The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 57

New constitution In Poland?


jon357 63 | 14,134
18 Aug 2015  #31
Yes, he was a true democrat. Unfortunately there are some who can't accept democracy. The failed Fourth Republic project was an example of this.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
18 Aug 2015  #32
ghastly Dmowski,

Not so ghastly as he's made out ot be. He is one of the left's betes noires but he was in favour of a moderate, modern, non-violent "Poland first" patriotism and did not condone uni beatings of Jewish students or smashing up Jewish shops like the ONR thug squads did. His major failing was his readiness to give up Poland's former eastern territories.

Narutowicz may have been the darling of leftist, liebral and libertine agnostics but was too anti-Catholic and pro-Semitic for post-partition Polish society as a whole. You and your ilk may personally favour such tendencies, but that does not mean they would have been good for Poland in that period.
jon357 63 | 14,134
18 Aug 2015  #33
He's one of everybody's bête noires - some of his quotes are horrific. President Narutowicz however is very widely respected and his murder by a crazed nationalist was a tragedy.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
18 Aug 2015  #34
widely respected

Only by a minority of leftists, liberals, agnostics and suchlike assorted eggheads - not by the Polish nation as a whole. And it's the nation that counts, not some snobbish elite.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
19 Aug 2015  #35
Sorry Polonius, but President Narutowicz won the majority of votes from the National Assembly at the time, which gave him the Presidency. He was supported by the left, the centre and the national minorities - which seems to me that it was a clear-cut win for him from a broad section of Polish society. As a minister, he was highly capable as well.

Off the top of my head, he won a decisive victory in the election as well, it wasn't just one or two votes.
jon357 63 | 14,134
19 Aug 2015  #36
Only by a minority of leftists, liberals, agnostics and suchlike assorted eggheads - not by the Polish nation as a whole. And it's the nation that counts, not some snobbish elite.

Apart from that being simply untrue, you come across as if you think that was some excuse for the crank who murdered him.

And President Narutowicz is still a highly respected figure across society. His murderer is not.

There are just some people who have no respect for a constitution and the rule of law, but instead prefer mob rule if it suits their own inadequate prejudices.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
19 Aug 2015  #37
excuse for the crank

No justification for assassination, merely a statement that Narutowicz was not presidential material for Poland. That's a difference. The only assassins one could regard as heroes would have been anyone who managed ot bump off Hitler or Stalin.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
19 Aug 2015  #38
merely a statement that Narutowicz was not presidential material for Poland.

So - let's see. According to you, someone that was and had -

- Born into nobility
- Family history of opposing oppression
- Supported the ideas and values of Pilsudski
- Helped exiled Polish citizens
- World class expert in his field
- Dean of a university faculty
- A highly successful minister
- Centrist in politics, able to find compromise
- Trusted by foreign governments

- in your eyes, wasn't suitable for President?

Are you serious?

Narutowicz was supported by a broad section of Polish society and also had the support of the various minorities, which made him a real man of the Polish nation. It's such a huge shame that such a talented and able President had his reign cut short.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
19 Aug 2015  #39
1935 Constitution

A new constitution should ensure a more equitable balance of power between parliament/government and the chief executive. The president's powers should be slightly strengthened (not to the point of eliminating the PM altogether as in the USA nor even the French model of overshadowing him). This could inlcude a gretaer say in foreign afffairs, the right to appoint certain key figures (eg the heads of the Supreme Court, State Tribunal, possibly also foreign minister) and a 55% (rather than 51%) parliamentary majority to override presidential bills.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
19 Aug 2015  #40
A new constitution should ensure a more equitable balance of power between parliament/government and the chief executive.

The President isn't the chief executive, and this model was already replaced 18 years ago. There's absolutely no appetite in Poland for a strong Presidency, and the majority remember the attempts by Lech Kaczyński to make the office more than it actually was.

the right to appoint certain key figures (eg the heads of the Supreme Court, State Tribunal, possibly also foreign minister)

Why on earth would you put such power in the hands of one person? It would simply lead to constant deadlock and fights - the 4th French Republic suffered badly from such poor division between the parliament and the president.

As I said above, PiS only want to change the constitution because they know that it's easier for them to win a one off election than it is to win 231 seats in the Sejm. However, I find it interesting and downright weird that they're supporting a return to the PRL-era idea of the Presidency.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
19 Aug 2015  #41
chief executive.

Agreed, that's an americanism, but he is head of state. There is no one universally ideal model for everyone. Parliamentary democracy at present just does not work in some ex-Soviet Central Asian republics where government is in the hands of traditional clans.

Poland's 1921 hyper-parliamentary constitution led not to substantive debate but to chaos, fisticuffs and disturbances requiring police intervention. It required the relatively mild 1926 coup d'état and the 1935 constitution to remedy the anarchy and contain widespread security threats (Soviet subversives, Nazi Fifth Column, Ukrainian terrorists, etc.),

Narutowicz was supported by a broad section of Polish society

He was elecetd by the Naitonal Assembly not by popular vote, and there were no surveys back then showing whether the public supported someone.
His professional credentials may have been OK, but the vibes he sent out did not gel with the nation as a whole. You can try to impose your subejctive personal views and prejudices (liberalism, agnositcism, anticlericalism, cosmopolitanism, etc.) on 1920s Poland, but that will always be an ethnically, culturally, politically and religiously alien entity to an outsider of foreign stock.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
19 Aug 2015  #42
He was elecetd by the Naitonal Assembly not by popular vote, and there were no surveys back then showing whether the public supported someone.

But the National Assembly was voted for democratically. It's no different to how the German President is elected today.

His professional credentials may have been OK, but the vibes he sent out did not gel with the nation as a whole. You can try to impose your subejctive personal views and prejudices (liberalism, agnositcism, anticlericalism, cosmopolitanism, etc.) on 1920s Poland, but that will always be an ethnically, culturally, politically and religiously alien entity to an outsider of foreign stock.

What are you on about? He was supported by a broad section of Polish society, except the right wing that tried to portray him as somehow not being Polish. In 1920's Poland, he was perhaps the perfect candidate, not least because he had experience in reconstruction, excellent foreign contacts and was politically moderate. The fact that he had a good relationship with Pilsudski would have guaranteed success as well.

And no matter how hard you try, 1920's Poland was not some Catholic-dominated state, but rather a multi-ethnic state that clearly belonged to all her citizens, not just the Catholic ones.

It required the relatively mild 1926 coup d'état and the 1935 constitution to remedy the anarchy and contain widespread security threats (Soviet subversives, Nazi Fifth Column, Ukrainian terrorists, etc.),

Don't forget the threats from Polish Catholics, too, that were determined to dismantle the rights of all Polish citizens.

Had a coalition between President Narutowicz and Pilsudski held, I suspect that Poland would have been a dramatically different place and for the better. The entire post-1935 policies of Sanacja destroyed any hope that Poland had even before the war.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
19 Aug 2015  #43
voted for democratically

Yes, but that is an extraneous added step away from direct democracvy. Same with the US College of Electors which should also be done away with. The ribbon-snipping German presidency is a total farce!
Roger5 1 | 1,458
19 Aug 2015  #44
You can try to impose your subejctive personal views and prejudices (liberalism, agnositcism, anticlericalism, cosmopolitanism, etc.) on 1920s Poland, but that will always be an ethnically, culturally, politically and religiously alien entity to an outsider of foreign stock.

Pol, you constantly

try to impose your subejctive personal views and prejudices

in almost every thread and post you make. To paraphrase you, these include illiberalism, radical, extreme Catholicism, and a hopelessly nostalgic view of Poland.
jon357 63 | 14,134
19 Aug 2015  #45
merely a statement that Narutowicz was not presidential material for Poland..

He was voted into office with strong support, which is the first and biggest step. As for being 'not presidential material', you have nothing to say on the matter since he didn't hold office long enough, due to dark forces who did not respect democracy.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
19 Aug 2015  #46
I wonder what was "presidential material" in the eyes of Polonius, given that President Narutowicz was a success in his life and also had the right background for those times (born into nobility, etc etc).
jon357 63 | 14,134
19 Aug 2015  #47
Basically someone ultranationalist, extreme authoritarian and proto-fascist. A Polish Gabriele d'Annunzio, who would have abused the constitution (as some wanted) to make it like the three descriptions in the first sentence. The treasonable and failed Fourth Republic project was the last gasp of that.

I forgot to mention the theocratic element that Annunzio (perhaps his saving grace) never tried. Basically a leader in thrall to the more conservative elects within the hierarchy, a constitution skewed in favour of a religious body an religion used as a tool of oppression. Basically Franco's Spain translated to Poland.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
19 Aug 2015  #48
dramatically different place

And how would your hypothetical Narutowicz-Piłsudski coaliton have dealt with the parliamentary anarchy that necessitated the 1926 coup, with the Stalinist and Nazi 5th columns, Ukrainian terrorism and the inevitable detention of subversives at Bereza Kartuska and the Brześć Fortress, not to mention the economic crisis and widespread unemployment?

Your highly ahistorical "and they lived happily ever after" version is precisely what it implies -- a neverland fairy tale!
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
19 Aug 2015  #49
And how would your hypothetical Narutowicz-Piłsudski coaliton have dealt with the parliamentary anarchy that necessitated the 1926 coup

Quite well I imagine, given that President Narutowicz was a follower of Pilsudski's ideals and that he would've enjoyed the support of the man himself.

It has to be said Polonius, I cannot understand why you're so fiercely against one of the greatest men ever to hold the Polish presidency. Certainly, his accomplishments far outweigh any President of the III RP.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
19 Aug 2015  #50
cannot understand

Because he did not embody the spirit of Poland. He was closer to the alienness personified by PF's Bully Brits. Of all people, a president should be on the same wavelength as sthe majrotiy of his subjects who were not liberals, agnostics or judaeophiles.

All the legalistic mumbo-jumbo about him having widespread support not withdstanding, but it was not popualr support but that of certain poltical elites and interest groups. He could not have won a popular election.

any President of the III RP

...except the budding IV RP which will rise again. Regardless of whether it will called that or not. A rose by any other name......
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
20 Aug 2015  #51
Because he did not embody the spirit of Poland.

A man that was born into nobility, rose to the top of his profession and became a professor, helped Polish exiles, led a university faculty, supported the ideals of Pilsudski, had the support of foreign governments and was a highly successful minister didn't "embody the spirit of Poland"?

Polonius, you've posted some amount of crap on here in the past, but this is remarkable even by your standards.

He was closer to the alienness personified by PF's Bully Brits.

Hardly. The man was as Polish and a genuine patriot.

Of all people, a president should be on the same wavelength as sthe majrotiy of his subjects who were not liberals, agnostics or judaeophiles.

I don't know how to explain this to you, but President Narutowicz was elected with the support of the left, the centrists and the minorities. In other words, a broad section of Polish society and certainly the majority. It was only the right wing Polish Catholics that opposed him - which was not the majority within the II RP.

All the legalistic mumbo-jumbo about him having widespread support not withdstanding, but it was not popualr support but that of certain poltical elites and interest groups. He could not have won a popular election.

Meaningless, and certainly no reason to insult him.

Don't forget that his rival for the Presidency, Zamoyski, had willingly sat in the Russian Duma. Traitor.

May I remind you that politically, he was very close to Pilsudski?

...except the budding IV RP which will rise again. Regardless of whether it will called that or not. A rose by any other name......

It's gone, Polonius. Duda, Szydło and others have no interest in the Kaczynski IV RP project.
smurf 39 | 1,982
20 Aug 2015  #52
Because he did not embody the spirit of Poland.

That's pretty funny coming from you.

a president should be on the same wavelength as sthe majrotiy of his subjects who were not liberals, agnostics or judaeophiles.

Then you clearly don't understand what the actual role of a president of Poland.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
20 Aug 2015  #53
IV RP project.

The Platfusy aimed their hate industry's largest calibre arsenal against the IV RP, slandering and misrepresnerting its noble, patriotic intentions. Since the Platofrmers are good at PR (about the only thing they're good at), they succeeded in brainwashing many Poles to givre the IV RP a bad name. So probably the term will not be used at present, but its hopefully much of its substance will be put into practice to sweep away the crooks, scammers, shady busibessmen, corrupt politicnas, etc., some of whom inadvertently or consciosuly (for the money) are serving foreign intelligence.
jon357 63 | 14,134
20 Aug 2015  #54
the IV RP

There's no such thing. People didn't want it.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,675
20 Aug 2015  #55
The Platfusy aimed their hate industry's largest calibre arsenal against the IV RP, slandering and misrepresnerting its noble, patriotic intentions.

You mean they stood up against the blatant corruption and greed found within the IV RP, including the blatant attempts to take over almost every single institution with their supporters?

Since the Platofrmers are good at PR (about the only thing they're good at), they succeeded in brainwashing many Poles to givre the IV RP a bad name.

The IV RP got a bad name entirely by itself, what with the fact that it stood for incompetence, nepotism and more.

some of whom inadvertently or consciosuly (for the money) are serving foreign intelligence.

Funny you should talk about foreign intelligence, given the actions of people like PiS that wish to destroy our very good links with Germany and France. One would rather suspect that the prickly foreign policy applied by PiS can only be an attempt to help Putin.

Merged: PiS and their proposed new constitution

Reading this article should sober up anyone daft enough to think about voting PiS.

notesfrompoland.com/2015/09/04/polands-referendum-and-election-the-big-issues-no-ones-talking-about/#more-837

It introduces a constitutional obligation for state schools to teach religion, as well as a civic right for 'cultural and religious' symbols to be publicly displayed.

What kind of party tries to force children into compulsory brainwashing?

Like I said, vote PiS, get Communism.
Wulkan - | 3,251
7 Sep 2015  #56
What kind of party tries to force children into compulsory brainwashing?

PO does
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
8 Sep 2015  #57
daft enough to think about voting PiS

Well, then I reckon you consider the Polish nation daft because they've had their fill of Platfus scammers and arrogant oldboy elitists. 25th October will soon be at hand. Bye-bye PO! See you in hell!


Home / News / New constitution In Poland?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.