The game of parliamentary democracy is won by those who search the best of their own party. Homeland welfare is for a democratic game of irrelevance. This strategy cannot be repaired, so it should be converted to a monarchy. This was well shown by the presidential election.
Many readers of PCh24.pl were profoundly disgusted with the behaviour of Sławomir Mentzen and Grzegorz Braun, who did not support Karol Nawrocki as rapidly and clearly as 1 could expect. I will draw attention to the structural constraints that Mr Mentzen and Mr Braun were subjected to. These restrictions make it morally justified to require them to be immediately and full supported by a candidate supported by the Law and Justice, but in a strategy of parliamentary democracy – simply highly unrealistic.
Parties play the most crucial function in parliamentary democracy. The heads of the party, even if they are convinced of the request to service God and their country, must consider the welfare of the organization itself, due to the fact that it is the only toolwhich in this strategy can accomplish the right policy objective, namely concern for the community.
In another words, Taking care of the party's welfare becomes 1 of the main strategical goals of each organization leader.
It would be perfect if the welfare of the Homeland were the same as that of the party. But this is not always the case. There are situations where the welfare of the Homeland requires something another than the welfare of the party.
It seems that this is the situation in Poland that we had between the first and second circular of elections.
In the second round, the choice was simple. On the 1 hand, Rafał Trzaskowski, a candidate of the Civic Coalition – a formation of openly hostile towards the Church and Catholicism, a man who advocates abortion and all another forms of evil that present promotes a liberal revolution. On the another hand, there was Karol Nawrocki – an unpartisan candidate, although supported by the Law and Justice, a formation with many serious sins, but more open to the Polish tradition; the candidate himself presented himself as a believer Catholic, opposed to abortion, in vitro or LGBT ideology.
Therefore, all liable Pole who participates in the election knew what to do: vote for Karol Nawrocki, either in conviction of his integrity, or at least out of disagreement with Trzaskowski's presidency.
Since all Pole voting was called to support Karol Nawrocki, it can be said that politicians and especially organization leaders were even more invited to do so.
In another words, It should be expected that the candidates who have fallen out in the first round, in the interests of the good of the Church and Homeland, will express their support for Charles Nawrocki in a clear and clear manner, thus trying to maximize his chances of triumph and to keep the country from a disaster that would consequence from the triumph of his opponent.
However, how do we do this erstwhile the organization leaders are at the forefront of the groups that have on the banners a breach of the “duopol” PiS and PO, which means that the welfare of their organization is dependent on maintaining the credibility of this banner slogan?
In practice, both Sławomir Mentzen and Grzegorz Braun truly supported Karol Nawrocki, although not in a way that would be desirable from the position of the exclusive welfare of the Homeland.
Sławomir Mentzen He interviewed both candidates. Karol Nawrocki treated him more mildly than Rafał Trzaskowski. In a method sense, however, he gave both an chance to talk to his electorate, objectively evil Trzaskowski in the same degree as objectively better Nawrock. Later, he went with Trzaskowski for a beer. Sławomir Mentzen himself stressed that he did it for polite reasons, and the public took it wrongly as a manifestation of fraternization with the candidate KO. We cannot be certain of anyone's intentions, so we are left with an assessment of the facts; beer with Trzaskowski in this position cannot be regarded as an action against Trzaskowski, which, according to the adopted paradigm of the necessity to fight his presidency, should be assessed negatively.
Sławomir Mentzen, commenting on this event, said that he was actually happy with it due to the fact that he showed that his group was independent. From an event which objectively did not work in favour of the Homeland, he concluded that it would benefit the party. I'll get back to that. He yet recorded a movie in which he indirectly supported Karol Nawrocki, suggesting that voters should appreciate the signing of the "Torrun Declaration", adding that they see no reason to vote for Rafał Trzaskowski. All this took a long time, and although it suggested the support of Sławomir Mentzen for Karol Nawrocki, it was not categorically clear.
In turn Grzegorz Braun He had long refused to give Charles Nawrock his support. He asked him a number of questions, to which Nawrocki answered, but the Confederation of the Polish Crown assessed these answers rather skeptically. The fact that Trzaskowski did not respond and the content of Nawrocki’s answer was described with the motto: “God, take care of Poland whole!” which indicated a clear distance to both candidates. Shortly before the collapse of electoral silence, Grzegorz Braun conducted a strong run on social media hitting Karol Nawrocki due to the photograph that the dubious Conduity of American Rabbi Boatech Shmuley published on social media, and which presented this individual alongside Nawrocki himself. Only the next day, Grzegorz Braun declared his support for Karol Nawrocki, another than Sławomir Mentzen in unambiguous and categorical form.
In total, therefore, neither Sławomir Mentzen nor Grzegorz Braun gave support to Karol Nawrock rapidly and directly, thus trying to maximize the chance of his victory. They took another tactic. Why?
I think their decisions were motivated by the logic of the organization strategy of parliamentary democracy itself, in which the strategy are forced to constantly weigh 2 goods – the Homeland and the Party's own goods.
You could say it's morally reprehensible, due to the fact that the welfare of the Homeland is always More good than party. From this perspective, Sławomir Mentzen should have supported Karol Nawrocki immediately, regardless of whether Nowa Nadzieja will be considered as a pro-scriptive party. On the another hand, Grzegorz Braun should refrain from criticizing Nawrocki and give him immediate support, not delay, even if – on the basis of events – he could thus negociate the receipt of an MP from the circles of the Law and Justice, which allowed him to make a parliamentary ellipse in the Sejm.
The problem is that parliamentary democracy does not tolerate specified behaviour. As part of the logic of parliamentary democracy, Sławomir Mentzen should avoid the unequivocal support of any candidate to look after the image of his group as a “new force” breaking through “duopol”. Grzegorz Braun should do the same, and if he had the chance to get circumstantial benefits from the Law and Justice for his party, he should do so.
If Sławomir Mentzen and Grzegorz Braun want to win within parliamentary democracy, they cannot break the interior rules governing it, due to the fact that they will be punished by the system. It's like playing chess to have an chance to beat up an opponent's hetman, but not to do so, for example, for the good of the opponent's satisfaction. The logic of chess requires something else; who violates it loses.
That is why Sławomir Mentzen and Grzegorz Braun did the only thing they could do, wanting on the 1 hand to take care of the welfare of their homeland and on the another hand for the well-being of their party, in the second case adopting rules of the game of parliamentary democracy.
One might wonder about the circumstantial tools they have chosen to accomplish these objectives. Opinions will vary. any will say that Sławomir Mentzen could have supported Nawrocki more clearly, or asked Trzaskowski even more hard questions. Others consider that Grzegorz Braun should not have attacked Nawrocki for photos with Shmuley, but refrain from commenting and announce his support faster.
I'm leaving these considerations due to the fact that they're circumstantial issues. What is crucial is the fact that 1 cannot be abstracted from the very fact that 2 goods must be constantly weighed: the good of the Homeland and the good of its own party. Those who, in all situation, want to choose the welfare of their homeland in an absolute and unconditional way, without looking at the welfare of their organization at all, could rapidly "get out of the game" due to the penalties imposed on them by the interior logic of the parliamentary democracy system. Hence, it is concluded that in the organization strategy it is impossible to act as a politician with only the welfare of the Homeland at all times.
The question that democratic policies face is: how frequently do I gotta sacrifice or exposure good A homeland for my party's business?
So I ask the question:
Is it possible to play a democratic game successfully, acting morally fair in all situation?
Theoretically, yes, but only if the party's welfare is always consistent with the welfare of the Homeland. In practice, specified situations do not occur. Therefore, it is hard to convict politicians who would be willing to regularly sacrifice the interests of their organization for the sake of their homeland and at the same time be successful. You can hazard thesis that specified politicians simply don't be because... the strategy does not tolerate their existence.
Ultimately, in the space of pure strategy mechanics, the game of organization parliamentary democracy is won by the 1 who maximizes the power of his own party. The country's business is not at all applicable in this game! Yes, even worse: Homeland business in this game frequently just bothers.
One can so hazard thesis that the game of organization parliamentary democracy is most frequently won by those who do not care at all about the interests of the Homeland. At most, they pretend to be curious in gaining the voices of an electorate guided by patriotic emotion.
The reader will forgive me for a more individual reflection, but I would say 1 example of the position of eternal loser was for years Janusz Korwin-Mikke. He preached views which I believe he considered to be good for the Homeland, regardless of the effects it would have on his party. Therefore, he was never able to win, which he knew perfectly well.
Sławomir Mentzen and Grzegorz Braun seem to want to win. Ultimately, the desire itself is full right and morally fair: only triumph gives a chance to take power, that is, to accomplish the right policy objective, concern for the common good. If they are convinced that they would take care of the good best, they should not only play but besides win.
However, I will repeat the question: Is it possible to play a democratic game successfully, acting morally fair in all situation?
I think Party parliamentary democracy is simply a strategy internally broken and simply wrong. It should so be converted to another systemwhich would keep the top possible convergence between the good of the governing entity and the good of the Homeland. Historically, it can be shown that such a strategy could be considered monarchy, especially hereditary monarchy. In a situation where the king has complete certainty of control of power until the remainder of his life and then of handing it over to the individual who will proceed to exercise that power, there is no request to search the voices of the people, which is simply a necessity in parliamentary democracy, as closely linked to the welfare of the party, is the right origin of urging politicians to ignore the welfare of the Homeland.
I'm not saying the hereditary monarchy has no flaws. We're human, and people aren't perfect. I think, however, that it effectively eliminates the disadvantage that is mentioned in this text, allowing the ruler to take much more account of the welfare of the Homeland in his policy.
On the sweetness of those who say that the establishment of the monarchy is unrealistic, I will say that, in my opinion, it would be closer to the monarchy perfect of building a strong presidential strategy in Poland, in which the president would exercise power only for 1 term, longer than 5 years. He would then gotta play the democratic game only once, and after the triumph he could more full ignore the rules of the democratic game, accepting even the hazard of the welfare of a organization that would support him if he were. I point out that "closer to the ideal" does not mean that it is truly close. Closer means what it means, with respect to the undeniably greater distance of parliamentary democracy from the monarchy ideal.
In fact, it is better for a Catholic to be a monarch than a Democrat. Those Catholics who enter a democratic parliamentary policy inevitably take into account the hazard of acting – at least occasionally – at the hazard of the welfare of their homeland, and this is to guarantee the well-being of their party. Unfavourable fairness of political action organization parliamentary democracy simply does not tolerate – unlike the monarchy.
Paweł Chmielewski
