Is Poland a democratic country? How do we realize democracy and the social contract?

Disputes about the definition and social value of democracy have been taking place since at least the 5th century BC, erstwhile Athens's democracy reached its heights. After all, it is besides a form of power, and a social structure, but above all a state of social consciousness that demonstrates the quality of our citizenship. What about Poland?

Democracy [dḗmos ‘people’, krátos ‘power’, the regulation of the people] as defined is the power of the people or nation, or the form of the political strategy of the state. The concept of democracy was defined, among others, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.. The principles of democracy recognised by global law are, in particular, freedom of expression, the right to a peaceful gathering and association, the right and the anticipation to participate in the management of public affairs, the right to vote.

When considering the importance of elements that make democracy, we realize that it is not democracy that provides it, but vice versa: their existence in social awareness determines democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville (XIXth-century investigator of historical and social issues) utilized the word "democracy" not in the usual political sense, but as a word for the typology of society. He described the theoretical model of democratic society as an egalitarian society [1].

According to him, democracy is not just a set of laws, principles or the organization of the kind of government in the state. The key to knowing it lies in the alleged social contract.

Its character is determined by the level of awareness improvement in society.

This agreement is not only a law written on paper, but besides – and most importantly – the unwritten rules that people agree to apply. Unspeakable contract as basis for operation.

In order to be able to talk about a social agreement, the public must agree on and respect the standards (rules and values).

However, the law is simply a kind of emanation of these values and beliefs.

Self-experience and social awareness as pillars of democracy

Self-knowledge is inextricably linked to religion in one's own strength [2] and to strengthen it you gotta quit your passive attitude towards life. It's apparent to the human psyche researchers. I think that we can besides observe a akin relation on the group level, and so besides in the process of democratisation.

Democracy requires both the awareness of individuals participating in its strategy and their active participation.

The improvement of awareness is subject to self-observation, self-analysis and self-assessment [2]. At the collective level, civilian liberties, freedom of speech and assembly warrant the reflection and control of the governing bodies – that is, self-observation and self-regulation of society. We should say that it is not democracy that guarantees these freedoms and rights, but for democracy to be it is essential to have watch institutions, grassroots initiatives, active and informed citizens.

So democratic society should be self-conscious, just, cooperative, envy-free, taking into account the needs of minorities.

The foundations of social governance in earlier societies were not as much of a public debate as they are today, drawing attention to the broadest circles of society[1]. Only in the early 19th century, in a rapidly-democratic world, did the argument of social power first substance [1].

Zbigniew Brzeziński introduced the word "global political awakening" [3] in relation to fresh political and social phenomena. He drew attention to the mass emotions.

Population in a large part of the developing planet succumbs to political ferment[3]. Societys have an unprecedented degree of awareness of social injustice and are raging.

According to Brzeziński, this develops a community of sympathetic perceptions and envy that can become an easy ground for demagogue political and spiritual sentiments [3].

Note the 2 stages that can be distinguished in this process. On the 1 hand, the essential sensitivity for democracy to injustice, the awakening of social awareness and reaction, as well as the ability to sympathize and unite in this feeling. On the another hand, in order for this reaction and social activity to produce the desired effects, it must be supported not only by the awareness of social justice, but besides by the cognition of what can lead to it. Otherwise, it will turn into chaos, advance retrospective ideologies, nationalism and dictatorship, bring distant further injustices.

Apart from the keen desire to participate in public discussion for the existence of mature democracy, it seems essential to have a appropriate political culture, preparation and knowledge. It is not adequate to speak. It must be supported by cognition of politics, cognition of facts, an accurate assessment of political phenomena. This cognition in turn should be derived from full internalized values, or from a deep awareness of moral principles.

Democracy is not an perfect system. It is not free from problems that are a problem with another forms of government. But he's the best of all that humanity has invented so far.

No another strategy worked better and did not warrant adequate civilian liberties and individual freedoms. Democracy is now the fairest political strategy in the world.

One of the threats to democracy is paradoxically the hazard of its abolition by democratic methods and the introduction of autocracy or another oppressive system. And here we go again. Democracy is not a evidence of rights, but a consequence of a social agreement. If society is not ready to function in a democratic system, it will return to another form of governance and democracy here creates an easy way of retreat. Again, it comes from her very being. There's no compulsion. It guarantees freedom of choice, which makes it besides a fatal choice.

There is no uncertainty that a strategy conducive to the depreciation and oppression of the individual will produce human demons. There is besides no uncertainty that circumstances form people, their attitudes and choices. The political strategy is simply a reflection of a certain level of improvement of individuals in it, and democracy requires social maturityso she can hold on.

We operate without censorship. We don't advertise, we don't charge for texts. We request your support. Throw yourself in the media.

Did Poles make democracy?

By "Democracy Index" 2023 (Democracy indicator in 2023) [4] developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a investigation and analytical unit that measures the level of democracy in different countries, Poland does not belong to countries with full democracy. EIU is simply a investigation and analysis department of The Economist Group, a UK-based company dealing with global business and global affairs. It provides accurate and impartial information to private institutions, governments and technological organisations. The group has been operating since 1946 and is publishing the weekly weekly "The Economist".

The Democracy Index is based on 5 categories: electoral process and political pluralism, government functioning, political participation, political culture and civilian liberties [4]. Each category is assigned a scale of 0 to 10. The survey takes into account factors specified as the impact of abroad powers on government or the ability of civilian service to implement policies. Poland has been classified as a group of countries with alleged "failed democracy". Free elections are held in these countries, but weaknesses in various aspects of democracy, including management problems, a poorly developed political culture, are besides apparent. In the general index we are following countries like Chile, Malta, Botswana. The electoral process and political pluralism in Poland received a score of 9.58. But already in the remaining 3 categories (government function, political participation, political culture and civilian liberties), we have been assessed between 6.07 and 7.35, which is not the best.

It is worth considering what the state of our country is referred to as “a defective democracy”.

In many areas we have achieved a large deal. However, not on all plane. It seems that 1 of the main problems in our society is that we Poles do not know how to think in broader, social categories, but frequently only in-house. Egoistically, we want everything that is best for ourselves, we take in the good, and we can neither open up to others nor share what we have.

Certainly, Poles are eager to participate in charitable donations. However, it is worse to accept immigrants or to see the common good, especially in broader terms – to see the needs not only within their immediate space. So what if the Czechs fall down and people have nothing to drink? We don't care, we don't care what's behind the city.

Tolerance and knowing for Another

We are not trying to realize the ‘other’ needs of another person, problems or interests of another social groups. "We" are always the top, "our" always win, and what is "our" always better. The parent of God is Polish in our eyes too. And that's the way we accept society.

We've been negative about immigrants for years.

Centre for Prejudice investigation (CCU) In investigation conducted many years ago, it indicated an exceptionally advanced level of opposition of Poles to Muslims, of course, with very low cognition of representatives of this number or culture of Islam in general. force against refugees in our country has besides been observed. Today, too, we are little and little favorable to immigrants arriving from the east border.

By CBOS investigation on Poland's presence in the European Union conducted in February 2024 immigrants are a origin of social problems, especially crime. It was besides clear that immigrants from outside Europe are a threat to culture and national identity. Respondents mentioned the mass influx of immigrants as 1 of the problems of the European Union that could jeopardise its existence. Only isolated statements indicated that Poland as a community country should participate in the reception of refugees.

On the 1 hand, Poles opened the hearts and doors of their homes to war refugees from Ukraine. On the another hand, erstwhile CBOS published his investigation on how Ukrainians themselves talk about life in Poland, it turned out that the majority of respondents claimed that after a large influx of solidarity from the beginning of the war the attitude of Poles to Ukrainians had deteriorated significantly.

Conflicts have intensified. Poles accused Ukrainians of surviving at their expense.

The media-acclaimed issues of grain imports from outside the east border or carrier protests are besides affecting these relations.

In the meantime, tolerance can be considered a key thought for the modern demoliberal world.

This is the tolerance that allows interaction, communication, the anticipation of comparisons, references and openness to differentness. It represents the peculiar value of a multicultural society, as the fundamental condition is differences and differences. Differentiation should be recognised and respected, not only as the rule of "removing others", but consciously through dialog and conversation leading to designation and knowing of differences [5].

So that we do not say that our society resembles “anonymous crowd at 1 of the large airports, a crowd of indifferent and unfamiliar people” [6], the request for cooperation and agreement. That's what democracy requires.

Welcome to internships, internships and volunteering!

Join us!

Public awareness of Poles

Is it developed adequate to keep democracy? It would seem that Polish society should already be well acquainted with the themes of "other" and tolerance, developed by Polish thinkers specified as Fr J. Tischner or R. Kapuściński. It turns out, however, that something else is simply a society that is “knowledged” and something else conscious.

Many conventional cultures, including European culture, have equipped members of their own cultural ellipse with a xenophobic directive and a disposition to cultivate their ownness[7]. Cultural separatism is based on them. It is the origin of conflicts, armed tensions, terrorism, civilian wars, social tensions. [7] Today, specified trends have increased greatly. They are the obstacles to peace and democracy. In democracy, number rights must be respected; legal activities of the political opposition must besides be ensured.

In terms of the way we exercise power, we besides present medieval views. We request a “hard hand”, individual who will regulation us, a strong ruler who will tame an unruly mass of subordinates.

However, not everyone realizes that a weak, unfree people are behind this strong ruler.

And this discrimination entails further implications – the all-powerful, only ruler and mediocre masses. This is another feature of undemocratic societies – social fragmentation. A narrow layer of “higher class”, snorting in the luxury of “elite” and multitudes of starving mediocre people, humiliated, utilized to the ground, tormented to the limit of endurance, people working from morning to evening, and frequently for second and 3rd jobs at night, which cannot afford fresh socks or the education of their children.

Force of power and strength or cooperation?

David Gauthier, a Canadian moral philosopher, claimed that cognition of what is good, right and just is not adequate to form human behavior[8]. The anticipation of a social agreement is dictated by the anticipation of cooperation. There are 2 models of solution to this problem. The first refers to the request for an external origin to guarantee compliance with the rule, i.e. cooperation. According to the second model, this origin is not needed[8].

Hobbes in his classical work entitled ‘Leviathan’ [9] presented the concept of an external limiting factor, a sovereign with authority and power. He felt that neither morality, nor religion, nor ideology, nor reason could prevent man from violating another people's goods.

According to him, fear of death is the only thing that keeps people in check.

Hobbes compared this absolute sovereign to the biblical monster Leviathan[9].

However, this distances us from knowing democracy. due to the fact that fear – from prison, torture, social exclusion, reporting, omnipresent surveillance – is the main tool of authoritarian regimes. He's the 1 who allows populists to regulation effectively.

It seems that the departure from the logic of fear and the transition to openness and trust opens the door to creativity, freedom of civic action and creates an chance for a cooperative and civilian society.

Power never creates law

Rousseau states that this arrangement is the basis of power[10]. He notes that giving up freedom means selling out.

That a man who makes himself a slave to another man is selling for his livelihood.

"Someone says that the despot provides peace in the country for their subjects. ...but what they gain from it, if the wars that bring his ambition upon them, if his insatiable greed, if the extortions of his ministers destruct them more... ? ... You live calmly in prison too; is that adequate to feel good there?” [10], asks Rousseau.

He claims that giving up his freedom is equal to giving up his humanity, human responsibilities and rights. Rousseau is definitely against despotism. He notes that there is simply a immense difference between the subjection of the crowd and the regulation of society. “When ... people are gradually tamed by one, ... there is neither a public good nor a political body [10].”

The external model is besides limited in scope, as sovereigns can only enforce rules that can be included in external affirmative law[8].

Here we come to the clue of the substance – society either consists of selfish, greedy people and needs a sovereign, a controlling and disciplining force, or – they are created by mature individuals capable of reconciliation and altruism, self-controlling and then conditions for democracy arise.

So if we don't want fear to dictate our compliance with the social contract, then what?

Here comes David Gauthier. He claimed that the essence of morality was self-limitation[8]. This anticipation of cooperating with others makes a social contract possible. Intuitively, we note that self-limitation is simply a essential condition for a "higher" form of society.

Self-limitation results from honesty. Democracy requires honesty. It is impossible to build this social strategy if society is not honest.

Cooperation and the absence of envy

Hobbes notes that “...some surviving beings, specified as bees and ants, live socially with each another (and Aristotle counted them among political beings), and yet they have no common leadership but for their individual courts and appetites; ... and so individual might want to know why mankind cannot do the same. That is what I answer to... First of all, that people constantly compete with each another for honors and dignity, which they do not do; hence there is envy and hatred among people, and yet war...[9].

So it seems that Hobbes felt that only those who were profit - oriented, blindly competing with each another could regulation the power based on coercion. It follows that cooperation as its basis has the ability to refrain from striving at all costs to meet their own needs and to take account of social needs in these actions. Thus, a political strategy based not on coercion but on cooperation requires individuals to be mature.

Unfortunately, people in Poland compete with each another in a terrible way, undermining each other. We can't work together.

However, the ability to settle, benevolence, and compromise are key values for a well-cooperative society.

Unfortunately, people in Poland compete with each another in a terrible way, undermining each other. We can't work together. However, the ability to settle, benevolence, and compromise are key values for a well-cooperative society.

Discrimination of tolerance and consent to iniquity

Hobbes, in his explanation of the laws of nature, speaks of common kindness and adaptation, which he believes is the 5th law of nature[9].

He thinks that all man should effort to adapt to the remainder of the people.

Referring to the ability of people to live in society, he notes that their nature is different, which in turn results from the fact that human feelings are different.

“Just as we see in the stones gathered for a building. specified a stone by its roughness and abnormality of form takes distant more space from another stones than it occupies itself; and by its hardness, it cannot be easy smoothed out; it hinders the building, so it is rejected by builders, for it is of no usage and causes trouble. ... specified a man should be left outside the public or removed as a nuisance to him [9].’

It seems that Poles deficiency the cognition of how to separate tolerance from consistent with injustice and harm. erstwhile the war broke out in Ukraine and in Poles, a spirit of brotherhood spoke, my friends from Belarus for 2 weeks were afraid to leave home. due to the fact that the spirit of brotherhood besides spoke. That doesn't prove well about the climate in our country.

A well-functioning society must be able to halt crime, iniquity, hatred speech. He must be able to get free of a rough stone.

In order to be possible, tolerance and acceptance of others should be distinguished from lenientity for breaking laws and social harm.

Dialogue, organisation, civilian society

We Poles besides do not know how to organize besides well in groups that would act socially. fewer of us belong to non-governmental institutions that would take social action for the common good. According to data provided by the Central Statistical Office, in 2022 in Poland there were 103,4 1000 non-profit organizations, comprising 8.3 million members [12]. With more than half of the non-profit organizations operating in the fields of sports, tourism, recreation, hobby, rescue and culture and art, the institutions surveyed included organisations dealing with fishing or professional and professional affairs. These social and humanitarian workers accounted for only 9% of all surveyed entities[12].

The same is actual for trade unions. On the 1 hand, the law is changing for the better and it seems that we have favorable conditions to operate, but we do not full believe that they can be effective. We are afraid and we do not communicate sufficiently, and this reveals the weakness of civilian society.

Meanwhile, it is the key to the emergence and continuation of democracy.

"Without a strong civilian society, democracy is an ideological facade without a future[13]."

We can't talk or discuss either. The level of public debate marks the worst, insidious methods, known since ancient times. Described by erudites and ancient philosophers, they trust on undermining the opponent during the conversation to prove his inferiority and foolishness. There is no respect in the discussion, and even if individual thinks otherwise, even if they say foolish things, perceive to them. You don't gotta agree with the interviewer, you can present counterarguments, but no 1 has the right to humiliate the interviewer.

In Poland, the auditorium needs an aggressive skirmish. You can seldom watch programs on our TV, where a advanced level of discussion is maintained. We wrote about “the culture of humiliation” in interview with Michał Rydlewski on the TSO. In many cases, tv programme developers consciously exposure participants to public ridicule. Worse yet, there is no desire to change. Many people agree alternatively of protesting passively due to the fact that they think that these are the rights of popular programs. The same is actual of the language and transmission of electoral campaigns. To win them, you gotta first point the enemy and then brand it and degrade it..

Well, actually, freedom.

In Poland, freedom is frequently confused with freedom.

What else is freedom and what else is fulfilling your own desires without seeing others?

Rousseau felt that everyone's will was not the same as universal will[10]. Universal will represents a common interest. The will of all expresses a private interest and is only the sum of the will of individuals[10]. cognition of specified a discrimination is another origin in a well-functioning democracy. To not be a battlefield for the influence of individual interest groups, but to represent the interests of all, including minorities.

In order to combine the above conditions of freedom, tolerance and cooperation, it can be concluded that in a well-designed democratic society "we can be for ourselves, but never only for ourselves." [14]

A condition for democracy is the public's tolerance and openness to another cultures or more "other", the ability to co-operate and renounce an arrangement in which strength, self-limitation and integrity, cooperation, the absence of envy and rivalry, social awareness of what tolerance is and to separate it from consent to iniquity, civilian society and debate, decently understood freedom.

However, democracy is not just about the realisation of a certain political culture, but about the awareness of citizens that the above elements form the core of the awareness and motivation of both citizens and society as a whole.

Source:
[1] J. Szacki, "History of Sociological Thought", technological Publishing home PWN, Warsaw 2012, pp. 175, 185-188.
[2] P. Lauster, “Consciousness of Himself”, Book World, Warsaw 1995, pp. 7-33.
[3] for: F. Zakaria, "The End of America's Hegemony", Nadir Media Lazar, Warsaw 2009, pp. 65-66.
[4] "Democracy Index 2023. Age of conflict", 2024 The Economist Intelligence Unit.
[5] J. Nikitorovich, ‘Ethnos values as a basis for shaping multicultural identity, the underlying cultural conflicts and the nonsubjective of intercultural education’, [in:] planet of values and intercultural education, under T. Lewowice, E. Ogrodka-Mazur, A. Gajdzica, Cieszyn- Warszawa, University of Silesia-Filia in Cieszyn, Higher Pedagogical School of ZNP in Warsaw, 2003, p. 53.
[6] R. Kapuściński, Another in the Global Village, Monthly "Znak" (1) 2004, pp. 30-36.
[7] A. Tyszka, Cultural conversation. The objectives and results of the seminar "Intercultural Communication 1992-93, Intercultural Communication. Contexts and Impressions”, under A. Kapciak, L. Korporowicz, A. Tyszki, Warsaw, Institute of Culture, 1995, p. 5-23.
[8] "Social Agreement and its Critics in Political and Legal Thought", edited by Zbigniew Rau and Maciej Chmieliński, technological Publishing home "Scholar" 2010, p. 256.
[9] Hobbes Thomas, "Leviathan or Matter, Form and Power of the Church and the Holy State", translated Wiemierowski Czesław, Aletheia, Warsaw 2009, pp. 255-256, 258.
[10] J. J. Rousseau, "Social Agreement. Letter about the spectacles”, A. Peretitukowicz (translation), Gebethner and Wolff, Poznań 1920, pp. 11-12, 20, 36, 45, 50.
[11] J. Rawls, "Political Liberalism", A. Romaniuk, PWN technological Publishing House, Warsaw 2012, p. 748.
[12] "Activities of associations and akin social organisations, foundations, social spiritual entities and economical and professional self-government in 2022 – preliminary results", GUS 2023.
[13] J. Ostrowski, "Social Agreement, Democracy and Liberalism from the position of Hegel, Democracy in the 21st Century", [ed. Maria Szyszkowska], Warsaw 2009, p. 247.
[14]D. Castiglione, “The Logic of Social Cooperation for common Advantage – The Democratic Contract”, Political Studies Review Volume13, Issue 2, May 2015, p. 26.