Professor Adam Wielomski very accurately described the governing societies of modern Poland as an agential-infantual elite. They've ruled us for over 30 years. grantojedyAt the same time, people with fragile intellectual qualifications. In our homeland, many things work poorly, the strategy of justice operated pathologically by various Ziobers, Bodnars, Zurków.
The body pathology causing serious problems is the issue of the government strategy in Poland. A vague division of roles between the Prime Minister and the President. Currently, all this "contrary" between Karol Nawrocki a Donald Tuski It's typical wrestling political, due to the fact that both Tusk and Nawrocki completed training in the global Visitor Leadership Programme implemented by the U.S. State Department. The gentlemen will compete with each another about who will be the first to appear at the White House. Nawrocks and Tusks are no different erstwhile it comes to abroad policy.
Governance
During the reign of the Piast dynasty kings, it was known who ruled. Boleslaw Chrobry is Kazimierz the Great (people caught on the only subject will draw privileges for a nation, but King Casimir undoubtedly did many good things for our country) had advisors. There were rulers, but kings ruled. Despite giving privileges to the nobility, both Władysław Jagiełło and his boy Kazimierz Jagielloński they have maintained comparative control of government. With further privileges for the nobility, our homeland was falling into a chasm. Poland during the free election, veto liberal reminded the Ukrainian state of existence since 1991. The Magnats were very much like oligarchs with a Ukrainian passport; for 1 and the another they counted their own business and could sale themselves to anyone. The king had no real power, the pathological strategy of governments led to the collapse of the Polish state. There was anarchy in our homeland, a private.
Dialogues with Squadron
Film Squadron I consider him outstanding. The talks of Lieutenant Egor Żurin with Captain John Dobrowolski on the 1 hand, or Dobrowolski on the other, are very interesting. Dobrowolski smokes peasant huts unnecessarily, but too that I identify with what he says and does. Dobrowolski and Jeremiah said that Poles are not patient in pursuing political goals, they are divided and inept. Poles during the January Uprising were very divided, and Aleksander Wielopolski turned out to be indecisive and inconsistent, although he could accomplish much for the Polish cause.
Sikorski case
General Władysław Sikorski He was Prime Minister, Chief Chief, had quite a few power.However, he did not take on political work and did not decide to conclude a lasting agreement with Josif Stalin. Sikorski saw political factions in London, and he should have direct talks with Stalin in 1941. Of course, Poland would gotta make any concessions on the east border, but in the case of dealing with this substance straight between them it would make it hard for the Anglo-Saxons to play the Polish border issue in the future. fewer people remember that there was a Lviv PPR territory (which suggests that any russian politicians did not regulation out that Lviv would be Polish after the war). Besides, I have a hypothesis that Sikorski decided in 1943 to make a direct alliance with Stalin (which triggered the reaction of the British). Taking work for Sikorski's management and not looking at politicians and British could bring Poland better boundaries and little flow of Polish blood.
Readability of the decision-making centre
During the period of the Polish People's Republic, no substance what we think of the individual first secretaries of the KC PZPR, they are allies from the east bloc, ruler from a competitive ideological bloc or uninvolved partners – they knew who in our homeland exercised real power and to whom to address crucial issues. After 1989 we are dealing with a pathological strategy in which we have grotesque arguments over a chair and a plane. If we look at what systems of government they are, in all the major countries in the world, there is simply a clear definition of who is in charge.
Clear systems
I frequently criticize the USA, but I consider their political strategy alternatively good. In the United States there is simply a presidential strategy and it is known who rules and who bears work (is celebrated deep stateOnly that deep state is de facto in each country). There is besides a presidential strategy in Brazil, as in many countries of the region. In France, there is simply a semi-presidential strategy resembling in many respects the strategy of government in the Russian Federation. The semi-presidential systems are found in many countries in the post-Soviet area (Azerbejjan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, post-Soviet republics in Central Asia). In Lithuania, the president besides has much more competences than in Poland. WThe national Republic of Germany is governed by the Chancellor. In the UK, the real authority is exercised by the Prime Minister. The People's Republic of China is governed by the Secretary-General of the Communist organization of China .In the muslim Republic of Iran, the president has a strong mandate, but serious politicians in the planet know that the last word belongs to the spiritual leader.
Let's be a serious state
As long as there is simply a strategy of government as it is today, it is hard for effective governments and changes of our homeland for the better. Nobody wants to change that. I remember at the end of 2009, then Prime Minister Donald Tusk resigned from moving for president of Poland in 2010 due to the fact that he did not want to be a chandelier guard. The PO ruled for six more years since then, then the “competitive” of the PiS (8 years), now the PO has ruled again for 2 years with entrees and no 1 has always submitted any draft changes to the strategy of governments (even if there was no adequate majority to carry out these changes). The abroad centres of influence are very affected. Anarchization of social life, wrestling, the stupidity of political life is in their favor.
It is about time we changed the strategy of government in Poland. In major countries, governance systems are clearly defined. Personally, it is closest to the models of strong semi-presidential systems in the post-missile area, but I would accept the Chancellor's model, in order to correct pathology in a political strategy that has poisoned our political life for many years. If Poland is to be a serious state, the strategy of governments, the powers of the Prime Minister, the president must be clearly defined.
Kamil Waćkowski
