Two or three different teachings can be drawn from the implosion of the cinquestelle, which however have not a few historical precedents.
The first is that utopias are only useful if they are used as models towards which to strive, and by dealing with the limits of reality every day. If, on the other hand, one pretends to impose a wholly and dogmatically utopia, that is easily overturned into its opposite. Such as, for example, the goal of “total” democracy, of a full and egalitarian involvement of all citizens in public decisions, which overcomes the distorting filter of ruling classes often not interested in the common good and seeking only perpetuation. Nice project, in theory. Which, however, in the ambition to assert itself in a revolutionary and rigid way, ended with a grotesque series of fights within the ruling class itself. All while the rhetoric of the “armchairs” backfired against those who had created it; and the accusation of the other parties in parliament of not representing the country led, paradoxically, to an even smaller representation of those elected on the lists of the 5-star Movement, scattered in every possible group. The (well-founded) question of greater citizen involvement, of the distance to be bridged between decision makers and “ordinary people”, summed up in the slogan “we will open parliament like a can of tuna”, perhaps needed everything except a can opener with decisive claims .
The second teaching takes us back to the ancient question of the relationship between ideals and the legs on which they walk. The emergence of a ruling class in the 5-star Movement was random, confused, minority and without legitimizing rules, due to the extreme liquidity of the Non-Statute. The resulting leadership was endowed with poor culture and political quality, and in several cases even moral, despite its moralistic premises.
The third lesson concerns the relationship between ideology and anti-ideology. The first has certainly shown to be at sunset already in the last century. But the second, starting from the hyper-structured program of the original five stars, highlighted that without a minimum of political framework, broad planning and vision of the country, the risk of governing with everyone and diluting into nothingness is very high. As well as that of concluding one’s parable without any identity to be proposed to the famous “citizens”.