Sand: Before the Last Line

myslpolska.info 1 year ago

The publishing cycle of our weekly gives us this advantage over competition, that in the next issue we will comment on the final, or almost final results of the election.

But it's worth something. In fresh days of the campaign, usually the most interesting ones, we will be sentenced to contact our Readers, only through electronic media – the Myślpolska.info portal and our YouTube channel. However, regardless of the temperature and direction of political disputes, we can now be tempted to think about who in this election is worth supporting and whether we are at all curious in participating in these. I would point out that the position set out in this short text is not an editorial position but simply an explanation of the author's view on this issue.

Is it worth voting for?

A large part of the Readers. and even publicists associated with Myślą Polska already declare that in the upcoming elections he will not exercise his active electoral law. The justification for specified a decision is fundamentally 2 points.

Primo, supporters of the boycott of elections indicate a flaw in the current political and social strategy of the country. In their opinion, liberal democracy as a model of the state's functioning inevitably pushes us into the function of a marginal state within the economical and political structures of the demoliberal West. Therefore, they refuse to participate in the "democratic rituals" for reasons of principle. The illusory decision-making is the second and more popular argument of opponents of the elections. This leads to the thesis: "The election will not change anything, so it is not worth participating in it".

By maintaining the highest respect for those who preach 1 of the above ideas (or both), I powerfully cut myself off from them. On the another hand, I find their arguments false. They are most frequently due to maximalism, which comes down to the anticipation of the thorough and decisive results of each of the actions we have taken.

After all, differences between seemingly disputed major political parties are of a cosmetic nature. They do, though. Like ambition, complexes and individual conflicts. These seemingly trivial, frequently irrational factors have a decisive impact on parliamentary practice.

The distribution of forces in the future parliament will decide whether, as in the erstwhile term, we will face the dominance of the Atlantic forces or, on the contrary, the unfriendly co-habitation of the Atlantic forces with the Euro-Atlantic forces will occur. Even so seemingly subtle, however, we are faced with choice. It can become a tiny step towards the way of political emancipation. It may besides mean moving toward the opposite.

Similarly, it is with our assessment of the current political system, whatever it may be. Our participation in the electoral process will, of course, have no crucial impact on the improvement of our state's model, but the adoption of passiveness excludes any influence. It is so irrational. Even a minimal shift of the accents of Polish policy in the desired direction can possibly produce affirmative results in the future. Even if it is simply a chance so tiny that it is not worth taking theoretical models into account in the calculations I see no reason to give it up.

Electoral tactics

The primary nonsubjective of national policy, to which all objectives are derived, is to preserve the biological substance of the nation. This issue, since last year, has taken on an unexpectedly rather applicable dimension. The threat of Poland's engagement in the Ukrainian war does not cease to be serious and real. The first criterion of the electoral decision should so be the attitude of individual parties to the question of war.

It would be charmingly simple, but it is not. First of all, due to the fact that there are no anti-war parties among the main political forces. Only the MP squad Grzegorz Braun, a candidate for a letter from the Confederate, has a distinctly different view from the dominant one. However, it is only 1 faction in 1 of the smaller of the biases. In the absence of a clear anti-war party, it remains to lead to specified a configuration of pro-war parties that the government they elect is forced to unfriendly co-habit with the PiS president Andrzej Duda. This will reduce Parliament's legislative capacity and bring the cabinet to administrative and executive functions. At the same time, it will limit the highly harmful activity of the president of Poland on abroad policy. This is not an optimal solution, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine, but from the pool of available solutions bad appears to be the least bad.

Calculations of the size of future parliamentary clubs based on current surveys indicate that the PiS may score between 200 and 220 mandates. Therefore, the majority can only dream of itself if the 3rd Way coalition does not scope a threshold of 8% of the vote. Having taken into account the listing of this party, 2 weeks before the elections, specified a script appears unlikely. However, if the PSL and Holownia coalitions start falling to dangerous sizes, it is worth considering voting for it for purely tactical reasons.

On the another hand, a vote for the Left should be ruled out for both program and tactical reasons. Although it is seen as part of the anti-PiS, due to the programme similarities on social issues it can become a silent and even formal organization coalition Jarosław Kaczyński. Incredible? – I urge to callback the way of political transfers of Members Monika Pawłowski and associate Aichler's Blitz. Both began their career in leftist parties to now find themselves a camp of Law and Justice.

The Confederacy is the biggest challenge in defining electoral tactics. On the 1 hand, there is simply a large group of highly sensible, and at the same time simply decent people, mostly connected with Grzegorz Braun, but not only. On the another hand, there are besides many "young angry" people who sweat about the anticipation of filling their nominees with intrepid positions. How to choose the first and avoid choosing the second? Where the list leader is simply a individual who inspires your trust, the situation is clear and clear. If your candidate is not the leader of the list, but retains a good chance of taking the mandate, it is worth supporting him even by taking the hazard that our vote will yet lead to the incorrect individual taking the parliamentary mandate.

In the event that "our" candidate does not have a chance for a mandate either due to a distant location or due to the fact that the list has besides low support in the context of the number of seats in the district, or the deficiency of a trustworthy candidate from among those declared in the territory by the Confederation, it is better not to vote for them at all. Otherwise, with good intentions, we can supply PiS with 1 of the parliamentary votes missing to the absolute majority.

Be decent

Although it all sounds incredibly complex, we can bring it to 1 sentence: vote for the people you trust. Whether you choose the Confederates, the 3rd Way or even the Civic Coalition, search on their lists for those who will be worthy of their mandate. Those who do not compromise their views and declarations, whatever they may be. All according to the old but invariably present maxim: if you do not know how to behave, you should behave decently.

Why did I miss the Law and Justice in the above calculation? - It's obvious. I exclude the vote for war. I exclude support for the organization that sends our tanks to Ukraine present and will be ready to send our children there tomorrow. If that happens, I will be profoundly indifferent to whether the decision to destruct us will be approved by people who are personally decent, even sympathetic, or by average careersmen and another rogues.

It's worth a vote.

So it's not just worth it, but it's worth it. By rejecting our active election law, we take comfortable positions. We're taking work from ourselves. By gaining the chance to climb the pedestal of moral superiority. But if we reject, do we not reject the work for our community's ability to claim the right to decide its future?

Our voice has a soft meaning. Almost invisible. However, existing. It can drown in mass, dispersing without consequences for reality. It may, however, be so improbable that almost impossible, like anecdotal fluttering of butterfly wings origin a tornado at the another end of the globe. As long as it is, it's worth trying.

Przemysław Piasta

Read Entire Article