The presidential run is beginning, and with it the roundabout of electoral promises. but Arthur Bartoszevich telling “Polish aircraft carrier” and Krzysztof Stanowski promising “nuclear power plant in all another municipality” the most generous in promises is the “citizen candidate” of the Law. Nawrocki's choice is to bring us not only a simplification in electricity prices, but besides a "new taxation contract", which will, in fact, make us all pay lower taxes, and the "closure of the VAT gap" will make the state even more money than it presently has.
How, in particular, would the President, with the powers conferred on him by the Constitution, and in cooperation with the Prime Minister from a competitive camp, be "tealing the VAT gap"? Unfortunately, the president of the IPN did not explain this.
The most unfair choices
The problem of shot promises is not limited to Bartoszewicz and Nawrocki, or knowingly trolling convention The presidential run of channel Zero owner. It concerns all candidates and candidates in this year's race. Elections always supply inflation of promises that later prove hard or impossible. The Law and Justice Department mostly owed its re-election in 2019 to the fact that to the surprise of many voters it actually fulfilled what it promised in the run 4 years earlier – headed by the withdrawal of pension improvement and the introduction of 500 plus.
The presidential elections – not only this year, but each since 2000, erstwhile we first elected the president under the current constitution – are, however, peculiarly unfair and absurd in this respect.
Every 5 years, candidates and candidates make promises that they know in advance are impossible. due to the fact that if the president were to keep them, we would gotta have a strategy at least like in France, if not in the United States. In Poland, the President, although having a very strong democratic mandate as the highest authoritative of direct choice, does not truly have any tools to make his own policy. At most, it can block the government policy of the majority by utilizing a strong veto, which requires a majority of 3 fifths to reject.
Nawrocki, erstwhile asked about how he intends to fulfill his promises, answers that Andrzej Duda fulfilled his, connected with the reversal of pension reform. The problem is, that if PiS had not won an independent majority in 2015, Andrzej Duda could have lowered his retirement age, and at most chandeliers in the palace in Krakowskie Przedmieście. another candidates asked about the same thing either mention a presidential legislative initiative or convince that their triumph will trigger a "new political dynamics" – which means "I have no thought how to do what I promise."
Sławomir Mentzen in conversation with Andrzej Dudek, he stated that as president he would regularly convene cabinet councils, where already at the phase of government work he would block his displeasure of government projects. As the Confederate candidate argued, the veto president is in a way a ‘coalician’ of the government and the government must negociate its moves with him. However, this concept is only a recipe for complete paralysis of the state.
Most participants in the presidential race know, of course, that there is no chance in it and do not want to presume the office of President. Both candidates for the parliamentary left in general They're not trying to convince anyone.that they would be good presidents; they usage the run to tell voters: vote for me to strengthen the left in the government (Bejat) or that the government would gotta reckon with an opposition another than the PiS with the Confederate (Zandberg).
Vets and nominations
What should I do with all this? It would be most sensible to change the constitution and replace the present, ill-thought hybrid strategy with a consistent cancler system, with the president performing typical functions, without a veto right. However, there are absolutely no prospects for this today.
One can effort to embarrass the full convention of the presidential race, as Krzysztof Stanowski does. Unfortunately, Stanowski's trolling results in nothing more than an increased number of views of the Zero Channel and related material advantages. It is hard to defy the impression that trolling youtubera is blind to 1 eye and has to somewhat tilt the pitch right in these elections.
Finally, as voters, we can begin to request that candidates and candidates explain precisely what they would actually do within the competence of the President. Which means above all the question of veto, respective nominations and order policy. Let's start with the veto.
The final stake of these elections is whether in the second half of the year the current majority will manage the situation in the prosecutor's office, public media and to any degree in the judiciary – where it can be done without a constitutional reset – whether it can't be done. Whether the government will be able to regulation freely, or if we are facing a wedge in a peculiarly hard global situation. We know what the candidate positions are with the best chance of winning. But the attitude of the future president towards respective another crucial matters is besides important.
For example, whether it will block changes in the relation and reproductive rights. The parliament of the current word of office will most likely not pass any progressive changes, but the word of office of the president elected in June will besides fall to the next word of parliament erstwhile the agreement may be different.
Equally crucial is whether the president will block projects in the spirit of "liberal populism", to which the current coalition has a clear tendency. Thus, for example, the adoption of further privileges for self-employed and entrepreneurs who are blowing up the contribution strategy and suffocating public services; further irresponsible cuts in taxes that service the most affluent or credit subsidies that inflate the bubble in the real property market. Prior to the second left-wing round, the voter should anticipate candidates seeking his votes to specify themselves strictly on these issues.
We can leave the Orders, although it would be good for the future president to avoid controversial decisions like giving the Order of the White Eagle – the highest discrimination in the state – to Antoni Macerewicz or Wanda Połtawska. However, it is crucial who the president will appoint to the National Broadcasting Council or to the Monetary Policy Council. In the first he casts 40% of the seats, in the second 1 a third.
Of course, no 1 serious is going to announce any names until they become president. However, it is worth pressing candidates to see in which direction their reasoning is going: whether in the KRRiTv they want to be the representatives of the circles of creators, media or civilian society, or politicians; how crucial economists are to them and in what direction their reasoning about the economy can tip the body defining Polish monetary policy.
Do candidates see a global chessboard?
The president can besides play an crucial function in abroad policy. I compose “maybe” on purpose, due to the fact that the key instruments of it inactive belong to the government, but the President, through his global activity and contacts with another heads of state, can sometimes play a much more crucial function than the powers assigned to him in the Constitution. This was the case with Alexander Kwasniewski during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, with Lech Kaczyński in Tbilisi in 2008, and to any degree besides with Andrzej Duda at the beginning of Russia's full-scale aggression against Ukraine.
The fresh president will take office at the minute of global instability, which we have not seen since Poland's entry into NATO. The pillars of order that gave us peace and prosperity are clearly wobbly. It is crucial that we choose individual who sees what is happening on the global chess board, and who is not blocked by anti-European realities or anti-German obsessions or by the current American administration.
It would be fatal if the American policy forced a correction on the government to importantly strengthen the European dimension of Polish security, and the president sabotaged the effort to carry it out. If it were to be played by Trump trying to "share and rule" policy towards the European Union.
Of course, today, no serious candidate with real chances of winning will tell straight about the risks associated with Trump's second term. Nobody wants to burn bridges with a fresh administration, they don't want to talk about worst-case scenarios so they don't turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, we must push candidates for the highest office, asking if they see these challenges at all. This is much more crucial than their plans for electricity or queues to doctors – due to the fact that with these 2 even the best president will do nothing.
