole, in contrast to the past, the interaction among movements and parties on disarmament issues has become “reciprocal,” partly due to the enhanced skills, competences, and knowledge of associations, which in some cases provided consultancy to the parliament as “experts.” 83
The counternarrative elaborated by the MPs and political parties (IdV (Italia dei valori)—Italy of Values, SEL, M5S and, partially, PD) who opposed the F-35 shared the following elements: The mounting cost of the program (effectiveness frames), which has been described as a “pozzo di San Patrizio” (i.e., a black hole),
84
represents the core of the counternarrative. Several speeches have emphasized the paradox of the rising costs of military programs and declining expenditure on more relevant issues (aligned frames). The following “sectors” have been identified as requiring money more urgently than the F-35: welfare, education, environmental protection, development cooperation, civil protection, forest fire fighting, and even the “battle against” gambling and slot machines. In addition, the F-35 has been frequently associated with other “useless big projects” such as the “TAV (Treni Alta Velocità)” (high-speed trains).
85
Moreover, news regarding poor performance of the warplane and delays in its development program has regularly been used to define the F-35 as “flawed”
86
(effectiveness frames). As Senator Di Pietro stated, “My tractor is more secure than an F-35!.”
87
Finally, a comprehensive picture of the different choices made by other countries has been repeatedly painted to support a broader international view of the issue,
88
emphasizing the “duplication” caused by the acquisition of both the F-35 and the Eurofighter
89
(effectiveness frames). The ambiguity of the narrative (e.g., the attempt to present an air strike warplane as a “tool of peace”), the lack of consistency between pre-electoral declarations and parliamentary acts,
90
and the veracity of official figures presented in parliament have been repeatedly reported (ambiguity frames). For instance, the 10,000 new jobs expected have widely been considered a lie or at least an overoptimistic forecast (as it was). The counternarrative has also contested the prediction regarding the industrial benefits related to the nation’s involvement in the program and the estimated penalties. In some cases, the counternarrative has successfully stressed the main pitfalls and gaffes marking the mainstream narratives, as happened when Francesco Boccia (PD) wrongly defined the F-35 as “helicopters.”
91
The opposition has also focused on the lack of transparency and (especially before 2012) on the scarce role played by parliament in the monitoring of the procurement process
92
(ambiguity frames). In fact, the debate had been extremely limited for years: from 2009 to 2012, the government provided parliament with no formal communication.
93
The traditional frames related to peace and disarmament have been employed (e.g., “peace cannot be brought about with bombs”
94
) to highlight the perceived inconsistency between peace and the acquisition of an “attack aircraft” (peace frames). Violation of Art.11 of the constitution
95
has been constantly emphasized (while the Minister di Paola was labeled as “The Minister of War”
96
). Also the strategic dimension played a relevant role. Parties that firstly asked for a broader new Italian Defense Model contested the decision to invest money in military programs by cutting funds for other services affected by the spending review.
97
Above all, the aircraft is not conceived as the best instrument to carry out contemporary peacekeeping operations or to “win”
98
contemporary conflicts (strategy frames), which are mainly fought among people (“Who is attacking us? Germans? Saracens? Visigoths?”
99
). Finally, the opposition has emphasized the damages caused by JSF to the project of a European Defense.
100
On the whole, defense is not only perceived in military terms, and the role of civilian and diplomatic tools to “defend” the country has been stressed.
101
In sum, the counternarrative developed at the political level combines frames that highlight the ambiguity of the main narrative as well as frames based on traditional pacifist values. However, especially in the seventeenth legislature, the counternarrative has been focusing more on aligned frames that point out the mounting costs (and problems) of the program, going beyond the “traditional pacifist image.” 102
Moving from the parliament to civil society, we should first examine the campaigns “Caccia al Caccia” and “Taglia le ali alle armi,” promoted since 2009 by more than 70 associations and aimed at coordinating efforts to contest the acquisition of the F-35. As openly reported in the main strategic documents and confirmed by interviewees, counternarratives crafted by the campaign are purposely aimed at increasing the attention devoted to the “pacifist arguments” 103 in front of public opinion and affecting concrete political security decisions. This is corroborated also by documents (embraced by counternarratives) that have been specifically prepared for mobilizing MPs 104 as well as local political actors around the issue of the F-35. 105
The campaigns guaranteed a constant flow of information, organizing demonstrations and public events, and lobbying political actors. An analysis of the documents reveals a considerable amount of up-to-date data and figures, with specific attention devoted to technical issues. According to the coordinator of the campaigns, Francesco Vignarca, this detailed knowledge and expertise modified the perceived status of the peace movement and fostered a different relationship with political actors. 106 Surely, the movement demonstrated “significant capabilities” in terms of research and analysis and became a “widely-recognized interlocutor for political parties.” 107
The main reasons behind opposition to the F-35 can be schematically illustrated as follows: no to a waste of money for an “inefficient, expensive and gigantic program” that is contrary to the Italian Constitution and is driven by the particular interests of the military–industrial complex (effectiveness frames and peace frames); yes to the employment of the same amount of resources to developing the national economy, focusing on the needs of the welfare state, promoting social and environmental security, and rethinking Italian defense and its whole strategic approach. 108
Ethical and legal aspects that are traditionally related to peace movements (such as the link to Article 11 of the Constitution) are presented together with “economic, industrial, political, strategic,” and even “military” reasons to contest the JSF program. 109 On the one hand, we find the classic distinction between “butter and guns”: in a context of financial crisis, there are other priorities than spending an enormous amount of money on inefficient warplanes (aligned frames). Before parties adopted the same communication strategy, the campaign repeatedly highlighted all the social and economic issues that could be “solved” using the money spent on the F-35 (e.g., funds for education, the national health system, etc.): “For the cost of a F-35 we could build 387 kindergartens or 21 trains.” 110 For instance, in 2009, the association “Sbilanciamoci” asked the government to use the funds devoted to the JSF for the reconstruction of L’Aquila, an Italian city devastated by an earthquake. 111 The communication strategy of the campaign was also based on documentaries, advertisements, and film clips focusing on the comparison between the F-35 and the social issues that could be solved by using the funds spent on the warplane.
On the other hand, the counternarrative connects the issue of the F-35 with the broader need to “rethink and revise the Italian model of defence” 112 (strategy frames). Other tools and approaches are presented (e.g., multinational peace corps, development cooperation, etc.) to solve international crises or to enhance national prestige. Multilateralism still plays a relevant role: “Saying that the we need a European defence that can integrate 28 armed forces is not populism. We should adapt the defence industry to our needs avoiding duplication.” 113 Moreover, many reports drawn up by “nonpartisan” and “nonpacifist actors” have been widely used to challenge the main narrative, emphasizing the rising costs, poor performance, technical problems, the limited number of jobs created, the lack of industrial benefits, “subordination” to the United States, and the strategic irrelevance of the warplane (effectiveness frames and ambiguity frames). 114
In sum, the counternarrative has repeatedly illustrated the flaws of the F-35, while aligned frames have been at the core of the campaign (linking the costs of the F-35 to the current crisis). The campaign has been structured around the specific competences of experts that allowed the movement to go beyond the mere image of pacifist and effectively emphasize the contradictions between military expenses and economic crisis. 115 According to Simoncelli, the movement has focused in detail on the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of the weapons instead of just contesting the military procurement and revealing their poor performance and the mounting costs. 116
Qualitative discourse analysis has illustrated the main types of frames adopted by the narratives developed within the public debate. Content analysis helps better understanding the coevolution of plots, illustrating the frequency of the categories under scrutiny.
Content Analysis
Figure 1 shows the results provided by the content analysis of the categories adopted by the “supporters” of the F-35 (the governments and their parliamentary majority). Figure 2 reports the same results but in relative terms, calculating the percentage of saliency of each category in relation to the total amount of tokens in all the debates occurred per each government. 117 Figure 3 highlights the data concerning the main conceptual frameworks used by pacifist networks in the two campaigns (May 2009 to September 2011 and September 2011 to ongoing). 118
Parliamentary debates (absolute values).
Parliamentary debates (relative values). The figures related to the Berlusconi government have been analyzed, but the (limited) total amount of words make less useful the comparison in relative terms, while the “absolute values” have the merit to illustrate the “starting point” of the debate.
Pacifist campaigns (absolute values). Also in this case, the comparison of relative terms is useless because of the very different length of texts produced by the campaigns. The “absolute values” illustrate the growing attention devoted to the selected categories.
Three main results emerge. First, most of documents and sources of the parliamentary debate are related to the last years, when discussion erupted at public level, confirming the role played by the pacifist campaign in fostering a renewed attention toward the F-35. In fact, before the beginning of the first structured campaign (May 2009), the parliament hardly ever addressed the issue. But the political discussion alimented by the financial crisis, which enhanced the interest over the economic dimension of several issues, had already started. 119 The overall number of tokens in all the debates related to the F-35 significantly increased from Berlusconi (13.059) to the Renzi’s government (71.574), despite the different duration of the two executives (1,287 against 275 days under scrutiny). 120
Second, Figures 1 and 3 illustrate a coevolution of the categories adopted by pacifists and MPs. Oddly enough, the peace plot is far from being central in the documents crafted by the campaign 121 (as in the parliamentary debates). On the contrary, economics always appears as crucial, gradually increasing its importance (in absolute terms) over time. The documents crafted by the campaign increasingly focus on the “costs” of the warplane, while “jobs” and economic “returns” (connected to the F-35) started to be frequently discussed in the parliament since the Monti’s cabinet. In addition, the controversial technological effectiveness of the F-35 augments its frequency in relative terms. The “problems” of the warplane, as well as its “technological” features, became gradually a relevant part of the discussion. Additionally, the general frame of technology increases its saliency. The growth in the relative value of economics and, especially, technological effectiveness, strategy, and technology is extremely significant because it reveals a certain capability of the campaigns to shape the discussion toward the analysis of the supposed problems and delays of the JSF, affecting the overall narrative dominance.
On the whole, the “strategic relevance” of the warplane assumes a primary role in the parliament, especially during the Renzi’s government, when the acquisition of the F-35 seems to be strictly connected to the elaboration of the new “White Book.” 122 This leads to a third point: while discourse analysis has illustrated the shared elements of the broader mainstream narrative, content analysis helps identifying the differences among each government in the plots adopted. 123 As showed by Figure 1, the saliency of economics and strategy is the highest for all the cabinets. Figure 2 reveals some further details, such as the noticeably relevance of the peace category for the Letta’s government (principally thanks to its Minister of Defense who tried to craft a humanitarian rhetoric on the F-35), or the specific attention devoted by Monti to the strategic need to replace Italian warplanes, despite the first open “admissions” concerning growing costs, problems, and delays. Thus, the counternarratives crafted by the campaign were able to break down the position of the then majority coalition, whose admissions paved the way to debate and then approve the reduction of the planned F-35 (whose acquisition was previously considered as taken for granted).
Shaping Public Debate
Political views on the acquisition of the JSF have changed over time. The bipartisan consensus on the procurement of new warplanes, the purchase of which was decided by the first Prodi government in the 1990s and then confirmed by following center-right and center-left majorities, has been gradually eroded in recent years, becoming a much-debated and divisive issue in the political and parliamentary arena. Ferretti analyzes the 2013 electoral campaign and highlights the role played by the “F-35 issue” during the campaign. 124 A remark by the former leader of the PD, Pierluigi Bersani (“labour is the priority, rather than the F-35” 125 ), fuelled discussion and forced all the parties to develop a proper communication strategy on the issue. Also the leader of the center-right coalition, Silvio Berlusconi, expressed doubts over the acquisition of the F-35. On the whole, a significant number of relevant Italian politicians (such as Matteo Renzi and Graziano Delrio) emphasized their reluctance (or even opposition) regarding the JSF program. In other words, the bipartisan consensus that had emerged at the beginning of the century (when a general blackout of information marked the debate on the F-35) gradually vanished. In addition, according to the “Osservatorio Politico del Centro Italiano di Studi Elettorali,” 82 percent of respondents were in favor of an eventual “reduction in military expenses such as the acquisition of the F-35” (February 2013). Italian public opinion opposition to the program is also confirmed by other general polls (such as that of IPR marketing in November 2013).
Rather than proving a causal relationship between counternarratives and reduction of the planned F-35, the article has illustrated the capability of the compelling alternative plots to exploit favorable conditions to shape the debate and altering the narrative dominance. As showed by the empirical analysis, the main evident result obtained by the campaign was that the political interest around the issue of the F-35 has considerably increased in recent years. The greater attention devoted by parliament to the issue, after several years of sporadic interest, was considered a “victory” per se by the movement. 126 Content analysis confirms that the campaigns contributed to breaking the “wall of silence” regarding the F-35. 127 According to Krebs, the activists “are often the progenitors of alternative narratives.” 128 Our findings seem to corroborate such widespread view. In fact, the movement openly claimed how the whole discussion on the F-35 “was born within civil society” 129 rather than in parliament where the debate indeed followed the pacifist campaign and its attention devoted to the rising costs and delays of the program.
In addition, manifold pacifist studies and analyses started to be reported by the media. 130 Particularly, in the seventeenth legislature, political parties sustained and reinforced the campaign and its goals. While in 2009, the acquisition was largely viewed as something already decided, the situation then radically changed. “New” parties, together with the spread of the economic crisis, represented the “favorable conditions” for the campaign. On the one hand, the campaigns purposely adopted aligned frames connecting economic crisis with the costs of the F-35, forcing the debate to increasingly take into consideration the financial dimensions of issue and the sustainability of the procurement. On the other hand, the M5S, which had helped the campaigns since the very beginning, has constantly relied on the movements to acquire information and presenting motions.
Alternative interpretations behind the renewed public interest toward the F-35 are possible, even if they do not appear as equally convincing. For instance, the traditional link between peace movements and left-wing parties played a limited role, because of the rising attention on the procurement issue occurred during the Berlusconi and especially the Monti governments. Moreover, left-wing parties that traditionally expressed views and interest of the movement collapsed in electoral terms after 2009. 131 The finalization of the acquisition could have been relevant in igniting the debate. However, the JSF program was officially approved in Italy in 2009, but only after some years, the saliency of the issue actually increased, as illustrated by the content analysis. Indeed, from 2009 to 2012, the executive did not provide formal communication to the Parliament. The connection between the campaign, the following “austerity measures and the defense budget razionalization,” 132 and the presence of new parties in the parliament after 2013 seems to better understand the reasons behind the emerging public interest toward the warplane.
In conclusion, the campaign has been successful in promoting a greater debate on the issue, affecting the contents of the debate over the program. In such a context, the planned reduction in the total number of JSFs (which Italy will buy) occurred. After the Monti government decided to reduce the number of aircraft, a motion proposed by the PD (“mozione Scanu”) approved halving the costs of the program (September 2014), following the recommendations made in the “Indagine Conoscitiva” drawn up by the Defense Commission. 133
In conclusion, three main points can be made regarding narrative dominance. First, despite the efforts of the government to highlight the strategic dimension of the warplane, the debate has been strongly related to the (rising) costs of the warplane. The frame bridging adopted by the campaign’s counternarrative was effective. Connecting the economic crisis and the spending review to the mounting costs of an “inefficient” aircraft forced the debate to focus on the economic dimension. Indeed, the mainstream narrative “followed” the counternarrative by trying to contest the negative image of the JSF, as for instance illustrated by the coevolution between the main conceptual categories (mainly economics and strategy). The counternarrative was successful in shaping the debate also because the opposition parties adopted the frames originally developed by the campaign, as illustrated by the several motions on the F-35 elaborated with the involvement of pacifist groups. Moreover, as even the supporters of the F-35 openly recognized, the story crafted to support the JSF program needed improvement: “We should tell this story better to convince the people.” 134 In other words, there was a widespread perception of the need to “explain better” 135 the decision to acquire the F-35 to Italian public opinion.
Second, the frames related to the (lack of) effectiveness of the F-35 have played a very relevant role in the debate. A considerable level of knowledge and expertise enhanced the credibility of the movement, beyond the stereotypical “pacifist image” 136 (generally adopted during the campaigns against Italian military operations abroad) and in line with the “pragmatic nature” 137 the Italian peace movements have recently embraced. In this case too, even the supporters of the program acknowledged that the campaign website was “the most import source of information on the F-35.” 138 Cabinets were forced to react to the counternarrative and challenge the idea that the F-35 is a “cattivo aereo e una aereo cattivo” (poor aircraft and an evil aircraft). 139 Once again, aligned frames supported the counternarratives by emphasizing pitfalls and ambiguities in the mainstream narratives. This lead the cabinet, from the Monti’s government onward, to openly discuss about problems, costs, and delays of the warplane, paving the way to growing doubts in the majority coalitions, as illustrated by the final “Indagine Conoscitiva 2014,” and pushing some MPs to ask a revision of the whole procurement policy. 140
Third, traditional values (peace, multilateralism) have been connected to a broader analysis of the aircraft and of the whole Italian defense policy. The nature of contemporary conflicts, as has been well revealed by recent (unsuccessful) operations around the globe, sustained the “strategic dimension” of the counternarrative. Surprisingly, the plots of the pacifist networks devote only a limited attention to the traditional peace frames, trying to build a more “concrete” and compelling communication strategy. Thus, the empirical analysis confirms what several scholars 141 considered the “losing centrality of peace” in beliefs systems and public campaigns of the new Italian social movements. In other words, the effectiveness and strategy frames played a greater role in the alternative plots elaborated by the peace movements, contributing indeed to better affect the overall narrative dominance.
Conclusions
Based on a revised concept of narrative dominance, this article has aimed to illustrate the relationship between the strategic narratives and counternarratives associated with the most controversial Italian security issue of recent years: the case of the F-35. Interviews, content, discourse, and frame analysis of documents, newspaper articles, and parliamentary debates have highlighted the nature of counternarratives and how and to what extent they have contested the official strategic narratives.
The financial crisis and the post–2013 political opportunity structure represented vital elements exploited by opposition parties and peace movements to sustain a compelling counternarrative on the F-35. The dynamic interaction among these factors allows understanding the effectiveness of the alternative plots in shaping the public debate. The article confirms what has been recently advanced by the literature: “opposition elites’ rhetorical choices have profound narrative implications,” 142 undermining the mainstream story line.
In fact, as revealed by content and discourse analysis, the public debate followed the approaches developed by the pacifist campaign, shifting the focus from values to costs. Aligned frames convincingly linked expenditure on a “flawed aircraft” with the current financial crisis. As even supporters of the program acknowledge, communication against the F-35 is now “easy”: “the warplane invokes war and it is extremely expensive.” 143 At the same time, a constant flow of up-to-date detailed information on the JSF increased the credibility of the counternarratives, revealing the ambiguities in the mainstream narrative. The concrete results obtained by the counternarratives have been significant. Most interestingly, the peace movement has developed different levels of knowledge and competences, depending on the issue. Regarding disarmament, this expertise has contributed to enhancing the credibility of the movement and to improving its political role. As several interviewees acknowledged, the (“technical”) nature of the issue probably allowed a higher level of “knowledge” than that proved concerning other topics, such as military operations, where there is still a gap in terms of “expertise.” Perhaps the pacifist values adopted so far by the main narrative (e.g., “peace and humanitarian interventions”) have hindered the possibility of developing compelling alternative plots regarding the “Italian peace missions” abroad.
Further research could confirm and enlarge on the above findings and focus on additional case studies. For instance, scholars could develop a comparative analysis on the F-35, confronting the narratives dominance on the warplane across countries. Indeed, the existing research on the procurement of the F-35 lacks of systematic analysis of narratives and frames adopted by political actors in the public debate. 144 An in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the story line could be carried out also with different methodological approaches, testing the effectiveness of the narratives. An organizational perspective could provide alternative explanations on the evolution of Italian peace movements. Further studies could shed light on interactions among movement communicative practices and the role of new media in shaping framing process. Finally, additional analyses could shed light on how changes in the political system have affected the interaction between social movements and parties on security issues.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Andrea Catanzaro, Francesco Pierini, Giampiero Cama, Francesco Vignarca, Francesco N. Moro, Sidney Tarrow, and all the participants at ISA panel 2015 for the useful comments and suggestions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.