In 2 weeks, it will be 1 year from the elections that took the power of the United Right and stopped the march towards authoritarianism. With the Coalition on 15 October, which was created just before the elections, as a consequence of the fiasco of the thought of a single list – civilian society voters had large hopes.
Coalition governments were to be law-abiding, rational, based on expert knowledge. In Poland it was expected to be like in another European countries, where reproductive rights of women they simply be where sexual education, contraception and abortion are available – and you don't request to whisper about them out of fear that individual is about to enter with crucifixes and exorcisms.
Marriages were meant to be for everyone due to the fact that the state was not meant to interfere in the sphere of reproduction and bless relationships not only due to the fact that they increase the wealth of souls from which the state would in the future collect taxes or send them to the front. Poland was to return to Europe and co-create it, not dismantle it.
But that's not all: in Poland it was expected to be even better than in another European countries, we were yet to appreciate what we managed to preserve: unregulated rivers, areas of unique nature – our national bastions against the coming climate change. So the forest plunder and the power of hunters were to end, but it was crucial to become the experts of scientists investigating the stableness of natural systems.
It besides seemed that, in view of the fact that for many Ukrainians Poland became a home for longer, and erstwhile we realized that Poland, plunged into a demographic crisis, is the goal of migration of people from different parts of the world, a rational migration policy will be the subject of a solid debate and good practices.
While the anticipation that the barrier would be removed from the border was niche, the issue of the withdrawal of the export regulation seemed obvious. In a law-abiding state, pushing people straight into the hands of the criminal officials of the government seemed unthinkable.
There were those with imagination who saw ambitious plans to make an economy based on fresh technologies and green energy, and those who thought of safety as investments in strong institutions, allowing for building resilience. "There was expected to be honey, there was expected to be a miracle, and a 4th on the drink."
It is not amazing that 100 particulars written on the napkin (because any program needs to be shown to people) have disappointed. Not everyone is Stefan Banach and not everything written in inspiration on a napkin is brilliant.
Where are the keys?
But at least voters, tired of politics Climbing through the windows for the last 8 years, they held back from criticism for rather a long time, the image that emerges year after the election is disturbing.
Civil society is being ignored, and utmost movements are increasing. Parliamentary commissions interrogating the politicians of the United Right turned out to be overrated, the process of restoring the regulation of law complicated, and the actions of prosecutors and courts, which was to be predicted, are moving at their pace.
So the questions about the goal – that is the program – return. Yes, the flood has caused these questions to cease to be insistent for a while, but the way of spending money to rebuild the harm will rise them back.
If the climate is the key to policy, money should go not to rebuild houses in flood areas, but to reorganise floods, to change the organisation of State Forests or to cooperate with discipline centres in building water retention and drought prevention systems.
If safety is the key, the debate on civilian defence, the quantitative relation of military services to civilian services, the competence of the self-government and the organisation of local structures of local residents will besides begin. This will be followed by a debate, which will be followed by investments, on the prevention of misinformation – a return to the issue of the support of reliable media by the state.
If development, then the question is whether you are curious in technological research, are we inactive to be competitive with our own hands and flexible working time?
Performance policy
The fact of public space lives briefly, and consciously, politicians focus on a performance that will rise the pole in the poll. The Law and Justice are inactive highly supported, and he manages to halt the tendency to break up, and this makes restoring structural order in the area of the regulation of law more difficult. Those who are the basis of the judicial strategy are not certain that their choice in 3 years will be right.
Donald Tusk There is so no choice but to convince the full political scene to admit its hegemony. The designation does not gotta manifest itself to the increasing ranks of fanatic voters, it is adequate that voters who get to the argument of force will see that the stronger 1 than Tusk just now is gone. And that he is resistant to pressure, but erstwhile he decides to support something, he will be consistent in that.
The side of civilian society may feel bad erstwhile it sees that the absurd expectations of farmers, which do not even benefit them, are listened to by the Prime Minister. She may feel blackmailed due to the fact that she will vote for Tusk again, despite disappointment – it is known that another PiS will be even worse.
But this performance of Tuskowa hegemonia, which is based on brilliant, populistic games, avoids, phrases and moves written on the napkin, is ok, provided that behind the scenes of this performance will be rebuilt institutions. That we're going to start building a state out of something more solid than a cardboard that's already been eating a small bit.
Ladies and gentlemen on the napkin
For now, however, it is not visible that the performance is strategic. As a main theme, the settlement of the Law and the return to the regulation of law were drawn. In complicated legal nuances and boredom of investigative commissions, however, the communicative is lost that the Law and Justice organization assassinated the state, whose rules we agreed together and entered into the constitution. That the law is not points carved in stone that individual put before a man, but a set of rules and procedures developed and adopted in consensus, under a social agreement that the Law and Justices challenged.
That story's gone. It's just news that the Prime Minister has his prosecutor and the president has his.
The flood gave the government a chance to show real cause, the Prime Minister deserved, as the last poll shows, as much as 45.6% of citizens to trust. Donald Tusk trusts more people than Rafal Trzaskowski, so possibly he's moving for president after all?
However, erstwhile the water falls, there are systemic deficiencies, after all, only 1 Prime Minister is placed in line: scientists outraged at the Ministry of Science, human rights defenders, disillusioned with inactive ongoing logging environmentalists, dissatisfied with budget workers.
We could usage another emergency. But that's how the Law and Justice ruled: surfing after a constant extraordinary state, manually controlling institutions that collapsed 1 by 1 due to the fact that there was no 1 to make decisions. The populist spectacle became everything, chaos grew, ordered only by 2 vectors: maintaining the support and maintenance of the rowing coalitions, that is, pumping pockets.
Without the key, that's the script that's gonna take over. And that's a slippery slope, due to the fact that that's not why we pulled the Law and Justice out of power, so that now, outside of the competition, they were given relatives and friends from PSL.
