In history, not all “marshes” marked the triumph of “human power”. Mussolini's “March on Rome” or “Marches with torches” of all Nazi ointments carried sinister anti-democratic messages in the 20th century.
The euphoria of part of the commentators, caused by the “March 4 June” in Warsaw, may as well be the announcement of the future election triumph of the opposition as well as an effective counteroffensive by the rulings. But can it be the announcement of the triumph of “democracy”? And if so, what?
In the course of systemic transformation, during the exit from "real socialism", it was instilled in the public consciousness of Poles that democracy is simply a panacea for all pains inherited from the erstwhile strategy and acquired in everyday functioning. This was done without reflection, with the engagement of native “revolutionaries” and with the encouragement of powerful “suflers” from outside. However, it is not a universal, desirable and effective strategy in all situations. Already American Founding Fathers knew that “democracy is worse than first sin.” Few people remember that any of them advocated a monarchy system, and there was no deficiency of opinion that “the people are stupid” and “cannot rule.”
In the euphoria of the triumph “over the commune”, many people did not know what to do with the regained “freedom”. On the wave of discredit of the erstwhile system, regardless of its “positive and negative advantages”, Polish society was confused and prone to manipulation. Eventually, for a tiny price, all the assets of the erstwhile identity were abandoned, gradually giving in to the protection of the mythical West. It is simply a pity that books published in fresh years on the scenes of Poland's transition to the United States (Seth G. Jones, Bruno Drwaski or John Pomfret) did not origin any disturbance in the political or media world. Persistent amnesia makes it hard to settle with the hard past of fresh decades.
In the case of Polish society, due to historical perturbations, there was no time erstwhile to get democratic patterns, political and legal culture was at a low level, and many of the exuberant citizens did not separate between state and economical cognition and ignorance. This is inactive the case today. Ideology and even mythology of democracy made it a religion. Confessors from all sides have a strong religion in it, but they do not know what it serves or where it leads. They treat it instrumentally, imposing their way of knowing standards and patterns of conduct, depending on who presently holds power. In general disorientation, what is real and what is false, what is honest and what is immoral, there is widespread social insanity (it is not only about stupidity, but about the circumstantial handicap of individuals focused on private life, in opposition to the community, from gr. Idiots). Further consequences include apathy and electoral abstinence, self-insulation, frustration, interior emigration, and even fleeing the country.
The most crucial slogan of the fight for democracy in Poland has become the saving of freedom, which is threatened by a “ creeping dictatorship”. However, this mythical freedom for almost all Pole means something else. any want “holy peace”, freedom from the regulation of the Law and Justice, others from the clergy, yet others from the ban on abortion or the ideology of schools, but fewer can specify freedom in a affirmative sense. How can we manage it so that there is no way back from the standards and practices of a democratic regulation of law? How can rationalism be reconciled with morality, so as to prevent the recidivism of the oligarchy of organization winners? How can we yet make free citizens liable for everything that determines common welfare?
Democracy is based on politically equal majority governments (directly in persona or through representatives). Democratic rules of play and customs “hide” for years and do not warrant “good” governments. The past of Western democracy shows, whether in England, France, or in the United States, that today's imperfect stableness has evolved in a tedious struggle, full of defeats and retreats, threatening to take over power by narrow comets and oligarch groups. It is now evident that democracies, called liberals, have small to do with the rule of "good governance" according to the regulation of the majority.
Despite various optimistic calculations, out of 193 members of the United Nations, only about 1 3rd of them practice liberal-democratic patterns, guaranteed by constitutions. Many of the another countries are characterised by "democratic", although in fact their democracies are weak and unstable. It is so worth noting that liberal democracy is an highly mythological system. There is no correlation between freedom and equality. These 2 values are mutually exclusive. For men can be either free or equal. In simple terms, political freedom divides societies into rulers and rulers, economical freedom – rich and poor. By utilizing freedom, people condemn themselves to unequal situations. We live in a hierarchized world. People may be born equal, but they are different, even in terms of intellectual and physical predispositions.
As the Austrian political philosopher misjudged Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "If all men were to be intellectually equal, all the foolish and lazy would should be forced to exert themselves and the wise to be foolish." As various systemic experiments show, especially in the Stalinist russian Union and another states of “real socialism”, equality has been attempted through force (a celebrated uravnilovka) and has always been at the expense of limiting freedom. It is so incorrect to search social justice in equal (equal) treatment of citizens. Unfortunately, democracy, especially in terms of populist demagogues, is the way people do.
Democracy contains quite a few traps that many citizens never think about. First of all, those who believe in the magical power of elections do not want to remember that the "force" of a single voter is minimal to say microscopic. The voices of a single voter truly do not substance much. "They are like leaves carried by water."
Furthermore, by voting for 1 organization or another, the voter never knows how his organization will behave after the election, entering, for example, the least anticipated or even undesirable coalitions from his point of view. The scam of democracy is besides about the fact that the majority gained in the general vote does not correspond to the real majority of society. It is the sum of the votes of the voters who are entitled to vote. Converting votes for tickets is another trap (so-called electoral arithmetic), not to mention electoral thresholds or electoral geometry (gerrymandering). possibly the top threat from democratically elected governments is that they may, in the name of the “will of the people”, usurp the right to submit to all another authorities (for example, courts), and the top injustice to call “the reason of the state”.
Contrary to popular belief, a democracy based on the rule of political pluralism does not teach political forces to fight for the common good. The goal of all election rivalry is to defeat others. So it is not about winning the best. The point is to weaken him as much as possible. There is simply a large deal of ruthlessness, cynicism and hypocrisy. Smart and effective governments are far away. It's crucial to form your government with the support of the biggest audience.
It has long been discovered that democracy combined with liberalism can be free and tolerant, but it can besides be "totalitarian" (Jacob Talmon) and oppressing the nation in a variety of ways. The Covid-19 pandemic showed how democratic governments can freely restrict civilian liberties in the name of the common good, and modify the state's strategy into authoritarian prayer.
In the face of specified threats, the attachment to demophilia, that is, according to herd thinking, to advance respect for the governments of the majority, is even greater. The declared politician so focuses on who should regulation the country. He is little afraid with governance practices which, depending on the circumstances, may be more or little democratic. Yes, they can lead to the formation of a systemic hybrid, called non-liberal democracy, of which pathologies, related to pathocracy, are no stranger. They can be observed in today's Poland, Hungary, Turkey or Israel.
Patocrats have nothing in common, possessive and greedy, power is instrumental to gain another goods and values. An obsession with political competition usually leads to abuse of power and sometimes even to open war. They are ruthless and vindictive towards political opponents. For a reason, these pathologies of power are associated with intellectual disability and disruptions of ruling personalities.
The worst part is that there are no effective defence mechanisms in democracy against sociopathic and psychopathic politicians who are ostentatically breaking the law and acting against society. Threatening them for abuse of work before state courts is grotesque. In this context, it is worth considering the problem of recruiting political elites. Politics is the highest hazard in which millions of lives and lives are at stake. Why, then, is there no mechanics to check and destruct dangerous psychopaths from the political game? Why doesn't anyone check the qualifications and usefulness of politics? After all, no 1 in charge will sit behind the steering wheel of an airplane or behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle not professionally prepared. What, then, results from social frivolity that allows any wiser to take control of the state if he finds favorable circumstances for himself?
The confusion of concepts between democracy and liberalism makes supporters of “human power” blind to many practices of limiting civilian liberties. In particular, there are no guarantees that democratic change of power through elections always serves liberalisation. After all, the leadership models of the organization have a terrible impact on governments in the country. The practice of respect for individual loyalty, not the regulation of law, is universally attributed to the leaders of extraordinary skills and competences erstwhile in reality we are dealing with people of average, cynical, lacking cognition and charisma.
In specified a situation there is simply a shift of power, while maintaining appearances of world-view pluralism and electoral procedures, towards autocracy. incapable to deny a priori claims concerning power from opposition parties, the alleged organization of power reaches for various limits to the chances of its competitors. The fact that the ruling majority (which is based in the parliamentary majority) can afford the most unfair moves shows how democracy is moving towards makiawelism and the arbitrary will of self-appointed authorities. Maintaining power at all costs becomes an imperative, and determination to do so justifies all, even the most immoral and ruthless means.
This constitution provides the basis for discussions on the electoral agenda of any democratic political force. In Poland, no “freedom march” will change the situation if the election run – alternatively of substantive discussions about the essential reforms and the opportunities for them to be implemented – will focus on behind-the-clock bidding and competitions on the ballots. They are covered by rally slogans, but in addition to emotional emotions, they do not give them any deeper reflection. In addition, the common hatred of each other's “splemion” leads to ideological slogans, as well as common invectors, displacing from the electoral conflict reason and even average human reason.
Against the background of intellectual misery, organization cameras exposure their conceptual deficit and from left to right focus on secondary matters. There are no solid projections and scenarios for the future in different areas. This is not about a race for election promises that no 1 will full implement. It is worth to look forward to real and possible changes in interior and abroad policy, to decide whether Poland is able to cope with dramatic challenges in the economy (energy, climate, agriculture, but besides corruption and pressures from abroad corporations), how to combine dynamic growth and social advancement with the top in the past of armaments, to engage in global division of labour and responsibility, to reconstruct prestige and reputation of a solid partner.
The promises of settlements with the erstwhile authorities do not supply a good chance of social reconciliation. Supporters of quarreling political camps are forced into the heads of so many hideous lies about the opponent that there can be no reconciliation. Reconciliation requires the good will of the disputed parties to respect each other's rations and to find what unites and the omissions of what divides. So first you gotta carry out a deep process of expiation, purification, taking the blame, hitting yourself in the chest to realize what the pathological phenomena active on each side. Social rehabilitation, the painful restoration of common trust, the will of agreement and cooperation through civic education is needed. Only then will social reconciliation be possible. It is hard to believe that these goals can be achieved by the erstwhile antagonists of the Polish political scene.
An additional obstacle is the failure of power and mediation from specified authorities as were the leaders of the Catholic Church and independent intellectuals in the times of the Polish People's Republic. In front of our eyes are the processes of degradation of the prestige and reputation of these environments. This is surely a subject on separate consideration, but it must not be forgotten in the context of the decomposition of the Polish political scene.
The opposition parties, in order to win the closest elections, must so scope for the widest intellectual and willful possible in Polish society. Many "campus" must be organised to bring intelligent, young and capable people into politics who will naturally replace the "old guard". The leadership ambitions of organization leaders must give way to a rationally planned victory, the essence of which is the originality of programming and the innovation of ideas for real change. Experience so far shows that the combating parties in the political conflict induct each another and relate to each another with the highest contempt. This does not foster democratic political culture.
The programs of political camps are based on common confrontation, even negation. There is no area for constructive dialog or common concessions between them. Hence, there is no chance that, in the rotation of political parties in power, there is no reasonable continuity. After the electoral battles each starts again and defines the mythical “state ration”. This does not service either the seriousness of the state or the social benefits.
Against the background of this disagreement, the more paradox becomes the identical imagination of abroad and defence policy. "Russian blackmail" is so strong in the awareness of ruling and opposition elites that in the debate on safety or attitude towards war in Ukraine, there is an incredible uniformity of views, attitudes and behaviours. Political parties from the right to the left are “thins” of the only “right” worldview, which, in the light of the above mentioned contempt and hatred, is hard for many bystanders and reasoning people to understand. Without its own opinion, and besides its critical judgment, the opposition weakens its credibility and shows its comparative character.
This example besides reveals the deficiency of independency of Polish politicians in creating independent political thought and visionary strategical doctrine. The American hegemonic sovereignty, expressed in full control of Poland's behaviour, however, besides has a affirmative side. It seems that, regardless of the instrumental treatment of the ruling people in Poland, Washington's force may nevertheless prevent restrictions on political freedoms. If there were always anti-democratic decisions (for example, suspension of elections or annulment of their results) in the name of the safety of the state and the nation, i.e. in the name of a decently identified vis maior (force majeure), co-responsibility for the complete dismantling of democracy over the Vistula will besides fall on the American protector.
After these depressing things, 1 can conclude that, thankfully, nothing lasts forever. Abraham Lincoln He erstwhile noted that "it is possible to deceive everyone for a time, any people at all times, but 1 cannot deceive everyone at all times." So there is hope that people will in time admit the real intentions of the patocrats, having had adequate of their arrogance and "entering with the shoes" into all matters. The resilience to the pathologies of power is due to the gradual accumulation of knowledge, the creation of appropriate consequence habits, and yet the active building of opposition in the form of loud expression of convictions and demonstration of moral attitudes, even in the form of "joy marches of freedom".
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 25-26 (18-25.06.2023)
