Stanisław Michalkiewicz: Order of pecking in activism
What if the president of Poland was “Jurek” Owsiak and not Mr Andrzej Duda? Would it be better, or would it just be different? It would most likely not be better, due to the fact that – according to the celebrated message of Radio Erevan, who answered the question of the listener – whether it would be better – said that “it was better already” – but it would most likely be different. For example, president Andrzej Duda never declares himself to the citizens with the words “you are great, I love you!” – while Mr Owsiak does it constantly.
What citizens have in it is simply a different matter, but I did not mean whether it would be better, due to the fact that it is known that it would not – only – be different. And this thought came to my head erstwhile I read how Mr. “Jurek” was at the hospital. Oatsiak ofgroomed president Duda for “passiveness” on floods.
What is the consequence of this fallout? First – that Mr. “Jurek” Owsiak is simply a follower of activism. Innocent Maria Bocheński wrote a book entitled “100 superstitions” in which, as I recall, activism was in the first place. It requires a man to sacrifice everything, all minute of his life, for the collective, “collective”, that is, for society. all man – and the president – is special. In appearance, Mr. “Jurek” is right, but only out of appearance, whether activism is superstitious or not.
While the assessment of president Duda's conduct of “100 superstitions” besides has its genre weight, what does it mean compared to the species weight of the Constitution? Although in the light of Prime Minister Tusk's fresh declaration of a “fighting democracy” the species weight of the constitution may have decreased slightly, or possibly even significantly, but even if so, there is inactive a dispute. So what's the constitution?
Thanks to the “band of four” that has already been forgotten today, i.e. – 4 individuals considered to be its originators: Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Aleksandra Kwasniewski, Richard Bugaj and Waldemar Pawlak – it contains a peculiar to not say – a bizarre solution. Incidentally, it is worth recalling that the word “personal” in Greek is “idiotropos” – which is even better characterized by the solution adopted in the Constitution. The point is that the president is elected in a general vote, so he has the strongest democratic legitimacy in the state.
I am not the ultrasound of democracy, but if, in the name of democracy, our Most crucial Ally is willing to origin even planet War III, and besides, if there is specified an order that there is to be democracy everywhere, I will not kick against the wall. If the president has the strongest democratic legitimacy, then – logically – he should have the most power. But – as Aaronek told the manager in a popular 1968 anecdotes, erstwhile he met him during lessons on the field – “there is no logic”.
Since there is no logic, the Prime Minister enjoys the top degree of power, who does not gotta have any democratic legitimacy at all, although, as an MP, he mostly has one. It is actual that we erstwhile had the government of Prime Minister Mark Belka, to whom no parliamentary group was admitted, and who ruled “wise and cheerful” as if nothing had always happened. Yes, but Prime Minister Marek Belka had as many as 2 operational aliases, as a secret associate of SB – so that was an exception, due to the fact that usually old wickets in specified cases tend to care about preserving appearances.
So, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister has power, while the president has appearances. This is best seen in military matters. Nominally, the president is the Head of the Armed Forces – but in the Armed Forces he cannot even lift a finger. If at all he nods, it is only “on request” of the Prime Minister, or at least – Minister of Defence. The consequence is simply a simple question: who is in charge of the military? – on the basis of the Constitution it is impossible – as I wrote about more than 20 years ago, but of course – peas against the wall.
If anyone is interested, let them look at the book “The illness of Red Eyes” – due to the fact that nothing has changed since then – except, of course, the multiplication of various “in command” in which titled officials dressed in uniform, dedicate themselves to activism.
And that’s “Jurek” The oatmeal finger pointed to the president Dude shortcomings in the activism section, due to the fact that for respective days he did not go to the flood-stricken areas. It follows that if so president was “Jurek” Oats, he would go to see the flood and its desolations, he would motion with knowing of the misfortunes of the people there, and who knows – possibly in the heart of a burning heart he would declare to them, "You are wonderful, I love you!"
Are you sure? Would specified a usurpation of activism by president “Jurk” Owsiak be a violation of the Constitution? After all, erstwhile the flood was already beginning, Prime Minister Donald Tusk was just wondering about the outfit that would be appropriate for him to consider the event of a natural disaster in order to retreat president Zelenski himself, who undoubtedly holds first among all the vassals of the United States on the fashion episode.
Not only on this episode, due to the fact that on others too, which prompts the State Department to brag that “our Vladimir is better.” From who? It is clear that from the second Vladimir, this “not our” or cold Russian checker Putin. As we can see – the game was about a large stake, of which the good “Jurek” The oatmeal evidently doesn't realize. In addition, could the president be able to appoint even 1 crisis staff to the appropriate meeting?
Surely not, due to the fact that any voivode would immediately consult the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, by which he would be made of, that he does not know that the crisis staff calls for the Prime Minister's meetings? Who knows if specified a voivode would not be immediately recalled on the charge that he was going to bargain specified a beautiful show from the president? If we know specified things, what is there to say about the voivods who foretell these salvific truths in the morning and evening?
If, then, president Andrzej Duda went to flood areas a fewer days later, erstwhile Prime Minister Donald Tusk presented himself to the public as part of a presentation about “a good tsar and bad boyars”, it only proves his political sense and cognition of his place in the strategy of our bantostan authorities.
What, then, about Mr. “Jurk” Oatsiak’s leap? Well, the peasant's intentions were good, and that's not his fault, as always. In any case, Prime Minister Tusk can look at it that way.
We besides recommend: Two Ukrainians smuggled black invaders
