The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 31

Polish Silesian Autonomy movement


Tommo 2 | 8
16 Apr 2012 #1
I've just written a piece about Jarosław Kaczyński's comments on Silesian nationality, which is here:

silesiaconnect.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-german-option/

As a follow-up I'd like to write something about the Silesian Autonomy Movement (RAŚ) and was wondering what people's views were. I know this has been touched on in other threads but I don't think there has been a thread devoted to the idea. Personally I'm in favour of autonomy but for me it would have to be within the current boundaries of the Silesian voivodship - that includes the Dąbrowa basin and Częstochowa. My understanding is that RAŚ want autonomy for the 'historic' region of Upper Silesia, which I think would be extremely problematic. Having said that, I have no idea what RAŚ stand for because they don't have an English-language website.
jon357 63 | 14,255
16 Apr 2012 #2
Personally I'm in favour of autonomy

The chance of a Special Economic Zone on the model of Schleswig Holstein could bring huge benefits. The issue of that zone being administered from Berlin would set them off arguing for years.
Hipis - | 227
16 Apr 2012 #3
It all depends what this autonomy entails. Just look at Georgia and Moldova where their supposedly autonomous regions are now under permanent Russian control. Having a few friends who live in an around Katowice, I know from them that they feel the RAŚ's calls for autonomy is just a smokescreen to tear Silesia away from Poland and merge with Germany. This has the potential to be a serious problem for Poland if not handled correctly.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
16 Apr 2012 #4
I don't see any reason why some Polish citizens should have different rights/obligations than others. It's simple really, they should vote If they want to become independent or not. The rest of Poland will never accept any autonomy (which in practice would be "we pay less into the common budget but get the same out of it" solution) If they really want to have different rights, please create your own country.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
16 Apr 2012 #5
It's a great idea. Smaller government means people's votes and opinions matter more.
This "autonomy" is not a question of having more "rights" but is a question of people having less of a centralized government and more responsibility for how their taxes are spent.
mafketis 22 | 7,762
16 Apr 2012 #6
I have no idea what RAŚ stand for because they don't have an English-language website.

In other words, you don't have a deep enough understanding of Polish culture and politics to write anything very insightful.....
smurf 39 | 1,981
16 Apr 2012 #7
I have no idea what RAŚ stand for because they don't have an English-language website

use google chrome as your browser, it has an automatic translating thingy.

As for Jaro, I wish he'd been on that shaggin flight too. This country would be a whole lot better if both of them were rotting into worm food in Wawel now. Although it's a crypt so maybe worms don't get in there. Then again, when we decompose aren't we eaten from the inside out, by maggots.

Smaller government means people's votes and opinions matter more.

100% agree.

In other words, you don't have a deep enough understanding of Polish culture and politics to write anything very insightful.....

helpful as usual Mafk *slowclap
OP Tommo 2 | 8
16 Apr 2012 #8
In other words, you don't have a deep enough understanding of Polish culture and politics to write anything very insightful.....

I absolutely agree that if I spoke fluent Polish then I'd have a better understanding of Polish culture and politics. But I'd challenge you to find someone who's writing anything more insightful in English about the region (Upper Silesia/Zagłębie). If they are, I'd love to read it. My point is that RAŚ should have an English-language website if they want to be taken seriously on a Europe-wide level.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
16 Apr 2012 #9
It's a great idea. Smaller government means people's votes and opinions matter more.

LOL ! Central government would stay as it is and there would be additional regional government -> simply more politicians living on public money and they would care what people think about as "much" as now.

As for Jaro, I wish he'd been on that shaggin flight too.

I wish Bro, Doniu and many other feckin trashes were there too ! Ayee !
sascha 1 | 826
16 Apr 2012 #10
Silesian Autonomy

so we are definetively moving backwards. everyone his own country? beautiful...

Special Economic Zone on the model of Schleswig Holstein

didnt help them much. internally in germany sh is one of the poorest counties.
mafketis 22 | 7,762
16 Apr 2012 #11
helpful as usual Mafk *slowclap

I live to serve (deep bow).

RAŚ should have an English-language website if they want to be taken seriously on a Europe-wide level

you =/= Europe-wide

Surely German, Czech and "Silesian" (if they can agree on spelling) versions should come first since all have been far more important than English in the area in question. They need to make the case to the people involved before expanding (unless, as I suspect, there is no strong local base).

My first (and lasting) impression is that this is diversity entrepreneurship meant to provide a livelihood for the leaders of the 'movement' (similar to the EU-funded cottage industry for Kashubian identity)

Are there any serious surveys on actual support (on the ground from liable voters) for autonomy? With some googling I couldn't find anything I could take seriously (for example 45% in favor of autonomy which is impressive until you realize there were only 21 respondents....)
peterweg 36 | 2,316
16 Apr 2012 #12
so we are definetively moving backwards. everyone his own country? beautiful...

I agree with you there.

How far independence can go is up for debate. Scotland maybe refused entry to the EU by countries such as Spain who fear a breakup. The currency used and economic stability is a problem for new small states. The EU may find these nationalist movements unacceptable as they are against the principle of the EU.
sascha 1 | 826
16 Apr 2012 #13
How far independence can go is up for debate. Scotland maybe refused entry to the EU by countries such as Spain who fear a breakup.

that would mean neither scotlan nor spain are allowed to agree to their homemade separatism. cool.

The EU may find these nationalist movements unacceptable as they are against the principle of the EU.

that's the minus of eu, supporting some sort on natiomalism/identity but avoiding on the otherhand seperatism.

just one of the minuses of eu
peterweg 36 | 2,316
16 Apr 2012 #14
that's the minus of eu, supporting some sort on natiomalism/identity but avoiding on the otherhand seperatism.

Not a minus, more of a feature. If you want to join the EU it means giving up nationalism, it being completely opposite of the idea of a larger state without borders and commonality.

Nations have a choice, they can go it alone and not join the EU
sascha 1 | 826
16 Apr 2012 #15
Not a minus, more of a feature.

that might be the idea, but the praxis is showing the even by creating lets say a 'common ground' the nationalism is growing. migration is sth opposite to the basic human urge and that is egoism, nationalism, call it what you want. on paper everything looks and sounds different...

Nations have a choice, they can go it alone and not join the EU

of course. that choice disqualifies them if they dont join, based on what and qualifies them because of what if they join, with a certain price of course.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
16 Apr 2012 #16
LOL ! Central government would stay as it is and there would be additional regional government

hahahahahahhahaha!
Seriously, why do you think that is the only way for this to develop?
If it meant an increase in taxes then I can't see anyone supporting this but if taxes don't increase then what's the problem?
Alligator - | 261
16 Apr 2012 #17
Tommo
about your article:
"This anti-German strain of Polish nationalism dates back to the days of partition, when Roman Dmowski's National Democrats turned to Russia for support in creating a Polish nation state (unsuccessfully it should be added - the Russians were as hostile as anyone to the cause of Polish nationalism)."

I recommend you to read something before you write an article. What you wrote about the political history of Poland is a heresy...
Roman Dmowski in his book "Germany, Russia and the case of Poland" clearly explained why he thought it would be better to support Russia in IWW and not Germany and Austria. He wrote that if G. and A. will win the war, Poland would gain nothing. If Russia will win, the Polish lands that G. and A. took, will be united with those that were taken by Russia. Victorious Russia would be forced to give more political rights to then bigger Polish minority. Mind that, when Dmowski created this strategy, Russian regime had a hard time after 1905 revolution. Dmowski thought, and rightly so, that Russia is politicaly weeker than Germany and Austria.

However Dmowski didn't limit his conception to political matters. He looked also at the potential of those nations and their civilization position. According to Dmowski, Germany was to strong culturally and civilizationaly. Because of that politic of germanization of Poles would be more successful than russification. Russia was civilizationaly and culturaly-wise less threatening.

I assure you that after more than 100 years of partitions he had a pretty good idea about Germany, Austria and Russia and about their attitude to Poles and their independence...

"(based, like Dmowski's on ethnicity, language and religion) is much narrower than that of Poland's two great nationalist heroes. The Romantic poet Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855) and the war general Józef Piłsudski (1867-1935) both saw Poland as a commonwealth of different national groups (Poles, Lithuanians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc.) in what would essentially have been an anti-Russian alliance (possibly as part of a German-controlled Mitteleuropa)."

Roman Dmowski in march 1917 wrote a note to Artur Balfour, secretary in British Foreign Office. In that note he wrote that Poland can not have historical borders (it was at that time unrealistic) nor ethnical borders. He demanded inclusion of Gdańsk, Eastern Prussia, Upper Silesia, Vilnus, and Lvov.

He was a pragmatic and his political ideas were realistic.
It's a funny thing that you putted forward Mickiewicz and Piłsudski as an opposition to Dmowski. First was a romantic in literature field, the second, a romantic in a political field.

I wouldn't also say, that Kaczyński's idol is Dmowski. Rather Piłsudski and his big romantic and unrealistic ideas.
Because of what you wrote in the first article I have a bad feeling about your next article...
Since you are a teacher and probably don't have anything against reading, I recommend you to do that...
There is a ton of books on Dmowski and Piłsudski and their stances, and still you wrote such silly things. There is almost nothing about RAŚ and authonomy and this time you will write something

more insightful in English about the region

. I highly doubt...
OP Tommo 2 | 8
16 Apr 2012 #18
What you wrote about the politicla history of Poland is a heresy...

Alligator - first of all, thanks for reading what I wrote and thanks for the feedback. In your response, you've clarified Dmowski's anti-German position. All I said in the article was that Dmowski held an anti-German position - I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. Read it through again - I don't think you'll find I was being critical of Dmowski's position, just trying to outline it very briefly. Yes, I could've written a lot more about Dmowski - but then it wouldn't have been an article about Kaczyński's comments on Silesianness. I agree with everything you say in the first paragraph and I think Kaczyński would argue that what Dmowski wrote about Germany's imperial ambitions is still relevant today (although I may be wrong on this).

You said I should read something before I write an article. OK - here's my source for the stuff on Dmowski/Piłsudski (which I'll remind you is only supposed to be a brief outline):

There existed two conflicting visions of Poland's role in the eastern lands of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with their complex mosaic of intermingling nationalities and religions ... The narrowly nationalistic NDs called for the outright annexation of Lithuania, most of Belarus and western Ukraine, areas which they considered could be effectively absorbed within a unitary Polish state and assimilated in terms of national identity. Piłsudski's patriotism, on the other hand, was not based on modern ethnic criteria but owed much to the traditions of the former multi-ethnic Grand Duchy of Lithuania. He felt that there existed a rare historic opportunity to achieve wider regional security under Polish leadership against a resurgent Russia by creating an extensive east European federation, encompassing ethnic Poland, the Baltic states, Belorus and the Ukraine.

pp. 224-225 A Concise History of Poland (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 2nd ed.) Of these two concepts of nationalism, I would argue that Kacyński's reflects Dmowski's/the NDs as opposed to Piłsudski's. At least his comments on Silesianness would appear to be closer to Dmowski's anti-German stance and what I would describe as 'narrow' nationalism (which isn't necessarily to say that 'narrow' is a bad thing).

Alligator - I have to change a baby's nappy. I'll come back to this as soon as I get the chance. You're obviously pretty well-informed. What are your views on Silesian Autonomy?
Alligator - | 261
16 Apr 2012 #19
All I said in the article was that Dmowski held an anti-German position - I didn't say there was anything wrong with that.

That wasn't a problem.
The thing is you wrote that he held anti-German position because of his nationalistic ideas. I would rather write because of partitions, and subsequetly because of strugle for independence and finaly because of nationalism. Not because of just nationalistic position, which gives a sense that ND and Dmowski were a bunch of backward nationalists, stirring unnecessary problems. You also wrote "Roman Dmowski's National Democrats turned to Russia for support in creating a Polish nation state (unsuccessfully it should be added - the Russians were as hostile as anyone to the cause of Polish nationalism)", like it was a big news for Dmowski or any Polish politician that Russians were also enemies. But I'm not surprised now about your oversimplification and generalization since you read

A Concise History

. Don't give me excuses that you were

just trying to outline it very briefly

. Either don't try to give any historical brief outline (if it's going to be amatourish and uninformative) or give proper explanation and put some effort in your reading material (proper does not rule out brief).

Piłsudski didn't worry to much about Polish law and constitution, which led him to coup d'etat in 1926. Kaczyński also didn't like Polish constitution... Dmowski on the other hand operated only in the boundaries that constitution gave him. One don't need to support his views to admire his political sense. Sory, but I'm not going to give you much credit on your statements about Dmowski, Piłsudki and Kaczyński, because you clearly lack in knowledge about either of them.

Thats all great but neither Dmowski nor Piłsudski asked Lithuanians, Belarussians or Ucrainians if they wanted to create such a state. It was impossible then, because of young and violent (it's related) nationalism in those countries.

What are your views on Silesian Autonomy?

The idea of autonomy is not a very popular idea in Silesia and I don't know what is the sense in doing that. Why I don't know - because I have read the RAŚ declarations on their site and they don't give any explanation to a question: what is the sense of autonomy since most of the people who live in Silesia feel Polish? They wrote:

"Of course, autonomy does not lead to ethnic cleansing. The autonomy will benefit everyone - except the control panel - regardless of nationality or political convictions. Self-governance is not about the exclusion of any group, the benefits are for all residents. Nobody intends to introduce a national or racial segregation, in fact, after all, by definition, autonomous Silesia to remain within the Polish Republic.The fight for autonomy may be a common objective for all citizens of our region."

Since they didn't give an actual explanation, how should I know, why Silesia should be an autonomy...
RAŚ activists and politicians aren't clearly the brightest bunch in Silesia. I think that nothing will come out of it.
OP Tommo 2 | 8
16 Apr 2012 #20
There is almost nothing about RAŚ and authonomy and this time you will write something "more insightful in English about the region." I highly doubt...

There's a good reason I didn't write about RAŚ/autonomy - because the article itself was about Jarosław Kaczyński's comments on Silesian nationality. This provides a context for the higher profile that the RAŚ/autonomy debate has been given in the English-language media as a result. Again I'd challenge you to find anyone who's writing anything "more insightful" about the region (Upper Silesia/Zagłębie) in English. Mafketis couldn't - I doubt you'll be able to.
Alligator - | 261
16 Apr 2012 #21
about Jarosław Kaczyński's comments on Silesian nationality.

Kaczyński is playing Silesian card only to give impression that he is a true patriot, that he only care about Poland, it's borders etc.

The problem is that only a small percent (about 6-7) of Silesians want an autoonomy. That is not a problem for him ;)
By his stupid commets he will only enlarge the autonomic sentiment, which in turn will be a good thing for him. Then he will say that he predicted that long time ago and will say: "I told you. You didn't listen then and now we have a problem." He will come of as true patriot and will stirr the emotions on both sides even more.

He is a far sighted politician (when it concern his party) and at the same time a very short sighted one (when it concern the country and national iterest).

Again I'd challenge you to find anyone who's writing anything "more insightful" about the region (Upper Silesia/Zagłębie) in English. Mafketis couldn't - I doubt you'll be able to.

You are writing an article and you want me and Mafketis to prepare for you material and essentialy write it for you. Furthemore you are trying to use a childish challenge. Give me a break...

I'm out of here.
OP Tommo 2 | 8
16 Apr 2012 #22
I wrote that his anti-German position was linked to his nationalism but I take on board your point that it's more complex than that.

I didn't say Dmowski wasn't aware that the Russians were hostile to the cause, just that it wasn't a successful strategy - again I take on board your point that this could've been made clearer.

I'm not surprised now about your oversimplification and generalization since you read "A Concise History." Don't give me excuses that you were "just trying to outline it very briefly."

Fair point - I'd be happy to edit the historical references out of the article although I would still argue that Dmowski's position on Germany (the one you outlined above) is a lot like Kaczyński's today. Both fear(ed) Germany's imperial ambitions. Is this too much of an oversimplification?

what is the sense of autonomy since most of the people who live in Silesia feel Polish?

I agree that Silesian autonomy would be problematic within the borders of historic Silesia - see my original post on this thread. 100% agree with you on Kaczyński's motives for "playing the Silesian card" and the benefits for RAŚ. This is what I wrote about and I think you would agree with most of it if it wasn't for the historical references (which I'll remove as soon as I get the chance).

You are writing an article and you want me and Mafketis to prepare for you material and essentially write it for you.

Not true - merely pointing out that no-one else is writing about the Upper Silesia/Zagłębie region in English, that's all. Completely disagree with Mafketis that you need to speak fluent Polish to be able to say anything insightful about the situation in Poland. I'm not asking anyone to prepare anything. I think RAŚ should outline their policies in policies in English so that they're more widely accessible. I'm open to constructive criticism about what I've written and I appreciate your comments.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
16 Apr 2012 #23
Seriously, why do you think that is the only way for this to develop?

How else should that develop ? There are plenty of members of Sejm elected in Silesia and they are no better than average, there is democratically elected regional and local administration and in Silesia it's no better than elsewhere in Poland, so why on Earth the same losers would somehow form a professional administration once the new institutions were to be created ?

If it meant an increase in taxes then I can't see anyone supporting this but if taxes don't increase then what's the problem?

How can you form additional administration without rising the taxes ?
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
17 Apr 2012 #24
How can you form additional administration without rising the taxes ?

I'm hoping the plan would be to divert money away from Warsaw and to the region of said taxpayers.

How else should that develop ?

Should? I believe I just answered that but yes, proof of competence would go a long way to secure this movement. I will ask you this though, why shouldn't people try to modify the existing system if it is not running smoothly? It's obviously broken, so why not try to fix it?

This system has enjoyed or still enjoys success in other parts of the world (if I understand the idea correctly).
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
17 Apr 2012 #25
I'm hoping the plan would be to divert money away from Warsaw and to the region of said taxpayers.

Does the regional/local administration in Silesia have so good record on spending public money ? I don't think so. Or you mean more public money in general should be spend in Silesia ? Then please explain why people from one region should be privileged over people from other regions?

I will ask you this though, why shouldn't people try to modify the existing system if it is not running smoothly?

They can modify whatever they want unless I have to pay for it one way or another.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
17 Apr 2012 #26
Does the regional/local administration in Silesia have so good record on spending public money ? I don't think so.

we could ask the same about Warszawa and get the same answer, what point could you be making other than to stick with a losing formula?

The taxes generated by those in Silesia should go to Silesians, what's so hard to get about this concept?

Then please explain why people from one region should be privileged over people from other regions?

Please explain why other people in other regions should be so privileged as to have Silesian tax revenue pay for the projects in their region?

Each voivod population should have more autonomy, not only Silesia. It would be a good place to start though.

They can modify whatever they want unless I have to pay for it one way or another.

Some people in Silesia might say, they're paying more for the system you're advocating.
If you were to pay more after Silesian tax revenue stayed in Silesia then wouldn't that be an indication you've been enjoying more than you've been paying for?

The less centralized government, the better. As it is now, Polish politicians have mismanaged and wasted a great deal of tax revenue and they've been able to do that under the current system. A less centralized system should get people more involved at the local level. Surely you have to recognize this.
boletus 30 | 1,366
17 Apr 2012 #27
In return for all those good advices regarding Silesian separatism, coming from the outsiders, and before I suggest my support for the independence of Wales, I offer hereby my translation of this little gem from "Potop" (The Deluge), by H. Sienkiewicz:

- For the opening of the gates of the fortress His Majesty King of Sweden (Here again he mentioned all the long titles) offers to Your Highness the Lublin province in the hereditary possession!

All became amazed to hear this and Pan Starosta was astonished too for a moment. Mr. Forgell already started looking triumphantly around, when suddenly the dull silence was broken by Pan Zagłoba, standing behind Starosta, suggesting to him in Polish:

- Your Eminence, pray offer to the King of Sweden the Netherlands in return. Pan Starosta, without hesitation, struck his sides with content and said loudly in Latin:

- And I offer the Netherlands to His Swedish Brightness!
At the same moment a huge hall resounded with big laughter. Bellies began to shake, so the sashes on the bellies, some clapped their hands, others staggered as if drunk, others yet braced themselves by the neighbours, and the laughter sounded continuously. Mr. Forgell has become pale, his eye brows furrowed threateningly, but he waited with fire in his eyes, with his head raised proudly. Finally, when the paroxysm of laughter went through, he asked in a short, broken voice:

- Is this your last answer, Your Worship ?
Pan Starosta replied, twirling his mustache and raising his head even prouder:
- No! Because I still have cannons on the walls!

Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
18 Apr 2012 #28
we could ask the same about Warszawa and get the same answer,

Yes... So why create additional institutions If result is the same ?

The taxes generated by those in Silesia should go to Silesians, what's so hard to get about this concept?

LOL ! There's the army, police, courts, embassies and many other national institutions to finance. If the taxes generated in Silesia, go to Silesians, then more taxes outside of Silesia need to be generated to pay for these institutions.

Please explain why other people in other regions should be so privileged as to have Silesian tax revenue pay for the projects in their region?

Because this is largely what a country is about ? So you now... people from Białystock pay for the highway in Silesia and so on...

If you were to pay more after Silesian tax revenue stayed in Silesia then wouldn't that be an indication you've been enjoying more than you've been paying for?

Of course not. If 10 people living in one building pay electricity bill for the street lamp in front of their building and then 1 of them stops doing it, then others have to cover his share -> so basically they are paying more, no matter if his share was 5%, 10%, 15% or 1%.

Each voivod population should have more autonomy, not only Silesia.

You clearly have no clue what autonomy is about. It is not about more money staying in the region, in Poland each voivodship/gmina etc. gets x % of taxes generated on its teritory, that x could be increased significally without any "autonomy" (or descreased with "autonomy").

"Autonomy" for one region means that we would see for example "Silesian Ministry of Education" with the one in Warsaw still being in place... "Autonomy" for all regions would mean... 16 ministries of education... one in each region...

The less centralized government, the better.

The less government, the better. I don't think 2 (or 16) ministries of education are better than one. The best would be no ministry at all, reduce it to some department with 20-30 employees in total and that's it.

As it is now, Polish politicians have mismanaged and wasted a great deal of tax revenue and they've been able to do that under the current system.

Yes, Polish politicians have mismanaged and wasted a great deal of tax revenue, they've been doind that on central, regional and local levels, also in Silesia and If Silesia gets autonomy, Polish politicians will be there - mismanaging and wasting a great deal of tax revenues. The main difference will be that they will have more jobs (with regional "government" being created) to distribute to their buddies, more public orders to steal from etc.

A less centralized system should get people more involved at the local level. Surely you have to recognize this.

Sounds good but:
1. Poland has been decentralized for +20 years, the effects are mixed... some are good, some not so much... the whole idea with people "being more involved" is not very visible...

2. Any kind of "autonomy" is not needed to get the country less centralized.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
18 Apr 2012 #29
Yes... So why create additional institutions If result is the same ?

You don't know what those results will be. I see what you're saying but it seems to amount to expecting and accepting failure before trying.

LOL ! There's the army, police, courts, embassies and many other national institutions to finance. If the taxes generated in Silesia, go to Silesians, then more taxes outside of Silesia need to be generated to pay for these institutions.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA is right-Autonomy can mean autonomy over specific aspects of life while still contributing to the elements of the system which everyone might rely on.

As it works in other parts of the world, ALL TAXES don't get diverted from the federal system back to the region. Rather, taxes for a lot of infrastructure, health care, schools and aspects of government spending that the locals use is where the majority of their taxes go. The local police should be paid with local taxes and the local courts should be funded, primarily, with local taxes. Why should people in area x pay for the costs in costs in area y? Some tax revenue STILL goes to the federal system but limits the amount of money that can be wasted in the capital as long as the federal government is then REDUCED. Yes the federal government would have to be REDUCED, otherwise you're predictions would probably happen.

Because this is largely what a country is about ? So you now... people from Białystock pay for the highway in Silesia and so on...

Well then what's a region "about?" You seem to be advocating the notion of "country" which simply doesn't match the reality. The reality is, the federal government is less accountable with such limited regional autonomy. Keep the majority of the money where it's generated and spread the remainder around. Then leave it up to the people in a region to fix their problems instead of relying on distant politicians making promises from afar. The system being proposed encourages people to be more involved with politics and that is a very good thing.

You clearly have no clue what autonomy is about. It is not about more money staying in the region, in Poland each voivodship/gmina etc. gets x % of taxes generated on its teritory, that x could be increased significally without any "autonomy" (or descreased with "autonomy").

Oh here's where it starts with you, isn't it? You can't come up with anything but rhetoric that wreaks of fear of change so you try the semantic angle. As I already stated, government in a region can have Autonomy over certain aspects of governance. This shouldn not only about money but also be about people deciding what they think works best for them. You can then have competing models of healthcare, and education and then when one proves to be less successful, it can be dropped in favour of a different model. It's a much more flexible and responsive way of adapting to change. It worked in the U.S. for the longest time until the central government expanded and the system is still working very well in Canada and Australia.

This is what I wrote:

The less centralized government, the better

This is what you interpreted:

The less government, the better.

Do you see the difference? This shows you haven't really been thinking about a thing I've written but just gone into an automated response mode.

If Silesia gets autonomy, Polish politicians will be there - mismanaging and wasting a great deal of tax revenues. The main difference will be that they will have more jobs (with regional "government" being created) to distribute to their buddies, more public orders to steal from etc.

No, that is incorrect. You don't know how such a system will evolve. You're simply repeating that attitude from the past that admits defeat and failure before trying something new.

Corruption is the greatest threat to any system. If people do become involved at a more local level, it limits that threat. Compare the waste that occurs at a municipal level to a national one. There's really no comparison- you don't even know how badly the federal politicians waste your money. This system should encourage people to hold politicians to be much more accountable. The more removed we see ourselves from a decision making process, the less we care and vice versa.

Again I have to marvel at your thinking: the system is clearly broken but don't try to fix it for fear of breaking it further.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
18 Apr 2012 #30
You don't know what those results will be.

I also don't know what the results will be If you open the window and jump out but I can predict that with high probability.

And that's how it works in Poland, a lot of public money is spend locally. So exactly what do you propose ? Which areas the central government is now responsible for should be delegated to the regions ?

Keep the majority of the money where it's generated and spread the remainder around

The problem in Poland are not really the interregional transfers but rather transfers for priviledged occupational and social groups. For example early retirement for miners... I have to pay for it too despite a fact that there are hardly any of them in my region... Do you know where majority of them live ? I guess you do. Anyway, it is not aid for that region but for the particular occupational group. There is also subsidised retirement system for farmers, some priviledged for railway workers, transfers for "poor" and so on.

The problem is that government is taking too much money away from people, not the geographic distribution of the spendings. Would you feel so much better If money taken away from you were given to some guy living 70 km away, instead of another who is living 700 km away ? I wouldn't.

Then leave it up to the people in a region to fix their problems instead of relying on distant politicians making promises from afar. The system being proposed encourages people to be more involved with politics and that is a very good thing.

It's not some ancient Greek democracy. Silesian voivodship have millions of people living there. Average Joe would have as "much" control over the money distributed regionally as it has now.

As I already stated, government in a region can have Autonomy over certain aspects of governance. This shouldn not only about money but also be about people deciding what they think works best for them.

So basically you are proposing 16 ministries of education, 16 ministries of health care, 16 different health insurence schemas, 16 different kinds of matura exam and so on.

Do you see the difference? This shows you haven't really been thinking about a thing I've written but just gone into an automated response mode.

It was my own proposal, not the interpretation of yours...

If Silesia gets autonomy, Polish politicians will be there - mismanaging and wasting a great deal of tax revenues.

Please enlight me why Polish politicians are supposed to stop mismanaging and wasting a great deal of tax revenues once they start running Silesian autonomous region instead of running Silesian voivodship.

Corruption is the greatest threat to any system. If people do become involved at a more local level, it limits that threat.

Now please google up statistics regarding the number of Polish local politicians/administration employees arrested for corruption :)))


Home / News / Polish Silesian Autonomy movement
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.