.... has created everything. Cynical, detached, impermeable, but also mad, capable of unheard of social inventions. History has always gone by these parts. And we are still here, still in Rome to start again one more time. As Dario Fo said yesterday in Milan "we’ll turn things upside down“, in a way that our forefathers didn’t manage to do in 1945. And here we are in Rome again. The forecast says there may be rain. At the end of winter, Piazza San Giovanni will be even more beautiful. The reconstruction of Italy can now begin on the basis of social justice, of equity, of community, and of solidarity. The Italian has lost the idea of beauty, of happiness, even the awareness of self, of self worth and of personal identity. We can succeed in coming out of the darkness, of seeing the stars once more. It won’t be the spread that stops us if each person plays their part, if we get involved fearlessly. We are the State and they have convinced us otherwise. They have persuaded us that the State is the parties, the banks, the Equitalia tax collectors, that it is the bureaucracy that is inflexible with honest people. They have convinced us that democracy is being vassals and that to rebel is populism, “qualunquism”, antipolitics.

In Rome we have to make our voice heard. It has to be heard as far away as Sydney, Buenos Aires, and Beijing. It has to proclaim that democracy will come back to Italy, that we have arrived and that we are never going away again. Italians are indestructible, they have tried in all ways to weaken them, to impoverish them, to make them subservient. But no one has ever succeeded for long. In this long journey across the Italy of tomorrow, I’ve seen thousands of happy faces, of smiling people, illuminated with the hope of a future and this happiness, this hope is already there inside them bringing the awareness of change. We have already changed Italy. We have already won. Here we are in Rome. Anyone who is there will tell the story to their grandchildren: " I too was there in Piazza San Giovanni, the day that changed Italy“. Everyone come to Rome on 22 February! See you in Parliament! It’ll be a pleasure.

If Grillo really wanted to change something, he wouldn't rule out from the start becoming part of a coalition-government. He could lay it out in the negotiations: "Those are our demands. As long as they are met, the government can count on our votes."

If you are not willing to accept the responsibility of actually governing, then you have no business being in politics.

Grillo has refused a full blown coalition negotiation - direct democracy like he (and OWS and 15M and me) advocates for an end to party politics. That doesn't mean the end of politics. He has literally said they will "judge each policy proposal on a case-bycase basison its merits and support it accordingly".

Read up a bit more, for starters in his blog, where his most recent post explains why he won't endorse a government.

And as an aside: even if it were "just" an opposition party unwilling to govern and compromise, yes there could be a lot of good in that. Like, providing transparency and a voice for the people who support them?

Also, what Beppe Grillo himself says isn't the be all end all - he himself will NOT enter parliament (never intended to) because he has a conviction for a traffic accident, and one of the 5 star movement rules is you can't govern when you've got one.
Neither will he be able to dictate to the 150 elected supporters of the movement what they should do. And that is precisely the point.

It's a novel concept, indeed. Politics past partisanship in the interest of the common good. By the people, for the people.

Italy's parliament is a mess just as it is right now, with more parties than anybody needs (7 major and 27 minor parties) and a ridiculously low election-threshold of just 2%.

The italian parliament consists of 10 parties right now, including Grillo's, summed up into 4 coalitions. Further fracturing of Grillo's party will double or triple that number.
(Please imagine how fast the US Congress and the US-Senate would be if you go from 2 to 4 parties.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm for a fair representation, but at some point you need the assurance that certain politicians would vote in a certain way. If Grillo really wants to forgo a party-structure, then how is he supposed to get anything done?
If Grillo can't guarantee that members of his own party will accept or reject certain kinds of bills, why should other parties take his support/antagonism into account?
If Grillo's party behaves unpredictable, why should any other party bother to help them reach their goals?

Look at the republican party in the US right now: the Boehner-Rove-establishment (money) vs the Tea Party (ideology). Economic hawks vs Defense hawks. The hatred for Obama is the only thing that keeps them together!
How is such a party supposed to work through the list of promises they gave to their constituents?

based on their own convictions. Don't underestimate the commonality people in general share, and especially people with the mindset of this movement. I have found the same with Occupy, where a set of long discussions with my very rightwing neighbour led to us to find so much agreement that he joined me in a meetup. At the end of the day, we're all people trying to make do and provide a future for our children.

Why do you need the assurance people will vote in a certain way at some point? I think one only needs that if you want to engage in party politics. That is, some "leader" gets a mandate to negotiate with "the other side" and then needs the votes to back him up.
But once you have established that "leader", he has concentrated power and his corruption becomes more likely and more effective and corruption of the process more easy.

It looks like the movement is not looking to get support from or give support to the existing parties. But I'll be very very surprised if they didn't come up with some good proposals that they themselves support almost unanimosly, and that others will have a hard time not joining. It will all be on a case-by-case basis.

I do understand your comment, but think of it like this: OWS was blamed for not having a soundbitey solution or set of demands, and it was certainly messy at times. That doesn't detract from OccupyTheSEC filing a lawsuit against the bank regulators for failing to do their job, or from OccupySandy bringing relief with thousands of volunteers. My point is, total coherency is not needed to get things moving.

It's essentially the message Thom Hartmann always brings: remember, democracy begins with YOU. Get active and DO something. Anything really

Sometimes the right things, the sensible things are ugly and unpopular.

and OccupySandy. Those volunteers aren't exactly doing the easiest thing are they?

It all depends on the quality of the information people use and the process. And especially if you keep things al local as can be, I think the danger of always going "the easy road" (like, not investing in decent environmental practices) becomes much smaller.

Again, I do understand the risk. It's real, and tbh I won't be defending the 5 star movement like I'm absolutely convinced of the outcome. I just by far prefer the uncertainty of empowering the people to the certainty of leaving power where it has been utterly corrupted.

populist |ˈpäpyələst| noun
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.

From the current top article on the blog: If Bersani wants to propose the abolition of public contributions to the parties starting from these elections, we’ll back that enthusiastically (the M5S has turned down the 100 million euro due to them). If he wants to insert into the timetable the introduction of a citizen’s income we’ll vote for that with passion.

If I am reading this correctly he is saying these new elected representatives want to get away from public funding of elections and move to one based on donations from citizens? As in he want to move closer to what the US currently has, fully bought and paid for politicians by private interests?

and Grillo seems focused on not becoming a part of "the system" which he (justifiably imho) sees as corrupt.

But I agree with you that bit reads counterintuitive - I'm pretty sure he is NOT wanting to go to a US style of campaign funding. I think however that risk is not so big - he just wants to take away the funding that he sees as now propping up corrupt parties. Note that it is not about ELECTION funding but funding for parties as a whole that is being discussed.

Also take into account that Italy was mismanaged by Berlusconi, who controlled both his own private media concern AND the state media, and thereby the entire debate. And after being to critical of the socialist government in a joke, Grillo was banned from the state channel as a comedian.

As I said above, what the elected representatives will do is anyone's guess. They seem to typically be young, well educated and female total newcomers to politics. I've got muuuch more faith in them than in 95% of the politicians I see every day.

I think your concern is legitimate though. I am personally in favour of public funding for both parties and elections, and this position of his may be overdoing it (also notice he is saying "should they propose it, we will join" - is not the same as proposing it yourself . Having watched some interviews with him, and his public performances, it's safe to say he isn't above some grandstanding and hyperbole (as is evident in his public performances), but the ideas that underly it all (as apparent in interviews) are very sound.

employee, and they've been getting into everything in Europe. Much love to Italy! Don't let it swing to the far right!