Liberal democratic parties must feel ineffective. They are usually afraid to transgress the democratic rules they impose on themselves. And populists are not afraid to do this. He wasn't afraid Orban turn the state into its dominion, partisanizing everything possible and de facto killing the democratic legal order in it, leaving only elections from classical democracy (and he even tinkers with them).
He wasn't afraid PiS follow in his footsteps (although, it must also be said, first time Constitutional Tribunal tried to tinker POwhich was noted by the press, including those considered anti-populist). Aleksandar Vucic has not been afraid to do the same for a long time Serbiawhich the Hungarian system raised to power without being bound by EU laws.
Yes, good political morals are being spoiled in Central Europe by everyone, from those who think of themselves as liberal democrats to those who consider themselves illiberal democrats, but the latter go a step further, not even hiding the fact that they are doing it: partisan public televisions or public institutions do it in their full majesty, with open visors. They are, in short, taking over the state. Like Orban, Vucic, Erdogantoo long to mention.
He would be among this team and Kaczyńskibut he had the misfortune to rule Polandwhich will always slip out of the hands of every ruler like a dream-mara. Especially when you try to grip it harder.
Donald Trump shoots decrees like a cowboy
Of course, I do not want to say that democrats should do the same as populists in order to be effective and have a sense of efficiency. They must somehow, after all, distinguish themselves from these populists in positive ways. At least when it comes to the approach to the democratic system. I am only saying that their political opponents have no such objections. And they are more effective. Donald Trump Since taking office, he's been shooting executive orders around like a wild cowboy. And it must be taken into account that in American political culture, ordinances are used exceptionally, as in Poland, the Sigismund Bell. And this is just the beginning.
In order to feel like hyper-optimistic masters of the world on an endorphin high like the howling wolves of Wall Street, populists seem to need less than democrats who consider themselves more responsible. They are not particularly concerned about global warming, even if they accept scientists' findings. They have simple ways of migrating and are not interested in nuances related to human rights or ethical and moral issues in general – as people who are often deeply religious.
And above all, they are not afraid of the march of populists, because they are populists themselves. They are not afraid of the return of fascism, because they are alone, like last time Elon Muskat least they play with its convention. Because they can. They are not afraid that populism will bring to the top of the world some madman who will start demanding territorial cessions from neighboring countries – because somehow it won't. Because they have more confidence in their political wolf pack than wolves outside the said pack.
In a word – populists do not hold back anything when dancing. They show their teeth, they laugh, they confuse, they scare them, and they are happy that they can hear the howling and that it's great. In fact, it often happens that unnoticed, these national-conservative, self-proclaimed people's kings striving for autocracy become full-fledged dictators who then attack neighboring countries (Putin) or help them in this (Lukashenko).
Let's determine what is allowed and what is not
Sometimes, however, some part of the liberal-democratic world will attack such an unpredictable populist. As, for example, v Romaniawhere the Constitutional Tribunal invalidated the first round of elections, which was unexpectedly won by anti-Western populist Calin Georgescu, who admired Putin and believed in various conspiracy theories. The Tribunal accused him of manipulation during the campaign, the unclear origin of the funds for its conduct, and did not exclude the possibility of tampering with a foreign country in these elections.
Voices of criticism were raised, also on the democratic side: how is that? Dispute the election results?
However, only the right wing took to the streets. And support for the candidate who invalidated the election increased to about 50 percent. And support for nationalist politics increased even more. If Georgescu stands again in the repeated elections, victory is in his pocket. The parties of the former political mainstream, however, are losing support.
I myself have doubts whether the Constitutional Tribunal did the right thing. But I wonder – still having doubts – whether if you said A, you shouldn't also say B. If someone has once violated the political rules, he should not be excluded from the political game, at least for some time. Perhaps together with the community that supported him.
If the mainstream loses support, let new political entities be created. But let them act within the framework of what is the spirit and essence of democracy, not trolling it or a means to take power and abolish this democracy. Sure, there will now be questions about definitions and categories of what is allowed and what is not allowed in politics. Maybe this is the time to figure it out? Purely technical? That this is what national – and transnational – political debates should be about? From the current right to the current left?
After all, we all nominally agree on the rudiments. In Poland, both PiS and PO accuse each other of taking over nominally independent state institutions, and although both parties do it (although not on the same scale), it can, for example, be established that such takeover is bad. And delineate a catalog of inviolable values and separate them from those for which a democratic political fight can take place.
That is, do it again. Because this is what our national constitutions, charters of the international organizations to which we belong, and so on, define. But maybe, things like this simply need to be refreshed. So that the entire political spectrum feels responsible for it.