The Crisis of the M5S
The Crisis of the M5S
Grillo has intervened harshly in the dynamics of the M5S (Five Star Movement),
reclaiming his role as guarantor and asserting that the Movement is becoming
something very different from what he founded, with its fundamental
characteristics entrusted to him in the role of "Guarantor."
In truth, what Grillo claims is absolutely correct; however, this is a
phenomenon that has been occurring for many years, at least since the 2018
elections. The key moments in this transformation were approved and supported by
Grillo himself, who even sidelined those, like Di Battista, who wished to remain
faithful to the original 2009 vision.
Above all, it is necessary to recognize that the departure from the original theories in political movements is not due to alleged betrayals or deviations by this or that individual but rather to the fact that if theories fail when confronted with actual reality and appear impossible to realize, they inevitably undergo significant, sometimes radical, changes.
To give some examples, consider Marxist communism: it is true that real-world communism, which established itself in much of the world, was very different from Marxist thought. However, this divergence did not occur because of the betrayal of Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. It happened because, in the face of actual reality, the Marxist idea that abolishing private property would lead to a society where individuals, freed from the chains of selfishness, would "give according to their ability and receive according to their need," proved utterly unfeasible. So much so that it was not even possible to initiate such a process. Instead, the abolition of private property led to brutal dictatorships and unprecedented repression in history. What emerged was something contemptuously referred to as state capitalism, which, despite its flaws, also brought some development.
Fundamentally, the same reasoning can be applied to other idealistic movements. Consider Mazzini's dream of peace, justice, and collaboration in the world brought about by the nation-state, which instead transformed into exacerbated nationalism, culminating in humanity's two greatest tragedies: the First and Second World Wars.
Even the celebrated thought of Gandhi, the Mahatma ("great soul"), was never realized; in fact, no serious attempts were made to implement it.
Certainly, Grillo's project cannot be compared to these great movements, not even remotely: it is merely the common musings of an actor who lacks understanding of the actual workings of politics or history. Nevertheless, the process is analogous: reality makes the realization of an idea impossible, and the idea necessarily transforms into something different.
Let us now examine what Grillo's original
proposal was and how it evolved over time.
Grillo started with the famous "vaffa" ("screw you"): the entire political
world, both right and left, was corrupt and incompetent, as were all societal
structures. He failed to recognize that these are common, one might say
inevitable, phenomena in human history. He called for radical change, which,
according to Grillo, essentially consisted of direct democracy: an
assembly-based system where the elected officials were merely, as he said,
spokespersons of the people. This concept included the idea of an imperative
mandate, disregarding the fact that modern democracy was born precisely with the
prohibition of the imperative mandate, which existed in pre-democratic
assemblies.
It was believed that digital platforms would make it possible to quickly and easily ascertain the popular will, thus resolving everything. However, it was ignored that direct democracy has always failed not due to consultation difficulties but because ordinary individuals cannot make decisions on complex economic and political issues, such as state budgets, exchange rates, or policies in the Middle East or China. Politicians, in fact, are supported by an enormous number of experts, and their greatest skill often lies in choosing the right advisors.
Voters can provide only general guidance—right or left—based on tangible results. But politics is a difficult and complex profession that demands full dedication. The two-term limit, consistent with Grillo's assembly-based democracy ideals, is completely nonsensical in real politics.
The Movement achieved unexpected electoral success in the 2013 elections, securing around 25% of the vote and becoming the kingmaker in forming the new government. However, according to Grillo's theories, alliances with other parties (referred to as "deals") were impossible, as this would have meant entering the very world deemed inept and corrupt. The Movement theorized a victory exceeding 51%, entirely unrealistic, even envisioning unanimity that would signal the collapse of the old political world. At that point, the Movement itself would dissolve. These were obviously impractical ideas for anyone with the slightest awareness of historical and political reality.
Following this bizarre ideology, the significant electoral success turned into complete irrelevance, and the government fell to the losing PD (Democratic Party) with partial support from the right.
In the 2018 elections, the M5S consolidated its success, exceeding 32%. This time, however, alliances were formed (no longer called "deals"): first with Salvini's right, then with the left, and finally supporting Draghi's technical government. A whirlwind of conflicting transitions never before seen in the Republic's history.
By coincidence, Conte, an obscure provincial lawyer initially appointed for balance between factions, ended up leading the Movement. However, he demonstrated a sense of reality. Notably, Grillo approved all these peculiar transitions, mocking those who contested them.
Grillo's insistence on the two-term limit alienated those who had gained some experience, leaving the party almost entirely in Conte's hands, with no one else capable of replacing him.
In the 2022 elections, the division between the M5S and the PD led to the right-wing victory under Meloni, while the M5S halved its votes, dropping from 32% to 15%. This percentage remains relatively unchanged today, albeit slightly lower. The only prospect for defeating the right lies in forming the so-called "broad coalition," an alliance between the PD, M5S, and smaller parties.
The last vestiges of the original ideals are thus fading, and Conte's M5S now defines itself as a progressive movement—a far from clear definition. At this point, Grillo has re-entered the scene forcefully, reaffirming his role as guarantor. But how is it possible, in a movement founded on the myth of "1=1," to then claim that a single person has the power to decide for everyone?
This phenomenon often occurs when absolute direct democracy is invoked: in the end, it is one person who leads. A similar example can be found in Bolshevism, which nominally meant "grassroots assembly" but ultimately boiled down to the command of a single individual, like Stalin, in other dictatorships.
Furthermore, it is scandalous that a party requiring its elected officials to donate most of their state-paid salaries to the party guarantees the founder a salary of €300,000 per year, nearly €1,000 per day.
It is unsurprising, therefore, that twice in a row, M5S members have reaffirmed the line advocated by Conte, effectively sidelining founder Grillo.