Magdalena M. Baran: erstwhile you left the Polish 2050 Movement in your statement, you wrote: “This is not my way.” On the 1 hand, you chose independence. Independence, which is not easy in the Polish Sejm, in Polish politics. At the same time, in the background of your statement, you compose about values. That makes 2 ways I want to ask you.
Hanna Gill-Friday: On my electoral leaflet – due to the fact that I truly like reaching out to what I promised my voters and trying to proceed it – I had 5 points. The first was "The right of women to full rights". Women's rights are, of course, not values from the conservative agenda, and Poland 2050, which I built for 2 and a half years, abruptly began to turn right, hugging the PSL and joining the folk-conservative block. As long as we were a organization open and building a broad center, I felt good there. I had the impression that erstwhile I went to Poland 2050, most of the possible voters were progressive voters. That's besides how our ellipse was voted in the Sejm. Last June, six out of 8 of our Members wanted to work on the draft liberalisation of abortion law. I remember how the PSL behaved in that vote. Not a single vote defending the bill. This is most likely the strongest example of the fact that the fresh Polish 2050 agenda is unacceptable to me with my conscience. 1 cannot say that a broad centre is being built and at the same time stick to people who have an highly conservative agenda. For my fellow PSLs, too, I seem to have been a burden. I feel like they were relieved. "Baba out of the car, easier horses," said Mr Sawicki. I'm grateful for his honesty. I'm not mad at him. Now they have a light one, and you can see how “out of the hoof the crucibles” – quoting the Skalds.
Hanna Gill-FridayThe second thing is simply a fresh policy. At the moment, after the 2050 Polish matrimony to PSL, there is no group on the side of the democratic opposition to represent this fresh policy. I felt that my role, at least for the first 15 years since I appeared in public life, was to strengthen fresh people who wanted to make a difference. This voluntary state will of course end, of course, but so far, going on the side of the Greens, Spring (because I have never submitted a declaration to a organization based on SLD) or PL 2050, I have worked only on the side of a fresh policy. However, I have serious doubts whether, after the foundation of the folk-conservative block with the PSL, voters looking for a fresh offer will find themselves in it. It's expected to be a fresh policy, but it's the Wincent Witos. erstwhile a group that has more than a century of tradition, tens of thousands of activists in the field and is, to put it mildly, synonymous with the experience in politics, to say no more harshly, adheres to fresh politics, it becomes old itself. Of course, I don't head old politics, I just think she needs a fresh flow of blood, strengthening by people who weren't raised in organization youths, but they had a different way of life.
They have a different way of life, a different point of entry into politics, so they are completely different and are not forced into specified political circles from the beginning. Which is why I want to ask you first of all about this fresh policy. It was her construction of the Polish 2050 Movement that announced from the beginning. A fresh policy, which is... what? Was it just to invitation fresh people into this policy or alternatively to make fresh quality in this policy?
Both. Both were the intention of both this and erstwhile fresh projects. I saw the sincere desire to change Robert Biedron's Spring, from where quite a few cool fresh people entered the Sejm, I think for the benefit of politics. These are active people who do good work, even from the back of the Sejm. They went into politics a small by the back door, and they work very well. In Poland 2050 was besides about fresh people, but besides about fresh values. I want to talk about a certain nuance, due to the fact that the first time I had the full experience of looking at how a political organization is being built in Poland. quite a few large people came to Simon during the presidential campaign. They were 1 of the reasons I found myself in this project. specified authentic socialists, leaders, local leaders or people who just wanted to help. They were made by the association, then the party. any made the decision that they would stay in social activity, others – although at first untrustworthy – began to take courage to actively enter politics. But the better the polls were, the more people on this deck tried to catch stowaways. It rapidly became clear to me that under visible large politics there is something like limbo, a purgatory full of non-do-politics, that is, all who either fell out of salons and seismic corridors, or wanted to enter them so badly that they were ready for anything. There's quite a few small-time savvy guys out there with advance money due to the fact that they know that fresh political projects without subsidies desperately request funding. They're not trying to buy themselves a list. MP Mezza is simply a good example of what is lurking in this layer. Besides, before he got to know himself, we erstwhile had an external advice that this interesting Mr. Mezza, young, capable, no firecracker. Fortunately, there was besides an avalanche of voices: “Beware of him” and that of all the groups I know in Lubuskie. In Poland 2050 we tried to make a multi-level sieve to sow specified cases. It didn't always work out. Sometimes, due to conflicts in regions, people who had a clean heart and came with ignorance of the realities of politics were either thrown off the deck or bitten in a corner. Unfortunately, the immanent feature of politics is that it draws from people and promotes the worst qualities of personality. If you don't, they'll grow up in your organization like baobabs in Little Prince, all the features of the old policy: cooperatives, clippings, hanging in the president's ear. A fewer times I was amazed to see how busy you could be to lingering your positions and writing tips on your more active colleagues. Fortunately, these were uncommon cases. The deep experience with which I have come out of fresh years is that this “new policy” is not always a selfless change built by people with dove intentions who come with their hands full of charity. This is besides a very good story, of course, but mostly alternatively for PR purposes.
Sooner or later it turns out you should be either a fox or a lion. And we hear from the good old Machiavelli. But erstwhile you talk about people with a pure heart who come into politics, it's kind of an inconceivable dream. I would very much like to see experts present in politics on the 1 hand, and on the another hand those people who inactive see the value in it, but besides see the value in another people, find any kind of codes. We can besides think of those who come to politics due to their values – for example, the most utilitarian one, where it starts with proverbial patching of the gap on the way, but it goes on to care for its region, the interests of its constituents etc. And further, the interests of your country. And there are many, especially erstwhile we consider the request to overcome the crisis of democracy. And then we think multi-levelly about values, seen as though they do ethics of government. And then we have people who are into politics, not just for purely opportunistic reasons, but to truly make a difference. Not so much to save, but to push this device for a small different track than the 1 we're driving today.
If you ask about my values, the most crucial thing is always empathy. I would like the system, as you are, to effectively minimize suffering. This, contrary to appearances, is not a request for any excluded minority. due to the fact that even if we have half of women in society, seniors almost 1/3, add to this the sick with no chance of a specialist, household of dependents, self-employed on eternal self-objection, youth with an epidemic of depression and suicide. This possible has its utilitarian consequences so as not to stone the clouds waiting for the perfect state, but to act wherever possible. That's what politics is about, while activism is about you standing on the street and shouting, "We don't want what's going on wrong, we don't want it all." In politics, you work with compromise and part by piece. It's painful, laborious, sitting at 8 o'clock in the night, and making an amendment not to bid on flats with tenants in a pandemic. You think, “It will not pass”, and abruptly the miracle becomes, MP Cymanski says, “This is simply a very good left-wing amendment, I urge colleagues to support it.” Change you effort to take tiny steps well knowing that the full task is impossible to implement immediately. You won't make a large revolution, due to the fact that that's how this strategy is designed. This is the difficulty that activists and social politicians have. I besides had her that not everything at once, but it needs to be slowly, slowly, slowly. I liked what Tusk, erstwhile asked about animal rights, said in Siedlce. It was a minute erstwhile he exposed a small bit of the political scene and said that he was absolutely in favour of improving animal welfare and absolutely obliterated cases specified as putting a dog behind a car, but if we talk about extremes like a fishing ban, then we'll have everyone against each another and we won't change anything. This was a part of his speech that showed young people with empathic values, frequently pro-animal activists, that change must be implemented in an orderly manner, as society accepts it and expands the field of acceptance. Either you know how to shoot yourself in the alleged Overton window, or you're out of it and you're in space; you're considered a complete storyteller or another Janusz Kowalski. Back to empathy, that's actually where mine is. core. I besides like to have a spine, not corset, and hence closer to left-wing attitudes than conservatives. Left in the sense of Modzelewski's tradition, Kuronia, "Political Criticals"; those wonderful women who were around the Greens – Kingi Dunin, Agnieszka Grzybek, Beata Nowak, who strengthened my determination to go into politics. In the end, I was persuaded by Józek Pinior, but this is for another story.
In that message you besides wrote that you would vote according to what you promised your constituents and according to your conscience. For me it was specified an crucial minute of work for a word. This 1 must yet happen in our politics. And then I can think of this right turn, which I think Poland 2050 didn't date its sympathizers. She went on to be progressive, open - minded, even in the attitudes of those active in the movement. We have LGBT+ movement activists there, and I find it hard to believe that they were dating for conservatism. And here, erstwhile we turn towards the PSL, the construction of a completely different block begins, it is already much more than the flashing orange light.
Julian Tuwim wrote that "The Conservative is simply a state activist, in love with existing disorder; the other of a liberal who wants to replace these disorders with others." In Poland 2050, which I joined, there was no specified canned stuff. Besides, conservatism in Poland is frequently confused with average quilts. frequently we were asked: “What are you? Not a dog nor an otter, something like a drill". Building Poland 2050 we thought that we would walk widely. I'll be on the left flank, where they were, and those I met earlier in Spring, but the place was for those with a more conservative constitution erstwhile it comes to the worldview sphere. But we were all progressive in terms of social, economical and animal rights, as you say. Simon wrote “God’s Animals”, a book that is very progressive, even radical. By the way, there's most likely not much going on with the views of the PSL. As far as the economy is concerned, our program was, in short terms, Scandinavian. It was even published as a graphical mention to IKEA instructions. If I were to put this Poland 2050 in a drawer, I would describe it as a Christian-inspired social democracy, located somewhere around the magazine “Contact”. We had quite a few believers, but very progressive reasoning about the economy, climate, energy, environment, education and health. With the bonding with the PSL for me, this openness is definitely over, and I know that many people are considering whether they are in specified a right-wing project. I hear colleagues in the media saying that they are building a “radical center”, which sounds a bit like a “warm ice cream” – who lived in PRL remembers: neither warm nor ice cream, just a small artificial foam in a waffle. Just oxymoron.
Nasty oxymoron. This right turn at the same time blocks our ability to build a very wide electoral block. In many interviews you mention the request to build a single, safe electoral block, or even a "technical union", which would let us, as people who think about winning against Kaczyński. Even if we are talking about 1 or 2 lists – depending on what decision the left will make at any point – this 1 block, de facto centre would not only give us a greater chance to win, but would besides increase the scale of possible victory. Meanwhile, we're starting to have a problem.
Let us not repeat arguments that have sounded in the media for months, but specified a block is truly a dream of many people. For my interlocutors on the train, in the shop, at the doctor's office, it is not understandable why “they” can't get along, of course we talk about leaders of political groups. Reasoning is simple: if they can't sit at the table and agree on 1 list, then what happens after the election. Here comes fear and demobilization. As politicians, we know Kaczyński is simply a hustler and he will effort to pull power even though he loses. We'll give him a chance as besides fragmented opposition, technically this anticipation is very real. But above all, the deficiency of this 1 block or 1 list takes people's hope. This is simply a large sin of opposition to all democratic voters. I have the impression that we do not appreciate that this will keep people in their homes, as in the elections that were between Andrzej Duda and Bronisław Komorowski. Komorowski was not a candidate of hope; it was hard to vote for him to people about worldview nevertheless progressive. I'm not even talking about these unfortunate hunts. However, he did not in any way symbolize any developmental progressive vision, and so quite a few voters stayed at home, choosing a proverbial "sarna with a chair on her head".
I like what you say about a candidate of hope or a list of hope. There's quite a few fear in me that people will be disappointed by this fragmentation. We would so much like, as a progressive part of this society, to agree beyond divisions, to say to ourselves, "Okay, we are very divided, but the most crucial at this point is to return to democracy." It's besides a minute erstwhile we request to get a good look at which fuses of this strategy were dialed by the PiS. You gotta have a recovery plan, not just a slogan of the genre: "You gotta win against Kaczyński". And it is worth considering these more progressive voters of the right, due to the fact that in Poland it is not only "piscan". There is besides quite a few uncertainty there, including doubts about today's policy of the Law and Justice. But I'm afraid that without seeing hope, too, these kind of voters will stay at home.
The political field in Poland is divided according to more and little visible demarcation lines. This delimitation traditionally takes place in celebrated tracks: right-left, PiS-Platforma, social-liberal and so on, but there are besides any little obvious, fresh phenomena. On both sides of these barricades, today, I think there are voters who think that people can handle themselves, just should be honest about it. They see the function of the state not only in ensuring equal opportunities, as in enlightened liberal models, but besides to any degree results, due to the fact that they see sense in the existence of 500+. On the another hand, they question spending in their notion of surplus, due to the fact that they rationally realize that everyone has inflation. Even from people who are beneficiaries of thirteen, fourteen pensions – specified as my parent – I hear that possibly this gift race, proverbial “dropping money off a helicopter” as in the case of a coal supplement that went without any control, it may not be a good thought due to the fact that we are paying more and more costly for everything in stores. And they're peculiarly upset by the thought of a mortgage with a state surcharge due to the fact that they know that their children don't have creditworthiness, so all the benefits will get rich here, and the housing will get expensive. This rational voter bell is getting louder and louder. We, as opposition, do very small to this need, which houses the Promethean story that we must pluck out the gods of fire and give it to the people. Thus, aid them to recover the wrongs that enable them to make society. What the Law and Justice do to power now is to deprive us of our cause, incapacitate us. There's a central furnace where Jarosław Kaczyński burns, if you're your own, you'll warm up. But you don't get matches, due to the fact that you'd make competition. See, from the Republic of Poland, in which theoretically everyone can decide what his life looks like, what the state looks like, what I participate in it, they made the Polish Handout Republic. That is, a state for $3,000 in hand for coal that you may not buy and no 1 will check; a state for a gold check that takes you to a municipality that is “your”; a country where you will receive villas or anything if you are in a society that is in favour of power. And so on. People see this and anger them not only by not only by giving money – and that in part as a consequence is inflation – but besides by taking distant their agility and the ability to build. This is where the Confederate makes large usage of it, and this subject is not utilized by the democratic opposition.
I think we request this origin even more, we see this request for origin more now. I remember the times of successive protests, whether it's the Women's Strike, or they're strikes related to the regulation of law. We had quite a few people out on the streets, but I feel like there's something missing. So a breakthrough that people began to see the request for their own cause, they began to see that we could do something together and we should do it together, but above all we must have this opportunity. Meanwhile, many inactive have such... soft ties, seemingly harmless, for any people comfortable, but we begin to see that they are bonds. Restrictions. This is simply a minute erstwhile – I have the impression – the request for civilian society is awakened completely.
It is indeed an escape from freedom by providing all kinds of comforts, but it is besides a fresh failure of freedom associated with the fact that the full area of the digital sphere and the media can very accurately simulate our lives and supply us with the impression of perpetration, while we ourselves are actually incapacitated and we are good at it.
And at any point, we see that real life is nowhere else.
Yeah. I am not encouraging anyone here to effort to embody themselves by denying the full state or the system, due to the fact that it is alternatively a Confederation.
But... we definitely don't want to go that way.
Exactly. The fatal decisions of power cannot be countered by negation of state institutions. From this shelf is the request of voluntary ZUS by PSL, which abruptly took over Poland 2050, which amazed me very much, due to the fact that this formation was always pro-state. Well, possibly the PIT's inactive voluntary and just the last lights out. I think specified ideas are the reverse of the populism cultivated by the PiS. You can't do that.
Because these are definitely anti-state demands. You spoke of this - so eloquent - consequence by Mr Sawicki. I've been looking at Twitter and I've seen the reactions to your departure from different parties. Andrzej Rozenek even wrote that you will be a strengthening for any environment. Similarly, Margaret Thracian, Catherine Kotuli, Maciej Gdula's reactions were positive, and it was even "Bravo for the moral backbone", and "Time for your movement" – you can even grin at the second and put your eye on politics. They were and reproved. In all this, I wonder if this decision of yours, your independency is simply a stronger shift towards something that is pro-state to me, but besides pro-citizenial, pro-social. I am referring to the Parliamentary Group on Cities and to the improvement of this reasoning at this level, seeking social and political life right there, among people, by creating ties at very different levels.
Yeah, yeah, that's precisely what you're talking about. As a consequence of my long past of activity in urban movements, local governments, helping local governments and tiny cities in Poland, I founded the Parliamentary City Team. Not only the metropolises, including Stalowa Wola, Słupsk, Leszno, Zyrardów, Starachowice – I worked with all these cities and I remember it well. Cities are not in Polish politics. We have the Ministry of agrarian Development, we have 1 from regional policy, but the Ministry of Cities as specified does not exist. Cities are the highest form of organization of the human community, and for this reason civilizational or climatic changes are very much affecting them. The squad is simply a platform for meetings of experts, activists, politicians. He's cross-party. The vice-presidents are Krystyna Sibińska, who led the sub-committee on urban improvement and regeneration, Franek Starczewski and Beata Maciejewska. Despite the large work I put into Poland 2050, I tried to get the city squad to meet rather regularly and talk about crucial topics: housing, smog, planning reform. And that's what I'd like to continue. I besides got it, if you're asking for a reaction, a fewer questions, if I'm gonna start my own party. I do not think there is simply a deficiency of a organization on the side of the democratic opposition, I think there is simply a deficiency of trust between these parties. If I can be of any use, even on a tiny part in building this trust, I will always help.
I think this is the beautiful point of our conversation. Trust is what we deficiency not only in politics but besides in human relations. I do not like this word Polish-Polish war very much, but in order to overcome this distrust we must return to the minute erstwhile we first see a man as a man. As second. Before we frame him in all these afflictions, we will build him first openness and be able to change the first conviction without looking at him as an enemy. It'll be a giant first step.
I would like us not to hang around the opposition all the time, as charmed by this quote from “Big Shu”: “I cheated, you cheated, won better”. Building trust is simply a risk. I'm taking a step backwards knowing that I might look a small bad on this, but you will, too, and at least we'll try. I think it's been going beautiful well until the ultimate Court thing. That's where the profession came from, erstwhile it turned out we voted differently. I inactive believe this trust can be rebuilt, but time is moving out.
I hope that we will stick to this, so that, with this confidence, we can arrange in a sense for this fresh Poland.
