In July starting a fresh word of office French National Assembly It chose its chairman. In accordance with the procedure of the deputies, read alphabetically, they cast voices in the urn, over which traditionally the youngest associate of the home was standing – in this case the Flavien Termet of the National Unity, the far-right Marine Le Pen party.
Termet held out his hand to welcome all approaching MP. any of them, mostly from the left, She refused But to shake hands with him. Members ignored Termet, not even made eye contact. The Assembly-representative territory of Marseille, Sébastien Delogu of France Unrelenting, got into a short quarrel with the National Unity politician, another MP of that group, François Piquemal, in consequence to Termet's outstretched hand showed him a motion meaning "scissors" in the paper game, scissors, stone – as the stretched hand resembles paper, Piquemal "win".
A video of his confrontation with Termet with his signature was uploaded to his X account: “To hand over the racist party? Never!’ Similarly, another politicians who chose the same motion justified their refusal to give their hand to the Le Pen party: this was a signal of rejection of the utmost right hand, refusal to normalize its values contrary to the foundations of the Republic.
Although akin situations have happened before in the National Assembly, this time the motion besides met with criticism, not only from the far right. The Le Pen National Unity in the first circular of elections had the most votes cast, in both rounds the organization was supported by more than 10 million French, a 3rd of the voters. Refusing to shake hands with Termet besides sent a signal to his voters that they were outside the borders of Republican politics.
The question is: how many thirds of politically active citizens can regulation out the remaining 3rd as a "racial party"? What long - word effects will this have? yet – and without compromise with the values of parties specified as the National Unity, it is not essential to keep simple forms of political courtesy towards its deputies – even as an expression of respect for their constituents?
Between negotiation, game and crusade
Similar questions arise in many modern democracies, and not only in relation to the relation with the far right, can be addressed to all the disputes between them today. To what extent, given their temperature and rates, can they be separated from individual hostility, reconcile with certain forms of democratic courtesy?
In this area, the Polish public formulates rather contradictory expectations. On the 1 hand, we constantly hear complaints about the increasing polarization, the “Polish-Polish War”, a policy that “shares Poles” and “brings families”, we express our longings for old, good times erstwhile politics despite the post-communist conflict were little toxic, and politicians could reconcile in the parliament after a stormy debate. On the another hand, since 2005, we have consistently voted on politicians who are most likely to polarize. Photographs of the joint socialisation of politicians from different sides of the barricade would make real problems for representatives of both sides.
This splitting of expectations in a sense is inscribed in the nature of democratic politics. Democratic practice consists, depending on the place and time and in various proportions, of actions that can be described utilizing 3 metaphors: negotiation, games and crusades. Democratic politics is at the same time a collective negotiation between the various interests present in society, a game of elites for specified resources as power and a kind of peaceful crusade that groups jointly undertake with close values.
Each of these modes of practicing democratic politics has a somewhat different relation with the opponent. Negotiations require pragmatism and gathering the another side. The game, especially at advanced stakes, triggers strong emotions, but at the same time it is simply a way of maintaining hostility within a certain tame framework, providing simple rights for all players. A crusade on behalf of values triggers the strongest emotions and can lead to attitudes refusing to legitimize opponents rejecting our values.
Well-organised democracy should combine these 3 modes in a healthy proportion. It should surely not be just an elite game of power, but at the same time the cohesion of the elite, capable of working together especially in a crisis situation and avoiding excessive escalation of conflicts, is an crucial resource of any political system. Pragmatism of negotiations is necessary, but democracy cannot be brought into business negotiations – due to the fact that democracy, which is not about values, can easy liberate indifference and discouragement.
In Poland today, democratic practice has moved very powerfully towards a crusade. The PiS leads a crusade against Tusk, Tusk against PiS, Confederate against the “left”, which for this formation begins already in the “poor left” of the PiS. The left is divided, part wants to go to a crusade against the PiS with the Platform, part wants a crusade against the "libs". Poland 2050 tried to lead a crusade against parties and polarization. In this way, the conduct of policy does not fit only in the mode of "we are betting on pragmatic negotiations" of the PSL that has been operating since the beginning of the 3rd Polish Republic. Although besides the PSL in its pragmatism is not present able to cross the border separating the coalition camp on October 15 from the PiS – at least as long as the second is directed by politicians as known for devouring their own coalitions as Kaczyński.
It is hard to depolarize a conflict with individual who refuses us basic rights
A crucial part of the electorate complains about this state of affairs, but is incapable to choose anyone who could effectively propose a fresh way of conducting politics. At the same time, although it is hard to argue that polarization takes on dangerous sizes in Poland, and political conflict of toxic forms, this cannot be surprising, given what the dispute is about.
A akin problem exists in the United States. Trump entered American politics, ostentatically stepping on all the rules of democratic decorum and courtesy. The erstwhile American president built a powerful political sect around him, skillfully referring to what was worst in his supporters, focusing their hateful emotions on their political opponents.
On this background she stood out debate on candidates for Vice President, Republican J.D. Vance and politician Tim Walz. Both politicians addressed each another with respect and even sympathy, the debate was very kind and democratic. Many commentators were delighted, the American press was full of voices: “Why does our full policy not look like this!” But like in The Atlantic noted John Hendrickson, this courtesy speech of the debate served mostly Vance and Trump. In an exchange of courtesy, Walz – but for 1 minute erstwhile he asked the opponent about who won the 2020 election – was incapable to show the Americans how radically right-wing on many issues, headed by reproductive rights, were actually Vance's views.
Walz's behaviour strengthened voters' doubts about this – the author of The Atlantic argues – that the Trump-Walz duo is simply a full qualified choice. Meanwhile, it goes hand in hand with the programme, the postulates and attitudes that are hard to normalise and treat as part of a average democratic debate.
The same is actual in Poland. It is hard to depolarize the dispute, to keep forms of democratic courtesy with people who deny us fundamental rights. That's why I realize the emotion of voters who remember what PiS and the Confederation speaks of LGBT+ people, reacts allergicly to any form of cooperation with the Law and Justice, or even socialising with the politicians of this group or the Confederation by their democratically elected representatives. It is besides impossible to “talk about improvement beyond political contention”, remembering what the Law and Justice did with the regulation of law and simple democratic-liberal standards in 2015–2023. Anyone who genuinely cares about depolarisation in Poland should request the Law and Justice Agency to settle this period, recognising that the organization then exceeded many limits which cannot be exceeded. Without this, depolarization will not be possible. Of course, the Law and Justice organization will not do specified an authoreflexion and will not apologize, due to the fact that in the terms in which this organization sees politics today, this would mean unconditional surrender to it.
On the another hand, democratic policy does not work – unfortunately and fortunately – like social media. It is impossible to quiet down or block the part of a society whose values conflict with ours, sometimes it is essential to negociate on what principles to share life in 1 country. Especially since the right-populist side, in the case of the Law and Justice Party, frequently even more reactionary than the European utmost right, won over 9 million votes in the last election.
Thinking Strategically
So what do we do? First of all, think strategically. And strategically apply specified measures as moral outrage or deficiency of hand. Do not let yourself be cast in the function of those who fuel the conflict and at the same time make it clear that certain ideas and political practices are not just a average proposition on the political market. Force political opponents to explain themselves to their Grzegorz Brauns. Not to turn parliament into a space of civilian war, but besides to respect the sensitivity of its own voters in the issue of excessive socialization, for example with the most vicious homophobes. keep the ‘sanitary cordon’ around right- populist forces while building channels for communication with their voters.
What would be the target? The minute erstwhile the populist-reactionist right behind the "cordon" will be full integrated into democratic policy. due to the fact that democracy, where there's no 1 behind the cordon, is much healthier than 1 that requires cordon. Of course, the cordon may break earlier, and the right-wing populist wave will sink Poland again. The problem is that neither gestures made to the another side present nor pretending that in what any political actors say, there is truly nothing genuinely problematic, they do not distract us from this scenario.
How to prevent it? However, this question should be answered first – and on a applicable level – by political leaders, not publicists.
