About the fresh Polish strategy (1/3)

The media frequently stressed the superiority of socialism over capitalism, although in private talks this accent was placed on the other side. Capitalism was to be the most perfect form of life. At the time, Poland was said, for example, ironically, that this strategy is not bad, but a system. Or it was said after Churchill that nothing better than democracy has been invented so far, although this is not the best of the systems either. Yes - the PRL spoke of democracy. due to the fact that socialism, at the time, was synonymous with “a folk democracy”. The authors of the second word came out with tautology, or "butter butter", and this in itself indicated that something must be incorrect with this system. For individual wise said that if any adjective is added to the word "democracy", it is only to cover up the anti-democracy of specified a formation, that is, in short, to camouflage autocratic governments. 1 might add, that this adjective standing in front of the “governments of the people” can sometimes point straight to the ruling class (a liberal democracy), i.e. it causes the ruling group to self-democracy. But what is democracy? In short, it is simply a strategy of government, in which all citizens exercise power, either straight or through elected representatives in free elections. It would seem that in large communities specified as modern states, direct democracy, akin to Athens, is not possible. But it turns out it is. It's possible. This is the case, for example, in Switzerland or Liechtenstein, where power is mostly straight exercised, through referendums. Until recently, I was profoundly convinced that referendums were the right way to improve the state's condition and function. However, on the basis of my experience with this kind of election (I am not talking about the 1946 referendum, only about the second that took place in our country) I have come to the conclusion that referendums would not necessarily have worked for us. I see a problem in something derived from Stalin: "Whoever votes, who counts the votes." In this case, more crucial than who votes, it turns out to be who writes questions for the referendum. So in order for specified a referendum strategy to function well with us, in my opinion, it would be essential to choice first a group defining the order of problems to be passed and what is most crucial – decently forming questions. So what would that change in our present reality? It seems to me that little, due to the fact that even though we would have a "referendum democracy", it would inactive be an indirect democracy (election of representatives to formulate questions). And it's most likely even more complicated than the typical form we're dealing with right now. So I think that in Poland, in order to repair the state's system, the first precedence should be to improve the choice of our representatives. And I'm not necessarily referring to method matters related to this choice, specified as, for example, counting votes to replace them with something like Estonian i-voting, that is, voting online. (I know that work in Poland is ongoing, but I am writing about Estonia due to the fact that it already works there). However, the quality of our social representation seems more interesting than this. To be as tiny as possible among our representatives - whether to parliament or to local councils - people with the giving -”mighty, passive, but faithful” of their powerholder (which is not necessarily society after all). To make as fewer of the MPs, judges, or officials as possible dumb, incompetent, narcissistic, or unempathetic. Is that possible? I think it might be easier to accomplish than it seems at first glance. (I planned to place the next part on Saturday 03.01.2026)