New Poland Stay - task (2/3)

I do not see the anticipation of repairing the Republic's strategy in the specified modification of the electoral process or even the pre-election process, but in changing the approach to elections by citizens, and in ... social media. Let's start with the first one. I'm talking about convincing voters that it's adequate to go out reasoning beyond the worn-out, imposed patterns and convictions about election so that the full strategy can change. And I'm not saying that what I'm proposing is the 1 and the best. It's just my offer. most likely 1 of many. On the another hand, I believe that the basis of any change is change in thinking. Accepting that... change at all is possible. The same conviction – in my opinion – changes everything. Well, usually, and most often, it is that the organization brings out its candidate. The councilman, the president, the MP. The criterion for the appointment of specified a individual is, I believe, 90% conviction of the leadership of this party, of the faithfulness (faithfulness of direction) of a peculiar man. And only in second and 3rd order do they consider his skills and usefulness. But this usefulness is one more time useful to a organization line, not to society. On the margins, I would just add that, of course, being faithful to a group of interests, with the interest of the community may, but it does not have to, have convergent points. And we voters are bound to focus on this party's will. We believe that since “our party” (that is, the 1 we support) has selected someone, this is our candidate. This acceptance happens almost automatically, as in the case of a national squad player in football. There's a figure on the field in a white-red shirt, and we're saying, "He's ours." Even if we don't know him at all, or if we don't know much about him, it's due to the fact that he's got a shirt, shorts, and he's called a selector, he seems like a good person. It becomes immediately the face of the party, which is simply a associate of “our team”. In advance, we are willing to forgive him a large deal and give him a far-reaching credit. Is that the right approach? Is the organization our team? No! No! He's something completely different. The policy is not about - as they effort to convince us - about the game itself and its consequence (win 1 formation over another), but about representing us as best of the best managers from management, strategy, planning and negotiations as possible. Best specialists. Isn't that what democracy is? After all, if it were not for Athens, and the Greek Olympia would be the cradle of political culture for us today. Focusing on “the will of our party”, we decision on to the agenda of the candidate as a person, and he becomes our typical immediately. We forget, or do not want to remember, that this "type of party" can be (and frequently is) a very ambitious individual, who is frequently ready to quit not only his views and the authentic desire to represent society for his own entourage. (If she had always expressed specified desire. ) And does so for the benefit of organization interests, if not its own. That's enough. In our current political culture, we frequently view the egoistic attitude of specified a kind as obvious, although not so long ago it would be treated as pathology and betrayal of voters. All due to the fact that our ability to see and realize words specified as “party” or “representative” has been distorted. The organization is now seen not as a supplier of a certain political concept (a political programme provider), but as a "our team", a group of people we see as "our own", even if (and this is already happening in general) do not present any overall programme. This transfer of the rules of “gallery” to politics is sick, but we seem not to announcement it, or we simply ignore this observation. So what is my proposal? (Presentation of the last part planned for Saturday 05.01.2026)