What's he gonna be like in inactive young, 2024 and all? Well, that's what I'm going to say as revealingly as that old gag bag, erstwhile he predicted the weather, will be somehow. Which might mean good. Most of us are certain that in any case it will be much better, any that it will be great. I don't know for sure. Agnieszka Kłakówna erstwhile wrote the book someway and quality – it was about the past of the school in 3rd Poland, and this title, playing a similarity to the sounds and identity of the origin of words, exploited this crucial curiosity, in which “some” always points to mediocre quality – never the highest quality. It's interesting where that kind of meaning comes from. My intuition says it's a consequence of statistical reflection in which most of the trials give a mediocre effect. Learned pessimism, then. A psychiatric category. In any case, contrary to this experience, erstwhile I repeat present the wiser than myself, that “it will be”, I say that “something” means “good” this time, which, in fact, corresponds to the common sense of the saying, which makes me grin despite the mediocre diagnosis and is simply a unique case of the undepressant meaning of the word. But let this meaningful ambiguity stay here. Poland's right of state present requires that it be "something", although at the same time "something" is not adequate to halt the recidivism of populism. Better is said to be the enemy of good. Good will be the enemy of incorruptibility, which, in addition to everything, has to do with itself, that it is unstable, though it may last a long time. That's what the text is about.
I address him to those who think likewise and are ready to look from this circumstantial perspective, which will should be explained here. Ready to talk, perhaps, which I would like to ask for at this next, surely better, but at the same time harder. due to the fact that a conversation would require a calm thought, I'm certain if it happened, it would be very intimate. I'm utilized to that. Polish citizens have never tried to be a mass movement, and even in 5 minutes of our Molojek fame we have not given up the course against the current. I wonder what part of yesterday's activists will stay today. It seems very insignificant to me, though we all said that we would look at all power. Well, even if we were operating in a classical watch-dog formula, that would mean remaining in opposition to power, due to the fact that all watch-dog primarily controls power. And no 1 wants to do that, we enjoy winning the elections and yet our government of civilized people. After all, watch-dog would not be a adequate formula, due to the fact that in Poland there is much more to be done, including things that will not happen in classical politics, there is neither anticipation nor will. This text is besides about that. Can you be in a delicate opposition? Constructive? Unrememberingly, I callback that the "constructive opposition" is simply a quote from the dictator Jaruzelski, who imagined his imaginary character of the opposition so that it did not endanger power in anything. Nor a strategy which was not allowed to change in any way can be stigmatized at most by more spectacular “mistakes and distortions”, and that is only if the power permits it. How to do anything and not mess up at the same time – are there any chance at all?
We spoke about the elections on October 15 – rightly and alternatively without large abuse of proportion – that they have been the most crucial since the year ’89. So possibly we're besides going to have a transformation of akin importance and comparable magnitude. Well, I'd like that very much. But this is surely not going to happen – for many reasons, for which at least any of this text will effort to recaptulate.
Hope for a large transformation I have lived through the last fewer years of public activity that has never been my specialty or passion for myself. To this day, however, it makes me look at the planet in which dangerous things are happening, and at Poland in which things are better. My hopes have never meant illusions, and present everything truly indicates that fewer of us thought this way and that there will be no large transformation. Poland's state of affairs present simply requires that “they” do not return to power. This will shortly begin to mean full consent to "some", due to the fact that everything will be better than what we have experienced in fresh years. They will come back together all these “not now”, known to us from the opposition past. Poland's right of state will require consent to enter into a war policy and flaws of a democratic strategy alternatively of a dream of repairing it – and we will gladly grant this consent, excluding expectations of a truly transformative reform.
Diagnosis and the simplest conclusions
These are all complex cases. And ambiguously, despite the brutal ambiguity of the war with the Law and Justice, in which we are now entering the next phase, in the solstice so serious that leading to a constitutional crisis around the budget, although I do not know why the accelerated elections should be feared by us, alternatively than Duda, if there is simply a chance in them for the majority that will break through, which would mostly invalidate any of the problems that will be discussed here. In short, I think of these ambiguities as:
Dreams of actual democracy, which no 1 has seen in reality III of the Republic of Poland, are important, but of course no of them can mean the hazard of undermining the democratic majority and the written recidivism. The problem is that permanent democracy requires cutting off the dry sources of populism. And they are in the flaws of the system, which must not be tolerated or deepened even more – and that is what we will be condemned to do in the future, marked by "something like this."
How do we get out of this? This is the main question in this text. I'm putting them out of an uncomfortable position. I have any ideas and others have any ideas, too, but possibly the real answer is just that you can't get out of it anymore.
A fewer examples of what will happen and what will not – a survey of 3 cases
Talk about TV, school and abortion. In each of these cases there will be what can be – that again, like a baca, I will bet a certain thing. First of all, they will decide very limited possibilities, and whoever wills only to a tiny extent. There will be what you can expect. The voters of the Law and the Confederacy will not vanish – this cannot be expected. So the threat of populism and fear of it as 1 of the main factors of shaping and reality, and our attitudes toward it, will not disappear. The course for the confrontation on the part of the Law and Justice can be seen very clearly, and nothing else could be expected. If anyone has wondered what the function of Duda will be in this situation, there is no uncertainty about it today. The Confederacy will proceed to be “the only righteous one” who does not participate in the “heavy war” of the PiS with “liberals” – Holownia and the 3rd Road to enter this function (the function they dream for them, and for all possibly beneficial ones) will no longer win without exposing ourselves and us to another catastrophe. A strong attitude can besides be seen from the fresh power, which seemingly decided to withstand the confrontation – the arrest of Kamiński and Wąsik was a double demonstration, besides addressed straight to Duda, since it was there that the detention took place.
If I were to advise Kaczyński, I would advise him to be ready to die for these 2 "political prisoners", not just pretend. precisely the same – à rebours – against the same Kamiński I proposed opposition at the start of the PiS rule, reasoning that the momentum of the fresh power must be stopped immediately, due to the fact that then it will only be harder. reasoning on this peculiar occasion that this is possible, due to the fact that if the protest were truly strong then, then no 1 behind Kamiński would want to die. Consent to appoint a constitutional minister to the criminal, was an extraordinary concession and had to follow it further. Then – precisely for the proposal for action in the Kamiński case – I was excluded from the recently created CODE. present Kaczyński should know that forcing the release of Kamiński, for which no 1 from the ruling organization would want to die again, would importantly halt the act of the fresh power. Another step – letting them into the parliament area – would shake the fresh power very much. Fortunately Kaczyński most likely does not have the strength to do so.
Despite the offensive, the government does not have a majority in the Sejm to break Dudy's veto – expected under any more serious bill – so with abortion liberalisation, school reform, insurance, wellness care, television. It's a shame to think about TK at all in this phase. These ticks are double – they consequence from a constitution which requires, among others, 276 votes to reject Duda's veto, and from the fact that PiS and Confederacy voters are inactive a large, close half (although today's close 1/3) crowd of people. These ticks force and will proceed to force the unity of the Coalition on October 15. But they will not one more time origin various "imposibisms", destroying the origin of power, which could be dangerous to her. The question is the stableness and unity of the right camp. There are no rumours of departures from the Law and Justices, although they should be expected, for example, from possible “crown witnesses” on which “the papers are”. Strange. Well, we'll see.
The effects of this situation are easy predicted today. It's way besides early to judge. However, it is worth realizing the consequences of 2 types of cases, which we will gotta deal with constantly during the time that separates us from the presidential elections – the next most crucial ones since 1989, as we will shortly begin to repeat. The first kind is media and school, the second kind is abortion. The scripts will describe the full Polish political reality, I believe. In the meantime, we may be relieved, and possibly we may be in reasonable despair about the results of the American elections. Polish case – 1 should know this – should not only be placed in a global context, but besides global generalised. The mechanics of collision with populism is akin everywhere.
TVP case. It's an breathtaking performance, though, for example, the breathtaking scene of the arrest of Kamiński with Wąsik obscured interest in the grotesque situation in tv buildings – and there will be plenty of specified events. If I was amazed about television, there were comparatively many comments that pointed out that public media must be reformed very thoroughly, and no of the abrupt pulls of the fresh power provides this. Position of the Helsinki Foundation, in rule explaining the unconstitutional nature of the government's attempts in the first step, immediately after the creation of the government, is worth the highest designation in this situation, although it is besides perfectly understood that the constitutional orthodoxy of the Foundation was an unwise gesture, since there are no another proposals and the Foundation does not indicate any one, and the substance must be settled necessarily. Sam, honestly, I didn't anticipate anyone to talk to me about this. tv and radio cannot be left in written hands, and any serious reforming bill – and so hard for constitutional reasons, due to the fact that requiring the liquidation or interruption of the word of office of existing bodies – will effectively block Duda veto. another possibilities are so simply not there and will not be for long. What amazed me very positively is the fact that whoever even sees the request for reform, not only to take over what he had taken and destroyed the Law and Justice – and there are quite a few specified voices.
At present, Minister Sienkiewicz, as expected, uses ownership rights towards public media companies. For the sake of clarity, I do not talk of the legality of this "road to shortcuts", although its irregularity has been pointed out by the registry court, refusing to enter changes in the composition of the TVP bodies, and the argument in the justification of the judgement rightly repeats the statements of the Helsinki Foundation. I consider this road to be legal, and it is not by shorthand, but from the point of view of the highest and most crucial values standing behind the legal order and straight indicated in the Constitution of Poland, which – besides in accordance with its provisions – is allowed and should be applied directly. The company code is no excuse. It's the origin of action. Above all, he says that Sienkiewicz is liable for TVP. The more detailed legal context is especially beneficial for Sienkiewicz. The Helsinki Foundation and the court are right, stressing that the same conviction of the inactive legal TK under Rzeplinski's leadership – stating that the management powers of the National Broadcasting and tv Council were not allowed to be transferred to the Minister of the Treasury, and even more so, the later appointed Council of National Media – pointed out, at the same time, that public media must not be managed out of ownership due to the fact that they are public. But there is no another legal owner. That's the full point. It is not an RMG, but it has not been a KRRiTv for years – fortunately enough, due to the fact that it would be essential to wait until the constitutional (!) word of office of the members ends. This fact – the deficiency of adequate legal competence in anyone's hands due to written legal chaos – the court refused to take into account.
So present it is Sienkiewicz who is the only body legally liable for media companies – and the company law is the only 1 that does not rise objections, especially regarding liquidation. Neither the constitutional KRRiTV nor even the unconstitutional RMG have the power here. Sienkiewicz reacts due to the fact that he has to respond in defence of not so much company finances, but in defence of the highest standards of law. This court did not consider either. The actions of TVP could not be tolerated for a second – not due to the fact that there is simply a PiS sitting there, although it is besides scandal, nor due to the fact that Duda prevented the backing of the station for a moment, which gives Sienkiewicz an excuse to put the media into liquidation – but above all due to the fact that lying, manipulating, propaganda and scheming of TVP straight violates the dignity of millions of people, and it is the highest constitutional value. Sienkiewicz is left with only liquidation of companies – as expected before the election, at least mine. The liquidation is legal no doubt, although it is simply a bit of a pity that it is finance, and not the highest values are the declared reason here. There will most likely not be a presidential election – tv liquidators can manage the crisis until then and they will be happy to take advantage of it.
I would have been more calm if Sienkiewicz had responded to the court for his alleged "attack" which would have decided his actions. This calmness is crucial to me due to the fact that any corrective action of the present power will set a standard that the next power will be eager to call upon. This seems to be forgotten by commentators demanding realism and assertiveness in these discussions, as Wojciech Sadurski doesWhich I besides agree with.
The criticism of Minister Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz by publicists and lawyers besides on the democratic side for how to deal with TVPiS is only an announcement of conflicts, which will undoubtedly accompany all corrective actions during the transitional period.
I besides agree with this aspect of prof. Sadurski's thinking. I would add that to the function of the courts. Let anyone who always tries specified solutions – forceful, about it there is no uncertainty – know that they will be brought to justice for them. I have no uncertainty that any honest court will yet admit Sienkiewicz's arguments. No honest court would accept Kurski's right.
So what brings me to my attention about TVP is not lawlessness, but a political model in which the media has power. This model perpetuates alternatively of changing. And from this, not only the legal paths that have been set out today, any next power will be eager. Public property, on the another hand, would have it against itself, that it would be immune to the result of the election and to whose seismic majority it is. It was never so good in the past of the 3rd Republic of Poland, and we did not worry about it besides much, since it was ‘something’ or ‘not so bad’. The TVP under the Law and Justice should, however, make us think of guarantees that prevent specified violent takeovers and so ruthless, blunt policy of the sign "I do not have your coat." This rule should, of course, be generalised on respective another key institutions of the state, which should besides be systemicly resilient, alternatively than dependent on who happens to have them. The same rule should, first of all, besides apply to the full of the law – at least to any crucial degree to basic regulations of the rank of a close constitution.
Not since yesterday, and not since the written regulation of the Sejm, the law, alternatively of strictly defining by the Sejm the controlled, impermeable borders of the ruling, has become a tool of their politics, while undergoing complete degradation. Not only the media are the property of a government majority – but the full of the law of the Republic.
Well, possibly so – most of us will most likely say – but taking over TVP is simply a essential component of the Polish state's right and should be cheered upon. It's true. For this reason, all Polish politician will present support solutions that perpetuate the anti-democratic pathology of the state and its bipolar, war policy. Sienkiewicz will be able to destruct TVP, but no bill setting up fresh public media will be signed by Andrzej Duda. The effect will be that the possible fresh tv will be public without any regulation circumstantial to public media. This position would should be avoided by any fresh company if anyone in the government wanted to respect the constitution. This management function is entrusted to KRRiTV, where PiS denominations rule, and their word of office must not be interrupted. The liquidators' governments are a dangerous, though full legal patent – the opponents will want to usage it 1 day. Years of liquidator rule. And another patents: years of mining detention. Governments by decrees. You can trade for a long time.
Reform? The deeper it is, the more it will be “not for now”. It's obvious. No 1 serious is gonna divided hairs in four. Where the wood is chopping, there the chips are flying, and it is essential to chop.
School is simply a case of the same category and akin – although there will not be any votes in the spirit of the HFPC position. The school besides full depends on the ‘owner’, i.e. who has the majority in the Sejm. Unlike the media, the submission of the political school to the majority never in itself aroused emotion and seemed to be a logical consequence of the government's systemic structure, liable for various sectors of the state – especially those as large as the school. “The school must be separated from political parties,” she said as laconically as the fresh minister Barbara Nowack, of course, coming to work. But we besides heard, more or little at the same time, that in place of the infamous memory of Barbara Nowak, her successor in the Malopolska curatory “will indicate PSL”. It is simply a tiny substance without serious consequences, but it shows something that confirms the discussion about home tasks, which lasts erstwhile I compose this 1 – that Zalewska's demolition and later Czarnek's excesses made us aware of very little, though they had a chance to make everything clear.
Education is simply a gigantic sector – 1 of the most crucial reasons why we request a state at all, and 1 of the biggest budget lines. It's an infinitely far-reaching project. For these reasons, it would be worth considering whether the "hugging distant from political parties" should actually mean not only refraining from pointing out the curators according to the political key. possibly it should be a policy-resistant school strategy – so that Zalewski's demolishment, and so another types of "reorganizations" are not possible in purely political terms. any kind of school constitution would so be needed as well as the media constitution, which PiS has demolished and which we will not construct in the average mode, due to the fact that we cannot. The Minister of Idiots, the fanatic, or the average bandit can always happen – Czarnek has set a hard-to-beat evidence here, but although he was the worst, in the past of the 3rd Polish Republic he was not the only idiot, the only bandit, or the only fanatic on this stool. A good strategy is not 1 that excludes specified cases – in democracy it can never be ruled out – but 1 in which parents, children and their teachers will not be helpless against the political self-will of the head of the ministry erstwhile he goes mad or proves to be, for example, a fascist.
Meanwhile, the Polish school has always, not only since the time of Zalewska, ruled by the minister's will. It has always implemented a detailed and uniform programme for everyone, without exception, determined by it alone in the regulation, so not even subject to seismic scrutiny (if it even changes anything in the Sejm, in which the minister has by nature always a majority) and in case of uncertainty supplemented by another regulation of a net of hours, detailing in item the 13 years of life of all our children, how much precisely measured hours they will spend in physical exercise, and how much in bill exercises, wrongly called mathematics; how much on religion and how much on physics. Not all minister was an idiot, no before Nigger was a fascist, not even Gierty and Legutko. But everyone ruled – sometimes light, but more frequently not – in the same way: alone with the scope of power covering everything to the smallest details. And it's consistent. The position of the Minister of Education has always been peculiarly good for fanatical freaks to take over. Before Zalewska's demolition, the education bill was sometimes revised once, more frequently respective times a year – the changes were so much in it that the uniform text of the law had long ceased to be understood. Most of these changes were the consequence of TK's judgments – no of them, however, stated the unconstitutionality of the school strategy as a whole. He should.
When we think about the education strategy and the school obligation, we never ask basic questions. So we don't ask at all who the man we educate or effort to form in schools is. So whether it is "prepared for competition in the global market", or whether it is "tolerant democrats" or whether we want to release people who know what the percent is – to halt falling for quasi-bank fraud. due to the fact that if we imagined that the school was a place of human development, not a robot that we would like to program, believing that it could be done, it would be clear that all postulate akin to the above mentioned, even including ensuring equality of opportunity, most frequently conflicts with the intellectual and spiritual freedom of the individual—the kid and his family.
Article 70.1. of the Constitution of Poland: Everyone has the right to learn. Learning to be 18 is compulsory. ...
Sounds like coffee, doesn't it? It is the only constitutional law for which an work is established. And even sanctions. If anyone forgets the right of a child, he will be reminded of it by an authoritative in the municipality, and the notorious forgetful will be fined. It's not Kafka, though. We are simply talking about the rights of children who can neither execute them nor defend them themselves. Although most of us are accompanied at the back of our heads above all by the thought that no of our lazy children would come to school by free will—unless for social reasons. Another question that no 1 always asks anyone present concerns who is to remainder his work to defend and enforce children's rights, since this cannot be left to children. Parents or country. No 1 can even think of specified a question.
Meanwhile, it is known to people forever – as shortly as historical memory reaches out and education and school institution appear in it. The Ancient Sparta answered without hesitation: it is the country that plays the role. In the Spartan spirit, the state did this work with its own characteristic brutality, but besides – this must be said necessarily, due to the fact that it is not a coincidence – the Spartan agoge produced not wise people. Athens replied the another way around: it is the parents who gotta take care of their children's education. Solomon’s law besides provided for a cleverly thought - out sanction: parents who have neglected the right to learn to their own children cannot then claim custody in their old age. Athens besides had its Blacks: the death in the consequences of Socrates' trial afraid the depravity of young people at school. If we wanted to halt at this ancient memory, however, we would have no uncertainty which model to choose.
Meanwhile, Poland and almost all European countries choose the Spartan-Prussian model. The only exception is the United Kingdom, where the law clearly defines the function of state education services which run public education but besides supervise private schools: it is simply a purely auxiliary function for children and parents on whom the educational work and the rights essential for its implementation are laid down. There's a immense difference. British state services have lost, for example, the trial against the already 100-year Summerhill school, where children learn only what they want to learn and only if they want to. No "programming base" exists here and cannot exist. And by the way, in Summerhill's history, 1 case of a fifteen-year-old boy is known who left school, incapable to read. In modern educational systems, however, at least 15% of those surveyed in all 15-year-olds do not realize the reading.
This argument about the Constitution, Sparta and Athens surely sounds like an abstraction for most readers – I realize it and ask you to reconsider the above. If the actual illiteracy of forced “Prussian-Spartan schools” in relation to the actual non-existence of this problem in “Athenian schools” does not appeal to our imagination, let us usage a more hard but meaningful example. Kaczyński, having lost the 2007 election. announced in the Sejm that if he returned to power, there would be no sexual education in schools. As we know, he kept his word in three. He then answered him from the benches of the Sejm grunts from the "our" side – as if they had any crucial achievements in the sexual education of children. No 1 even wondered for a minute whether the right to impose the work of sexual education or to prohibit it should belong to the minister. Or even to the seismic majority. Anyone. There are those who believe that sexual education violates their freedom to rise children according to their beliefs, conscience, etc., which guarantees them a constitution. These people should be taken seriously. The Constitution truly gives them that freedom. At the same time, however, cognition of human sexuality – not only about physiology, but about all contexts in art, psychology, spirituality and, on the another hand, all consequences concerning unwanted pregnancies (which among teenagers are cyclically manifested as plagues) – is undoubtedly something that cannot be banned without affecting the right to knowledge. It's the right law. So in this case we have a conflict of constitutional values – and it occurs not only in the case of sex and religion, but besides in the case of mathematics, which is better for the school not to teach it at all, than to do it in today's dull, frighteningly stupid way, which causes at least 75% of us to have a grudge against reasoning and cutting us off from any text in which numbers appear or do not give God a "model". Who should settle constitutional values in conflict? Minister? Definitely not.
It's a sad thing, not philosophical whining:
The school's "renewal" itself is surely unconstitutional, and the irrevocability of single-person decisions, frequently made with the effect of the child's full life, is simply a systemic scandal in the modern world. Your baby didn't graduate? due to the mistakes of the committee assessing the task – misworded? You'll gotta wait for TK's conviction. This is half the poorness – but you gotta wait first and foremost for a change of power. Vote for the opposition!
This should make us aware not only of the unconstitutionality of the school – no 1 always cared, nor will they care today. The school turns out to be 1 of the elements of the strategy that itself promotes political shocks, weakening the foundation of the stableness of all power.
"Everyone sees the difference between Przemysław Czarnek and Barbara Nowacka" – so Donald Tusk signed the case in exposé. Indeed, everyone sees this, although Czarnek à rebours in any way remains Black and that is the full point. Sam, if I were to shorten the description of the situation in a akin way, I would alternatively usage an example with a failed M.A. and accompanied by an absolute helpless victim. Meanwhile, the school will simply send out the celebrated HiT textbook, any programs, reading lists(!), possibly sexual education (although with the staff prepared for it more or little as the catechestists are prepared for today), something will decide the minister on homework – and we will all consider that it is git. Until the next folk revolt. The latter, written, took the initiative "Save the small Ones", which was to end the rejection of the social motion for a referendum with a million signatures – by a vote in the Sejm 232 to 222. 2 years before the 2015 election. due to the fact that the “Save the small Ones” action ended in reality in those elections – mostly prejudging their outcome. Nevertheless, present we know, like then and even more so, no referendum. Why do we request it? Nowack's not Black.
I couldn't tell you what had a bigger mandate: a million signatures or a 10 vote lead in the Sejm. The law is clear. 10 votes. So this is simply a very bad law. To be clear and clear: I am talking about the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which has shown its weakness, allowing the voice of the written people to be ignored, and then allowing the writers to take all the power in an extraordinary way.
In any case, the school, like television, recorded alternatively of changing this characteristically farmly reasoning in which most and power means property. It's the only thing that matters who owns it. The school has thus established the same destructive mechanics in which the plebiscite winner has long taken all. But the school shows something else. If we consider the referendum dangerous, it's not for nothing. Inspired by the Law and Justice, the proposals for referendums on school and retirement age may have gone wrong, it is true, although a lot can be done here and the example of the Irish constitutional referendum on abortion shows this well. This is inactive to be said, but let us note 1 thing – if we truly recognise that all these matters are secondary and little crucial than the very maintenance of power that is essential to avoid disaster, then possibly we should effort to draw even the simplest logical conclusion from this assumption:
Maybe it would be better to lose a circumstantial case in a referendum than lose power due to it, huh?
This question will come back due to the fact that it is essential and much safer to do so now than erstwhile it is put in an electoral, crisis situation. We should remember how pathetic the initiative of Komorowski losing in 2015 about the referendum on electoral rules was and how compromising its turnout effect was.
An abortion case. It's different from the last one, due to the fact that this is where the majority of the ruling coalition ends. The liberalisation of abortion will not pass in the Sejm and Duda doesn't gotta veto anything. There are besides smaller possibilities for out-of-statutory action, though there are none. The devolved prosecutor's office (representing most likely any kind of shortcut from the absence of another option) may openly halt pursuing a "eugenic crime", supervision of medical institutions may besides do its job. But liberalisation in line with the demands of the largest protest in the past of the 3rd Republic will not be.
The first question that follows is whether and to what degree this will affect the sustainability of this large support that the current power received on October 15 – as to be believed, mostly thanks to the extremist young, especially women. A skillful Tusk would be easy to account for a possible disappointment over the conflict with Duda – but he most likely won't have a chance, as coalitions declare otherwise and Duda will not gotta block any parliamentary bill.
The issue of abortion will so most likely be postponed to "better times", which seems to be the announcement of the decision to postpone the improvement of relations with the church for the part of the word of office which will follow the presidential elections. but these coalition-to-choice choices won't change. It will not be "roads by shortcuts", due to the fact that it would be more hard not only legally, but above all politically. From the many media and school cases discussed above, where the situation with Duda condemns us with immediate solutions, and the social expectations of changing power is sufficient, abortion distinguishes a much deeper political problem.
My own problem in this case is that although I do not share the Hollow of convictions and radically different from him, I believe that legal restrictions on abortion, for example, by week 12, are open nonsense, I agree with him that the issue is besides serious to be voted on in the average way in the Sejm.
Firstly, it is simply a standard of constitutional rank that should have specified guarantees and should so be immune to changes in the parliamentary majority. After all, women's rights cannot endure any current economical situation, they must be durable, resistant to political campaigns and whims of bishops. Secondly, I seriously believe that politicians of this kind simply cannot decide – a law passed as a constitution should impose on them a framework that they are to abide by without talking.
This fundamentally crucial request for me remains in sharp conflict with the position of women fighting – the Women's Strike almost broke off contacts with Polish citizens, claiming that only misogynist supporters of the patriarchy want a referendum and that "human rights do not vote".
Abortion shows well the specificity of the position of perspective, which I have already signaled here. The problem is greater than possible and dangerous disappointment of the participants of "Mount 15 October". I have written and told many times that I will believe in democracy in Poland and its solid foundations only erstwhile the issue of abortion is resolved – not erstwhile the power of the Law and Justice will fall, but erstwhile all power can be forced to respect social rights and demands.
Democracy will not be revealed erstwhile the fresh power graciously gives women rights, but erstwhile the rulers are able to respect these rights to anyone who governs.
If we could force them to regulation openly against human rights, this prey would prove to be more permanent, and the basic thought of the restrictions imposed by the rulers would become understandable and natural. The past 8 years have been at the forefront of my efforts to guarantee that the fall of the power of the Law and Justices determines the stopping of its authoritarian course through the forced concessions. The Kamiński case mentioned here was in the same vein. It would be rather a treat to have the Sejm cancel him with the written majority. Not only would it halt this written fight before it acquired an impossible to halt momentum, but it would set an unknown norm in Poland – here we, ruled or "we, nation" have an influence on politics, and the standards we set do not depend on whose political majority is. I do not request to explain how much I lost, although the efforts of the citizens of Poland were not sterile.
Conclusions of the diagnosis. Today, I myself have this circumstantial and very depressing feeling that the fall of the Law and Justice, although very urgently needed for a long time, has come besides easily, despite the full nightmare we experienced. That the Law and Justice should fall as a consequence of the losing battles over courts, abortion, school and another matters. That any of these cases would not only be able to take distant their power, but at the same time would build a sense of civic justice and a actual foundation of democratic order. That without this foundation, the strategy would prove to be unstable. That 8 years of intense constitutional lessons of democracy have mostly been wasted.
After all, we have lived a understandable longing for better power, resembling the PiS voters, who wanted first of all “the exchange of elites”, the dissolution of “cast” etc. Today, we are convinced, as they erstwhile were, that the new, gracious and enlightened rulers would settle the matter. We believe we have regained our influence on state policy. Donald Tusk skillfully emphasized this in the exposé, quoting CBOS data, in which the respondents were straight asked about it – but he did not mention that another and a large group of voters after 2015.
[P]olitics becomes a origin of vital existential meanings. It provides explanations of reality and helps to configure identities. It allows you to view your choice as historically important, even if it inactive does not consequence in anything another than voting in elections – That's how Rafal Matyja wrote not about us, but about the voters of the Law and Justice after 2015.
I do not mean that the vote in the election is little, although it is. Nor that enlightened absolutism remains absoluteism, even if it favorably confers laws. Yes, it does, but it's nothing. It is incomparably better than the unenlightened. The problem is that all absolutism will always be easier than democratically dispersed power as a prey to uncouthers on all next occasion. And that we will stay even more susceptible than we have been before. As susceptible as present we want them to be – those we rightly want to put in prison present and even lock them up. And the deficiency of influence on state policy is not only the apparent consequence of the shortages of democracy, but besides the inactive unobvious origin of its collapse.
This review of selected situations shows what will be happening in Poland at this stage.
We will all support our government. Right. due to the fact that this is our government. That's what we wanted for 8 years. We chose anyway. We will not take care of the strategy or the legalistic constitutional orthodoxy. Nor will we care for omissions. It is besides right – the possibilities are what they are, 1 cannot ignore it, as the Helsinki Foundation did on television. However, the effect will be that at this phase we will both support the authoritarian model of the state and mobilise emotions for political war against the right. all request for permanent repair of Polish democracy will be in sharp conflict with the current urgent request to keep democratic power. As long as we win the war of power, it'll be fine, which our reasoning present will justify. It's bad erstwhile we lose. It's gonna be worse than the losers we know from the past. And possibly that's the way it has to be.
I say he doesn't gotta or can't let it. This, however, is very difficult. Harder than in the past 8 years.
What's next?
The programme of citizens of the Republic of Poland remains valid in this situation in its entirety, due to the fact that it was not about simply winning with PiS. Let the Law and the Constitution regulation the Law and the Constitution – so we repeated to the point where public trampling on the law, a number of vulgar constitutional delinquents, increasingly openly fascist politics and yet crimes that besides did not lack, took the power of the Law and any legal status. However, we always wanted, first of all, that the reasons why the Law and Justice could take over and that the mechanisms allowing Kaczyński to exercise this power should besides disappear.
It was so about constitutional reform, which would be essential elements, among others, of matters as thick as the actual tripartition of power, guaranteeing not only the independency of courts, but besides the absent control of the government by parliament throughout the past of the 3rd Republic. In the eyes of the rulers, the parliament is the same as the government is emanating the same political majority, not their own representation, "looking over power." It ruins the system's ID. And without a uncertainty the divided power could not be taken in full, as the Law and Justice did. possibly it is worth considering, is this not essential in the Polish reality of “the safety of democracy”? European democracies, most of which besides do not know the tripartition of power in this classical sense, have in return another "safes" for this place. However, threats are already happening everywhere, especially where politics are falling into a bipolar division, as is the case in Poland, and where the strategy is likewise not adapted to this situation. There is so neither a warrant of tripartition, as is provided by the presidential system, nor a mechanics of democratic choice after each party's rivalry, as is the case in the case of American primaries or British extended intraparty democracy.
On the another hand, we can see "dairy" as in-party democracy. Is it possible to let the power of democracy to be sought by the leadership structures? Well, we have almost all of these. Burn six democratic decencys, which the position of chiefs in the parties ostentatically offends, although it does not worry anyone – it is besides about the fact that 1 of the chief parties has compromised democracy in the eyes of voters with practices like incantations and another has carried out a coup. Kaczyński, forced to plan to take over the TK in front of thousands of political co-decision parties, would have a hard task. As a organization satrapa, he could not compete in elections in a truly law-abiding and democratic state. possibly this one, completely underestimated among another “fences of democracy” would be effective simply due to the fact that it would act in advance?
Finally, on the 3rd hand, it was in the programme of Polish citizens to disarm social and political bombs specified as abortion, gay rights, refugees – it can be exchanged for a long time.
At the same time, this program is completely dramatically out of date – precisely due to the fact that we won and PiS lost power. Who can care about the constitutional improvement that Polish citizens have been after from the beginning? What if she even cared – how to conduct it, if you can't break Duda's veto, not to mention the constitutional majority?
The brutal fact is, we're not curious in strategy flaws erstwhile this strategy is ours. Just like that. After all, it is understandable that any request for a permanent change of the strategy is contrary to the fundamental request to keep the power gained. But inactive certainty: the constitutional majority will not happen in Poland in any predictable perspective.
What's there to talk about? And are you certain it makes any sense to mess with the system?
Fear or democracy – the choice is ours
Unfortunately, we've already chosen. And we, ruled, and they, ruling.
Abortion, but besides any another serious adequate issue, shows something else. Durable solutions require strong social legitimacy. They must be the subject of a social contract covering both sides of today's conflict. We are inactive unaware of the obvious. 2 of the many:
• Peace can only be made with the enemy, not with a friend. That's the definition of peace, not talking to a dreamer. The enemy then remains simply an adversary. Good. This should be a democratic compromise – not that we are holding back from anything out of fear or polling composure.
• The greater the division, the sharper the controversy, and the stronger the emotions involved, the more the issue of universal legitimacy gains alternatively than loses meaning. All the more reason to avoid governments by decrees and search support in, for example, a referendum. precisely as the disliked 1 expects, though otherwise popular Simon Holovnia.
Abortion has long ceased to be a problem for any politician to solve. Like many another cases, including vaccinations, not to mention pensions, school, social policy, migration, has become a political weapon instead. A ticking bomb. It is crucial that it ticks – not that it explodes. By its nature, each bomb can be utilized only once. Kaczyński lost power erstwhile the bomb went off. It was then – not after any billion-dollar breakthroughs – that the PiS polls went down for the first time and it remained so. The bomb works as long as we perceive to ticking with horror – due to the fact that it is this fear that drives us to the polling urns most effectively of all.
One can wonder present about the sources of this miracle, which on October 15 caused evidence 74% attendance and triumph against all pre-election calculations. There must have been quite a few them. Citizen activists like to see the importance of their own activity and believe present that they have applied to this mobilisation. This cannot be denied, but I look at it differently – so I see alternatively the effect of Donald Tusk's extraordinary function and gigantic activity. Since his return to Poland, he alone has had a force here. And a large 1 – he made it even with a single tweet. Since then, neither mass demonstrations nor any another initiative have had a chance of success unless Donald Tusk "wiring" about it. My own intuition (ours, unreliable but hard data nobody knows) so tells me that in this incredible election mobilization it was not about expanding mature engagement in public affairs, but about fear that they would win “they” and that there would be a horror. alternatively than the "existential meanings", which Matyja wrote about, but the existential fear. This fear will keep mobilizing us, becoming in critical moments the facilities of each of the militant parties. They have established a war policy. We'll all play for it. another exits exist, but all are more hard and require primarily courage – no of them will almost surely be decided by anyone.
Even after the removal of Duda, the tension won't go away. However, liberal politicians remembered the lessons of six-year-olds in schools and retirement age. They know that if they go besides far, there will be a popular populist rebellion. In fresh books Donald Tusk explained the causes of the global success of the populist right, of which he understood so much and no more – "we went besides far, people were not ready for it." This is where the conventional liberals are keyed in the "worldview issues", the shocking electoral spots on the uncontrolled flood of migrants, the fresh statements about the improvement of the EU treaties as just besides far. The fear of a populist reaction will not vanish and will become known again – for example, about abortion, regulating relations with the church, about push-backs, let us not have many illusions. Risks don't pay off in politics. Just like firing ticking bombs.
We should know that political calculations in all these cases take into account no law, or even more of their own programme of beliefs of decision-makers – but it is above all whether the determination will translate into adequate support for the power here, whether or not they will outweigh the costs of mobilization on the another side and the fact that no 1 there wants to talk about anything, but that "the government keeps Polish patriots in prison". This annoying calculating of politicians is their work – we besides request to know that. This cognition makes us forget about any "other policy". What's that?
Is there a chance of a constitutional majority?
It exists. It's needed, which should be due to the diagnosis.
The constitutional majority is only possible outside the Sejm – it will never happen in the Sejm. If you look for a solution, it's among the voters, among the ruled. If that is what we want, we request to realise that this is condemning us to search for completely different ways than those to which politics have accustomed us.
But above all, why do we request a constitutional majority?
This was already about abortion, which should be defined as 1 of the constitutional freedoms, and about a school whose strategy is surely unconstitutional – although (at least seemingly) it does not deviate from the European nor global norm. But much more crucial issues are involved. It was besides about how much the parliament, which is the political base of the government, is turning into a device for voting government laws, which lose the function of the law setting the governing borders, becoming a tool for implementing their policies. Firstly, specified a state leads to marginalisation of the importance of the parliament, although sometimes (such as now) it is more interesting, due to the fact that there is simply a war against opposition in it – but its consequence is predestined in advance, and at the same time the opposition does not express "the voice of the rulers", but mostly appears as a associate in the fight for power and nothing more. This is 1 of the crucial causes of the crisis of democracy that we have just experienced painfully – we have not removed it and are inactive threatening us. Everywhere in the world, not just here. Secondly, this state of affairs means weakness of foundations and wobblyness—the winner, as has been mentioned many times, takes everything. It would not be possible if the power were actually divided.
The chances of changing this basic, most serious and devastating all fundamental flaws of Polish democracy can unfortunately only arise in a crisis situation. We have faced specified a crisis for 8 long years, in which we have chosen very consciously not to exploit the experience, large possible and tremendous achievements of the civilian protest movement, giving up the conscious construction of a strategy in which the authority of the electoral winner is very clearly limited by the law and "will of the people".
So today, in order to accomplish specified a change, we would gotta number on another crisis. And that would be suicide. It would contradict the apparent state of affairs.
However, I think that this is just the situation to be prepared for. This crisis can, for example, be revealed in the various ways discussed here on abortion, if indeed the omissions and "imposibilism" make even before the European elections in the late spring of this year the unique mobilisation of democrats disappear.
For this, it seems to me, you request to be ready not only erstwhile you consider this substance to be as crucial as it seems to me – besides erstwhile our possibly only, and surely the main concern is simply to keep power. 'Cause she could be wobbly. And then the most conservative of politicians would possibly want to look for fresh solutions.
The old Kuronia allegory about a drunk truck driver at night and about a rabbit moving distant from her road is very specific. The rabbit should run distant so the truck has to drive into the ditch erstwhile it passes. The driver is completely drunk and will almost surely ignore the threat – Kuron said – but specified a strategy remains the only chance of the rabbit. The roles are weird today, and I'm certain I'll get my head kicked for utilizing Kuron and fighting a commune in an unauthorized way. In the function of the rabbit I see not rather Polish citizens and others ready to be "delicate opposition". This can happen, as we already know, erstwhile the polls of the ruling coalition will fall as a consequence of “imposibilism”. In the function of a driver – sober at least a little, incomparably soberer than a commune or Kaczyński – I see not the Law and Justice and the government of Donald Tusk. You just should be ready for this situation. Unfortunately, she's probable.
Avoid the Unimaginable
If present it seems like we want the impossible, let it be known that we are doing this to avoid the unimaginable.
This is the last conviction from the already over 60-year-old programme manifesto of young American protesters. They were spoken of and spoke of themselves as fresh Left, although there was besides a literal quote from the encyclical of John XXIII in the manifesto alongside the summons of Sarte and Camus. Moments later, young protesters shook a powerful power. Not only did America change radically, but shocks of a akin scale were then felt by the full civilized world, though no of the protests in political terms achieved anything. For example, there was no change of power anywhere, and no 1 tried to gain political power anywhere. Political changes were frequently reversed. In France, the leadership position was preserved by de Gaulle. In the United States, Democratic Johnson was replaced by Republican Nixon, a warlord and a criminal, and among the reasons for his success was the hippy revolution, including a large and brutally pacified demonstration during the Democratic Convention in Chicago. This communicative is known in Poland as so much for a good movie about the Chicago 7 trial, rather popular on Netflix. People were beaten for their long hair and unusual manners, beating with sticks, landing in prisons and prisons, frequently dying. To a loser? Yeah, I guess so.
The US protest movement has only made 1 effort to straight participate in politics. This was erstwhile black mediocre people from the agricultural South were recorded as democratic voters in order to let them to be present at the Democratic Convention and to influence the primaries. We know this action from another, definitely more popular movie – Mississippi on fire. Glosa should tell him about how black delegates from the South, whose arrival was occupied by the death of many and countless acts of brutal and hard to imagine violence, were the majority at the Convention, but they decided to sit them behind and without a vote, calling it in addition "a compromise of rear seats", which in a cruelly thoughtless way referred to racial segregation on buses. Later, no of the contesters tried anything similar. Politicians are pigs and politics are pigs and crap – the rebellious young decided. At the Democratic Convention, the protest movement even went against this policy, on which favour could someway be counted, thus giving triumph to the Republican Nixon and to shame the Kunktator Democrats. Stupid? Maybe. And yet the planet has changed beyond recognition. The way to this change could not be led by the presence in "adult politics".
I mention this due to the fact that I think it is worth knowing that reality is changing not only and not above all by laws voted in Parliament by a political majority.
One of the biggest untruths that has been said in the past 8 years was the apparent fact that you gotta first take power to change anything.
The laws somewhat mitigating the written offensive on courts were forced outside the parliament, and the PiS parliamentarians voted for them, not any majority assembled by opposition politicians. Their talk of the “unrelenting arithmetic” of the parliamentary mandates became public nonsense at these moments. Opposition politicians did not take advantage of the chance of a complete triumph in the conflict for courts yet in the PiS term. They preferred to say "Let's win the election first". Well, we won, and then what?
The past of political coups shows that taking power is the worst, not the best way, if improvement is to be thorough, and power must inactive defend itself. Damn, you had to fight for abortion seriously in the run of the Law and Justice, alternatively of saying "not now". And you had to fight effectively about Kamiński. Well, idle talk – in any case, it is surely not possible to avoid the unimaginable 1 today. Nor is it a regulation issued to avoid Dudy's veto. How can you avoid the impossible?
Political alibi
Although fear inactive prevails in politics, and the improvement of the strategy and constitution does not care about anyone in today's heat of struggle, abortion is already abortion – yes. Even if we do not believe that women's rights require constitutional confirmation, or if we insist that "human rights do not vote" and a referendum on this issue must be a disaster, we will yet gotta admit that there is no another option but to "free politicians" from settling this matter.
PSL politicians would take relief from this. The real reason for their refusal to vote for liberalisation is not "against conscience" and the fact that a large part of the policy is done in parish indulgences in the company of agrarian parish priests. In designation of women's rights, they will not gain half a percent of the votes, while voting against, at least defending themselves against losing the minimum support they have today. It's not just a pat caused by Duda in the presidential palace. It's the same stalemate as always. This is precisely what happened in Ireland. After all, the politicians there came from all national-Catholic insurrections. Gradually, they realized that the verdict of the civilian Assembly there and later the referendum would simply give them an alibi.
"Not our decision, priest priest." That's what they might have said. And they did. I'd say it's a fortunate thing.
The activists there besides initially did what they could to avoid the referendum – until they realized that it was the only way for politicians, that the tool was typical of the Citizens' Assembly, and that as a consequence the chances of the referendum, which they had so far judged as mediocre according to the polls and predictions of an intense run of inactive powerful clergy, were expanding enormously. This could besides be an chance for us – in this case or in another case – to appear from the crisis of “imposibilism” and the dangers it will bring.
Tfor an chance besides to get a "constitutional majority" among the rulers, due to the fact that among the rulers it will never be possible. Finally, this is simply a chance to end the Polish war. We'd take the weapons from politicians, disarm the ticking bombs. It is simply a large thing, in today's Poland the biggest and most crucial thing to do. And of course the hardest.
What can we do?
I am utilized to this question, which frequently replaces in the past of Poland and my own life, after all, the more crucial question is what we want to do. For the communes a glance behind the map of Eurasia brought a cold shower on anyone – small Poland on the border of a powerful russian empire could at most bring another catastrophe on itself. So over the years the question which Poland we want meant nothing. Critically crucial were the questions of what is possible here. For 8 years, the regulation of the Law and Justice was somewhat similar. I've been doing everything I can to show that you can do a lot. I've shown rather a lot, but no one's noticed.
Well, I propose a modest action against so overwhelmingly large challenges and to this common democratic belief that the fresh power will take care of everything due to the fact that it is ours. So I propose not until the 3rd Chamber, although it could be the beginning of building a real tripartition of power. I'm simply proposing a run for her. Yes, we as a society should be prepared if the crisis truly comes. We're not the rabbit. Or a driver. We can only propose fresh rules of play. The point is to be able to offer them effectively.
Without showing “on people” voting for the Law and Justice and Democrats that it is possible to talk breaking organization wars to death, without showing that voters of enemy camps frequently have a common opinion – this will not work. specified a campaign, a trial of the Citizens' Assembly, investigating and showing their immense opportunities in coming out of the Polish war, is devoted to a task which I am trying to finance from grants.
The representative, drawn Citizens' Assembly is an thought almost unknown in Poland, niche. The fewer who know it consider it to be "warm noodles" in the category of public consultation. This is not about consultation – this must be said straight – but about the voice of the rulers. 1 in addition that limits the ruling. The referendum, at least in any cases, besides has a immense function to play. However, he has a well - deservedly bad press. And that's what you gotta face.
For example, it is crucial to know that in Ireland the long-term "Third House" deliberations have attracted public attention. They made the verdict of “people like us” mean a lot to the opinion. That the referendum had become in this situation not a spectacle of populist campaigns on both sides, but a conscious decision resulting from real thinking.
And yet – this must besides be known – when, according to the standard of transparency, these meetings were broadcast live on the Internet, the broadcasts typically had 500 viewers. The "deliberal democracy" is highly boring with all its advantages – precisely due to these advantages. Meanwhile, today’s parliamentary broadcasts have a evidence audience and are very emotional. The Citizens' Assembly will not rise them that way. There is no request to yell at anyone, no 1 will “lead” and crush – it is not allowed to do so and no 1 is interested. Oratorial performances, dramatic speeches, mines and gestures do not apply here. There is no career here and there is no chance of popularity needed in subsequent elections, due to the fact that no fresh word will just be. At the most, there will be a draw setting out another typical effort of "people like us" to solve another problem. A representation of rulers, not aspiring to rule.
All this must be shown and "sold". In Ireland, the media have taken on this function effectively. In Poland it is impossible to number on them. Polish media have long served as cheerleaders of enemy teams.
This is where you request a social attention team. And not just any, due to the fact that it's Penderecki, not Zenek Martyniuk.
This is the only ‘programme proposal’ I have today. Careful and modest. It is about this and the context described here that I would like to talk very calmly to people and environments looking from a akin perspective. Why so modest? It is partially due to the designation of the social possible for specified actions, and it is not great, to say the least. Above all, however, as a substance of uncertainty. From reflection that past seldom follows logically thought-out leads, and even little frequently undergoes even logically justified necessitys. We besides request to say a fewer words about this so that we can reflect on the deeper context of the problems.
Principle of uncertainty
In my own intellectual achievements I have 2 “rights of Kasprzak”. The first 1 says very categorically that whatever you eat at a large party, you'll always puke with a carrot and a pea. It's just not very serious if we see it here. The second "right of Kasprzak" in contrast to the first is not my first contribution to mankind's achievements. It is besides the inverse of the categorical certainty of the first law and says that past never repeats itself. Never does a set of the same circumstances lead to even akin effects. Prophecy never comes true. Neither the spectrum of communism circulating in Europe has led to revolution, nor has there been any end of history, and this can be mentioned for a long time, although these calculations would be very serious due to the fact that it would be easy to conclude that all casandric prophecies, specified as climate catastrophes, are built on springs and, after all, always "something like this". The prophets are mostly screwed, though many are right. I will confess that I have the same sense of right present – and I besides know that this is simply a right loss.
The apparent axis of everything I wrote above is the belief that we are putting a full set of ticking bombs into the foundations of a fresh order built in Poland after a happy change of power and that this must lead to misfortune. Well, he doesn't have to. It is likely to be ‘some’. A carrot with a pea.
Defend the small motherfuckers. Gallows and eternity.
I'm inactive trying to make different lines of the same main question. So, for example, what to do with dreams of a better Poland – in real Poland? It's not the first time this question has come up. They were built by prominent people. Much smarter than me. I've known for a long time that it's worth watching these attempts carefully before you make your own. I urge it to others.
– We're gonna gotta defend small motherfuckers from bigger motherfuckers, from 24-hour lawsuits, from the political CBA. – said Karol Modzelewski in a loud interview at the time.
– No. No. – protested Grzegorz Sroczyński, who talked to Modzelewski and dreams about better Poland he refused to renounce.
– That's what's gonna happen. Modzelewski was firm.
- No, I don't. Negative. Don't scare me Kaczyński anymore. You're doing this to me, Michnik's doing this to me, all the reasonable people I respect, for the seventh year. And then I go and vote for different ones, who even free kindergartens can't do well in Poland. And I don't want to, I'm out of this game.
And you'll have Kaczyński.
This was more than a decade ago, late summertime 2013, 2 years before the fulfillment of the black prophecy. That's what it looked like then, and that's what it looks like today, too, erstwhile dreams collide with reality. Sroczyński may have voted together in the 2015 election. We know how it ended. But which “little motherfuckers” then decided to defend Modzelewski? That's a truly interesting question, and I don't know the answer. In any case, specified pragmatism dictated Modzelewski's responsibility, and not cynicism, which he could not be accused of. Ideas with ideas, but it was truly crucial that we avoid Kaczyński's governments – Modzelewski correctly identified the most crucial component of the diagnosis and the most serious threat resulting from it. However, these estimates have a limited scope of validity, which is worth remembering besides present – Modzelewski himself knew well that the rationale of the limited choice, although of course mandatory, but in the final account he will not settle any matter. And it only removes misfortune in time and so inevitable. Why the inevitable? Well, that's what Sroczyński talked to Modzelewski about all this interview. And that's what we stopped talking about. That's not good.
The dreams of a better Poland – their content, of course, are so secondary, that almost insignificant with the tensions of conflict between "little motherfuckers" and the larger ones. With questions about tactical advantage. possibly it is worth to look at how their dreams defined in this quoted conversation Modzelewski and Sroczyński. The second is talking about free kindergartens. In the full conversation there was more – evictions on the pavement, inequality in education, complete failure of social solidarity, absence of social policy. Modzelewski recalled how he erstwhile rejected Wałęsa for the phrase "we fought for capitalism and we won." He said he wouldn't be in jail for capitalism. 1 should uncertainty whether Modzelewski – the largest and best of my masters – would sit for at least a week for free kindergartens, although for democratic socialism he did, sat his first sentence. What truly caused it was another people, their freedom and solidarity with them. It's a separate conversation.
It is worth noting here – and writing on the side for memory – that free kindergartens, social policy and even the political legitimacy of civilian society in professional, "adult politics", is something that has distinguished e.g. Sweden for decades and was the subject of longing sighs of Polish social democrats and a origin of hope in search of a "third way" – rational, not utopian. Only that in Sweden the election was won late by right-wing populists. Thus, Swedish kindergartens of sources of populism did not dry out either. We don't know the right answers and we don't know what can dry them. possibly good answers just don't exist.
– [In] we're inactive swarming, that we can tap this strategy someway and it'll be fine – so he answered the same Soroczyński Marcin Król in interview from early 2014, so just a small later. – In a sense, at European level, the idiotic explanation about the end of past promoted by Fukuyama is proven. If liberal democracy is the final phase of human development, then it will proceed on its own, just like that, you don't gotta worry about it. The planet may not be perfect, but tolerable, just correct it, clean it up, here and there, mess it up to grow 4 percent, not 3, and someway we survive. Nothing bad will happen. And that's what's very dangerous.
- Bo?
– due to the fact that if something happens, we can hang on the lanterns. Just like that. By doing nothing, we rise forces that will change the planet in their own way. And they won't negotiate.
- Who?
– Nationalists, for one. This wave's coming.
Yeah, and she even came. In Europe, Fukuyama's stupid optimism is exhausting too. Recently, after Italy and Sweden, besides in Switzerland, the Netherlands and, rather naturally, Serbia. In Poland, no 1 thanked Marcin King for his warnings or for ignoring them. Among another things, Tusk spoke of him as his moty voucher, saying that if individual has visions, it may be time to start healing. Marcin Król was another of my masters, and although more distant ideally, for this reason, possibly even more interesting to me than Modzelewski. "Somebody pat and will be fine" is simply a program deconstructed by the Liberal King of today's political liberals, perceived by him in systemic categories as profoundly unethical and thus in fact alien to the first liberal idea. His proposal was a classical triad: freedom, equality, brotherhood – opposed to the “commeracy”. However, as critically crucial as it is in reality, we see – even if we mention the storm of the Capitol. "Here and there to grumble" is simply a truly dramatic urgent task. But it is equally dramaticly insufficient – “it will be good” is surely a false promise.
Democracy – like love, hatred, destiny, the mystery of existence – has always been on the list of topics covering the most powerful minds. It was always described as a crisis. Aristotle, de Tocqueville, Smith, Marks, Arendt, Fromm, Kołakowski, Bauman, Modzelewski, King. Their achievements should be known and not enough, but it is worth noting: their warnings have always been ignored. And after all, the communicative was going on somehow, although contrary to common memory and its ideas, there was always quite a few advancement and improvement of democracy – crises and real slaughters. Unlike crises, threats and disasters, taping has not received any theoretical descriptions. The regulation of "something like this" escapes political philosophy, although it has long been the sole content of political practice. But revolutions were described as thoroughly as the crisis contradictions of democracy – and that is why both the King and Modzelewski refused Soroczyński's perfect manifestos. The dreams of both of these very different sages prove amazingly close if they collide with the crisis of reality, but already identically both waved at them. Their resignation was devastating.
Today, I besides have a akin resignation. Not due to the feeling of failure – although it is strong in me – but due to the fact that I know how it was with the trials of another people. Unlike me, the outstanding, the most outstanding.
W Roots of totalitarianism Arendt wrote:
It may even be that the real problems of our times will take on the authentic, though not necessarily the cruelest figure only erstwhile totalitarianism is already in the past.
There are many indications that we are witnessing these “real problems”. If so, it might be appropriate to look at the roots Arendt points to. He describes e.g. the unnecessary man, who was besides referred to by Marcin Król – individual who has functions alternatively than roles, goals not to mention, and if he participates in any community at all, he is deprived of ties, relationships, lives an illusion of subjectivity, or she is no longer needed for anything, and gives up her more or little consciously. The origin of totalitarian elements thus contained lies in the postmodern liberal world, in an insufficient, enlightened concept of freedom, which ends where the freedom of another begins. And possibly yet the communicative announced by Fukuyama. If so, the problem would be truly fundamental and would not be possible to deal with either “clapping” or “little motherfuckers”.
[They] hang us any beautiful morning other the altar of Homeland— Marcin Król could have written and Zygmunt Krasiński wrote a long time ago. After the November uprising, of course, after the French revolution, but besides Haitian.
– The time has come, the time has come. Radicalism will lift us up to overthrow us and wipe us from the face of the earth. [...] Then comes the gallows and eternity.
Perhaps past has rolled another of its wheels. possibly freedom of equality and brotherhood belong to all those who are expendable, whose furious gibberish we hear and ignore haughtyly, or sometimes we prosecute criminally for what more savage of his embodiments. We may defend the ancien régime as Krasiński would like, but unlike him not knowing what awaits us and who has past behind us. But possibly Krasiński simply succumbed to the frenetic themes of his own romanticist work and yet "will be". No radicalism, no chaotic Krasiński mob hanged. He died on his own, though young. Tuberculosis, not politics. I effort to remember that erstwhile I prophesy.
Cassandra had a freak first. Was she right?
At least it happened – otherwise we wouldn't know about it. erstwhile the words of Modzelewski, quoted here a decade ago, are read today, he can be regarded as a pervasive prophet, whose informing was not listened to and what he had warned against. But it's a look. Modzelewski gave his prophecies in the 3rd Poland constantly, from the very beginning. He was like a witness of Jehovah, the end that they prophesied will come. The sun will truly go out, and mankind will vanish from the face of the Earth sooner.
At the threshold of the 3rd Poland in consequence to Balcerowicz's plan, Modzelewski predicted that this must end in disaster and that democracy has no chance of success in this situation. He spoke not only of fiscalism, which has indeed led us all to destitute, any to the extreme, but besides of the thought that abruptly everything should be decided by a free, unregulated market. He said – rightly adequate – that the full state large manufacture must shortly fall, giving employment to the vast majority and agriculture, which will not be able to defend itself in specified a defined reality. Modzelewski besides spoke – not only the lawyers said it – about the excluded. And about this large historical injustice.
In any ways, the situation was akin to today's situation – it was impossible to imagine opposition to the Mazowieckie government, which would not violate the Polish reason for the state. It was more hard than present to come up with an alternate "third way". Modzelewski proposed at least to give excluded political representation, so that at least so much of the confusion that they participate in democracy and the institutions of the states belong to them. However, the then-established Labour Solidarity, then transformed into a Labour Union, neither gained the support of those she wanted to represent, nor played a appropriate role. I know very well that the 3rd Chamber would be the same.
Nor did the cassandric prophecies come true. Well, Tymiński happened to us, there was a catastrophic Olszewski government, quite a few terrible things happened, but democracy did not fall. We besides rose from poorness someway (!) even before EU funds flowed to us. Modzelewski stopped listening. Cassandra cursed disappointed in Apollo's amores. No 1 believed her since. She had crazy papers, and the prophets inactive have them. Or have the prophecies of Modzelewski been fulfilled? possibly the PiS crisis truly had roots in this founding injustice of the 3rd Poland?
Not only Modzelewski thought that way. Jadwig Staniszkis, for example, drew akin conclusions from different ideas. She wrote an essay in 1986 about the fact that democracy in Poland is not possible. It was a unusual reading due to the fact that Staniszkis asked questions about what would happen in Poland after the free elections, and this in ’86 was a clear surprise. Staniszkis' diagnosis was wider than Modzelewski's. Not only manufacture and agriculture – everything in Poland was overgrown with communist pathology, in which not only we learned to live, but besides learned to live with it. Therefore, any change – democratic and free marketplace – must violate the most basic interests of specified large groups of society, that there will be more in which the communists will return to power 2 years after the free elections. Not as a consequence of a coup, but simply as a consequence of people's voices.
As long as Modzelewski advocated political representation of the excluded, Staniszkis mentioned Pinochet on this occasion – in her opinion, it was impossible to avoid a transitional dictatorship in Poland, which, roughly, turned the country into free marketplace tracks, would then quit the power of democracy. It was from here that her sympathy for Kaczyński's political initiatives was hard to realize and to treat almost everything Lech Wałęsa said seriously. She wanted so much to have men who protected her from the commune that she was ready to fill Pinochet in that role, so Kaczyński was all the more.
Well, the SLD won the election a small later than Stanishkis prophesied, but the mistake was not great. but they weren't the same communists anymore. And the country was completely different. There has been no fall on the scale it has promised. Both of them and Modzelewski omitted the factors that actually prejudged. 1 of them was the patriotism of Poles and their belief that the right state, the dramatic need, understood in these idiotic romanticist categories for us, makes us for good A country to endure anything. Another origin was the fast-moving alienation from politics and the fast formation of the "elite" which were not until Pinochet, but which were able to defend their exclusivity in policy-making highly effectively despite all the shocks.
Looking at it, it is easy to see both the roots of what happened to us in 2015 and the inevitable, as it seems, a replay in the future that we have just begun to shape. With the same sense of the state and the same alienation from politics.
I am convinced that, by defending ourselves present against right-wing populism and bandit PiS in particular, we are actually investing in dynamite in the foundations of the state. I am certain that the order we build, entangled by the necessity of conventional politics, must, contrary to everyone's intentions, lead to a disaster far more dangerous than those 8 years of power of morons with bandit tendencies, which we happily have behind us.
I am certain that by replacing written tv with better tv with our own, we are actually strengthening the foundations of autocraticism and creating fresh ones, as are turning Nigger into anyone, not touching the patriarchal strategy of the school. The only way out of the crisis of democracy is by offering more democracy.
Michnik's always right. We threw up on carrots and peas.
Michnik, another of my masters, and with my father the last of the living, is right even erstwhile he scores spectacular cadavers, like with that nun who would gotta ride Komorowski on the belt to lose the election.
In 2016, erstwhile the power of the Law and Justice organization was inactive speeding up, but already clearly showed where it was going, there was frequently talk of early elections or “Polish Maidan”, which would halt this nightmare. Adam Michnik said on all public occasion that this is not the way it looks and that is not the way Polish political past should look. He frequently said that power in Poland is never gained in reality. In Poland, power is always lost. Sometimes as a consequence of scandals, more frequently as a simple exhaustion. No program-based opposition offensive and no social reinforcement bring success. Power mostly falls under its own weight, tangling in its own legs, not due to the fact that individual cut her feet. Michnik lost his hot head saying that it would be so this time too, and so much faster – he made a mistake here again – that the PiS squad is highly inept. This diagnosis of Polish policy is correct. It is possible to interpret all subsequent changes of power, including even the first, founding and fundamental 1 of 1989 – we did not fight it with strikes, although we tried very hard. Colossus simply wavered and fell, reaching the end of his own vitality. This happened in the Kremlin, not in Warsaw or Gdańsk.
At the same time, it was not only about diagnosis, but besides about keeping hot heads down. possibly that's the thing. The preservation of parliamentary customs and the importance of electoral card alternatively of revolutionary storms, from which seldom comes anything good and lasting. I listened carefully to this categorical exhortation – as 1 of the revolutionaries. Nodding my head nodding due to the fact that I agreed with diagnosis and with the request to keep parliamentary order. I didn't dream of a revolutionary assault. Not about Majdan and not about shortening the word of the Law and Justice – although a fewer later sharp constitutional scams should have caused it. First of all, I thought that the time of the evil regulation of the Law and Justice was creating a unique chance to build civic justice in politics, and I thought I even knew how to do it. Michnik told us that yes, we must protest. That we request to build critical public opinion. But the decision will come as it should come – in the election. The rudder will be taken over by the right people and called to it, though they belong to the lame reality of the political customized as we know it and which criticism we otherwise rightly criticize.
Adam Michnik is not only with 1 of my masters, not only reading Michnik made me who I am the most present (for example Modzelewski wrote little to my despair) – but I disagree with him fundamentally. And this is an annoyingly powerless disagreement – due to course getting into a dispute with Michnik is pure madness. This is not a difference of opinion or judgment, but a fundamental difference of perspective. Michnik has clearly limited expectations. That's the difference in perspective. And that's his point.
The Kasandric warnings of the King, Modzelewski and others Michnik mostly spoke disrespectfully that they were naive in all times of customs diagnosis. Against this naivety, Michnik's adult realism is revealed, among another things, that this wise man – although he was and remains in Poland 1 of the most prolific and inspiring creators of the thought – has never formulated any imagination of Poland, which would capture the hearts and give a chance to build a order that is resistant to threats. He did not talk about freedom, equality and fraternity, nor about free kindergartens, unnecessary people or excluded people. In III Poland he talked only about clichés. Europe, NATO, freedom and democracy (with equality being a small less). However, these vague facts are not apparent to everyone. They can be threatened, which we have just watched for 8 years. Although the data appears forever, it inactive turns out to be paid for.
What should be the social policy of the state – here Michnik said nothing but the thesis that the conventional social democracy programme has long been implemented and present is simply exhausted. What the strategy should look like, e.g. check and balances strategy and 3 divisions of power – besides nothing. Starting with the founder's slogan for III RP "Your President, our Prime Minister” that set us a strategy more than anyone expected, and in the direction of a completely unexpected one, Michnik repeated for 3 decades “something like that” only to make certain that the course was headed towards Europe and NATO, and that the rudder was always held by individual calculating and reasonable, who would not deviate from that course. A 100 specifics Tusk was definitely not for him. Michnik didn't request them for anything. He has always wisely accepted the condition of the world, which is not impressive.
However, if Michnika's assessment of reality is true, then it is fatal. And scary. It means that in real politics neither right nor nobody's will matters. So no better thought about Poland is crucial – what is more, everyone in them is actually dangerous, due to the fact that it takes distant from the centre all these fundamental clichés, and people always have these ideas in untrue politics, since only those who can play what we know in politics work. Nor does any "will of the people" substance – nor is it truly dangerous, due to the fact that the people choose populists and are subject to screamers, as they are. It's not that I don't agree with that perspective, but it's true. The point is, if Michnik is right, she would have been besides Zygmunt Krasiński. Gallows and eternity. past can't be stopped. Fukuyama was right as Louis XVI, and the planet understood how Maria Austrian. Michnik knows that.
Michnika late met me at a demonstration of Belarusian political emigration. He's unbreakable. He came due to the fact that he knows it's crucial – although no of the invited parliamentarians came. It was late November, the wind, it was very cold, and the Belarusians exchanged their late murdered and imprisoned heroes, which lasted forever. We had a flutter. We stood together for a while, I looked at Michnik, mentioning the fewer and timid attempts of the dispute and how Michnik cut him off together with social initiatives that would like – don't let God – to influence Polish politics. He cut mine besides with all his ruthlessness.
– It turned out to be his, as always. – I thought, smiling erstwhile he asked how you were doing.
– Yeah, it's gonna be good. - I said instead. I knew that the Belarusians Michnik would tell about another Polish peace victory, which gives hope. I was not incorrect – that's what he said, although he knew better than me that in Poland no hope will be found by the Belarusians, due to the fact that only the fall of Russia can bring it. And there were protests in Russia. And it passed, suppressed by the patterns that Lukeshenko had set long before these patterns became fashionable in Russia.
– You'd get warmer. “Michnik said to me, seeing my fluttering on the pervasive cold and mercifully saving me a conversation about politics. He was a snort himself, but not that much.
– I'm warm. “I answered by trying to gag ineptly.” It's just Parkinson's. How are you?
Well, same old, of course. There is no request to fix Polish democracy. Uff, we landed somehow, and while any madmen were sitting in the cabin, yet individual who knew where to fly caught the rudder. And more importantly, he could fly. It's beautiful good where we landed. Although apart from everything I have already mentioned here, the fresh government is, for example, record-breakingly many and record-breakingly costly – and it seems that the majority of parliamentarians in the ruling coalition have already taken government positions, which should disqualify them as MPs and MPs. As utilized to be football was that whatever happened on the field, Germany always won at the end, so present the policy is that Adam Michnik is always right. I do not want specified a policy, although I realize it well and I know that Michnik is the realist and his is on top. Not King, not Modzelewski, not even Arendt and not Tocqueville. Him.
After all, I believe his assessment of reality alternatively than his own. The point is that the accuracy of seeing cannot mean agreeing to the reality seen. I powerfully reject this agreement as 1 of the fewer reasons for fundamental evil in politics.
However, the importance of Kasprzak's "first law" – the carrot with peas – is that it shows in a spectacular way how mathematical complexity explanation demonstrates itself in everyday life (if of course it is everyday for anyone to vomit after a party). The uniqueness of past comes from phenomena characteristic of chaos theory. The collision of 2 or 3 billiard balls can be completely predictable with a certain skill of a pool player. However, erstwhile we break the pyramid, the collisions are so much that the minimal, invisible to the bare eye deviation of the track causes radically different effects that cannot be predicted. However, the explanation of complexity and the "law of Kasprzak" are beyond this chaos and show the next phase of generalization. Basically, different, without anything in common simple phenomena, with adequate complexity of events, origin effects so highly indistinguishable that they are actually identical. It's always something. So there's always not necessarily a gallows and eternity, but just a carrot with a pea. I've seen besides many casandric prophecies not to know. So I look at my own at a distance, and I will never put anyone at hazard in their name. That is why the proposal of the 3rd home is modest.
Rehab
I can't aid it, I'm writing from a individual perspective. And this is besides the possible of failure, to which it is easy to accuse me of frustration, which I frequently hear. What is worse, it besides has this position of all the characteristics of nuisance recovery – and in no way is it an accidental wording. I have spent the last fewer years as a "professional revolutionary" full-time, actually for at least two. It's not the first time I've had a minute like this – so I had it after 1989. While the times of the Polish People's Republic cannot be truly compared to the 8 years of the Law and Justice Party, so much engagement in the protest movement active the same and akin emotions. Adrenaline in the long word is just physiologically dependent – just like a drug, withdrawal can be felt in a very akin way. In a planet of large things you live great, I assure you – after specified a long flight on specified a euphoricly stunning altitudes, landing in a grey reality can be difficult. Not everyone knows and not everyone has the means to fill the emptiness of the soul that has been filled with a “big case”, not everyone can deal with this emptiness. Years of backlog, frequently ruining – I know something about it – can be hard and sometimes impossible to do.
Well, these are all embarrassingly psychiatric issues, of course, but it's worth realizing how dangerous revolution veterans can be. Including psychiatric cases, which are likely to include e.g. both Macierewicz and Kaczyński, and good fewer another people. Well, the revolution usually boasts a disproportionately advanced representation of people with disorders – revolutionaries admit it rarely, due to the fact that it's embarrassing, but with vodka they like to talk about it with their own colorful stories. People whose disturbed personality needs, for example, a large mission and a conspiracy of secret services feel large in revolutionary movements, due to the fact that secret services do not request to be invented here. It is not hard to imagine what happens erstwhile police guards disappear, and with her self-esteem – this happens to all veterans, not just madmen.
People who are otherwise healthy are frustrated by the fact that they are already purely political but inactive morbid. It's all the more dangerous. I know a full bunch of unfulfilled heroes from the years of the Polish People's Republic, I know their lyrics about universal betrayal of ideals, fraud, bribery. All these “no specified Poland I fought for”...
In addition to frequent cases of liver cirrhosis, divorces, various other, frequently clinical symptoms of social mismatches, frustrations of disappointed veterans became an crucial fuel of the first “war on top” in the dawn of the 3rd Republic of Poland and all subsequent ones that came from it. This is where the stories about betrayal in Magdalena, about the inactive active postcommunion, about agents of various prowess come from today. akin sources have Kaczyński's bullshit about the actual leadership of twins in the Solidarity movement. My colleagues from those years, disappointed in many ways with their own later fate, fed staff and PC electorate, then PiS, sincerely hating ROAD, UW, UD and yet PO. Social frustrations in various scales – in active leaders and in mass electorates environments – are a origin of serious political shocks.
Today's protest veterans are so much little dangerous in this respect that they are just old. To be brutal, they'll be off the phase soon.
Another calming difference between old and fresh times is due to a selection mechanics in politics. Although it is hard to see this selection as positive, today's politicians have simply gone through any – unlike those who, in the 1989 election, have just entered politics. In the well-known Wrocław environment from Frasyniuk and all his excellent surroundings, the best in political intrigues proved not only Grzegorz Schetyna, but besides completely primitive and simply stupid Ryszard Czarnecki. Not even Jacek Kuroń, not only Mazowiecki, Lityński, Wujec and many others, had no election chances, 1 can live up to the fact that in dirty and brutal politics mediocrity dominates. The longing for old giants, however, would be very false. Intellectual and spiritual fathers of the 3rd Republic of Poland – nevertheless large they may be – have just disappeared in a game that they erstwhile designed. Today's political leaders won't happen. They're not just checked out. They're good. Tusk is, on the another hand, an undisputed champion in this category.
The real problem, however, is that it is not the individual disappointments of the combatants. In ’89, alternatively of the wage indexation negotiated at the circular Table, which abolished the effects of inflation, which was galloping the faster, the Drakonian plan of Balcerowicz appeared. The promise of social solidarity – instinctive, highly strong and actual in the carnival of "Solidarity" – replaced social, "business" egoism. The real reasons for the desperate frustration were not the veterans of the revolution, but those who believed them in ’89—great masses of people who endured the hard time of the transformation. How did we get through all this? There were more reasons for opposition – apart from misery, for which not all of them were able to get out, the reasons provided an increasingly annoying, increasingly interesting, corrupt, shortsighted, sometimes simply stupid politics and above all its visible to everyone, rather conscious separation and with large ideas, and with simple decency. Human frustrations were expected to feed themselves. The reasons were real, the delusions of frustrated veterans were only dangerous erstwhile they hit susceptible ground. Disappointment of the masses was more common to social apathy than anger. A good voter turnout is somewhat above 50% in fresh Poland. Yet “it was something.” It was good. So well that to this day we do not realize what happened in 2015 that the political majority of the Law and Justice Office with full social consent could destruct it all so long, so intensely and so consistently full consciously.
What's it gonna be today? Any signs show that it must be bad. But experience shows that not necessarily. The state of low quality and makeshift can last for a very long time – in the 3rd Poland it lasted until 2015. It's been a long time.
Yes, I have, in fact, lost all the major battles I've had in fresh years. Today, sometimes I see unspeakably mocking smiles due to the disastrous election result. 1 852 votes. Promil. It's so small that I know at least half those people by name. The feeling of failure does not mean that I did not "enter" due to the fact that that is what I wanted for myself least if I wanted to. Before the elections, I talked about political representation of the rulers, about the 3rd Chamber, about the inexhaustible sources of populism, about constitutional reform, about the essential origin of the democratic state's politics. This did not concern the people participating in this large election mobilization, which gave us a triumph over the Law and Justice. And that is the real failure and this – yes – I experience painfully. People wouldn't perceive to talk about their own origin and the common ownership of the state. They wanted a leader who would pursuit Kaczyński.
These 1,852 people are unique at the same time. Yes, they participated in this large election mobilization. But very consciously they voted with hope, not with fear and not only with determination. Their determination was large – adequate to sometimes drive respective 100 kilometres and vote for me in Warsaw. If only these people were to trust on, trying to act for the 3rd home – who knows?
Well, I did my best, and I could. I wrote this not out of enthusiasm, but out of a sense of duty. And to those 1,852 people who voted for me last time, and to all who always believed me and knew that for the things I'm talking about, it's worth sticking their necks out. I don't know if I could talk like I utilized to at rallies – so that people cried. I'd like to admit that. Even if not to start something again, it's to make certain that all the good people from whom I got so much thank you warmly and say goodbye to them, as it requires decency and friendship.
Well, possibly this text will gotta do instead.
![Chełm. W ubiegłym tygodniu odeszli od nas... [6-07-2025]](https://static2.supertydzien.pl/data/articles/xga-4x3-chelm-w-ubieglym-tygodniu-odeszli-od-nas-29-06-2025-1751756380.jpg)
