“There are certain rules, well known and recognized, that should be in place to stop demoralization. Such a principle is, for example, the exclusion of conflicts of interest,” says Prof. Ryszard Legutko, philosopher, MEP.
wPolityce.pl: When observing the political life of politicians, both in Poland and around the world, the question of the ethics of their actions comes to mind. Does politics go hand in hand with ethics?
Prof Richard Legutko: The relationship between ethics and politics is an eternal problem. Ethics is a reflection on the good, personal virtues, moral decisions, mainly related to an individual and his relationship with others. Politics is a separate, self-contained field: it is the ability to acquire and exercise power to achieve common goals of the whole community. A morally good man can be a bad and harmful politician, and a good politician can sometimes be a morally dubious man. Political action is often associated with a moral cost because different methods lead to common ends and different prices are paid for their use. Since the late 18th century, Poles have wondered which serves Poland better: armed struggle or organic work. Each of these strategies was risky; a moral price had to be paid for each. The armed struggle led to bloodshed, repression and even greater enslavement of the Poles. Organic work often distanced us from independence and accustomed us to slavery. Thus, a politician sometimes makes moral concessions, which are sometimes forgiven if he actually contributes to the common good and achieves success. Politics is an action between two extremes, both fatal – one is the belief that the law is already sufficient as a justification for action; the second that correctness does not matter, because only the effect matters. So politics is not an inherently moral activity, but that doesn’t mean it can be an immoral or amoral activity.
What if politics is stripped of ethics?
A politician is a man of power, and power is always seductive. To get it, keep it and even increase it, some people decide to lie, cheat or break other moral rules. However, this approach is short-sighted. When politics slides into immorality, it threatens to break down all principles and destroy social life. Thucydides, the Greek historian who probably best described the logic of political action, rightly observed that the deeper the political conflict, the greater the temptation to resort to immoral means. Thucydides described the civil war in one of the Greek city-states and showed the progressive degeneration: growing hatred, total destruction of language, ubiquitous lies, violence. People then behave meanly, as if they would not behave in a different, more normal situation. Let’s translate this to today and ask ourselves how much the conflict has devastated our political life today and how much it has demoralized us. It will appear that demoralization continues, both in Poland and in Europe.
Normalization of things that until recently were considered shocking?
Even more. The European Union has built a system in which demoralization is registered. It is a system with an unclear power structure, i.e. it is not known who rules in it and according to what rules, which clearly weakens control, promotes depravity, introduces untruth and mystification. In addition, the system is designed to serve the EU institutions to gain more and more power, leading them to stretch and break the law. It is therefore not surprising that in such a situation an almost impunity political monopoly has emerged, which – in the absence of clear rules – cannot be called to account and cannot be held accountable and that brutally destroys all ideas and centers of power who threaten it. And it’s all drowned in a big lie. The EU has produced a language that is a lying language because its basic concepts lie. When the Union talks about ‘diversity’ and ‘pluralism’, it is really about maintaining a monopoly and marginalizing the opposition. When one speaks of “lawfulness”, one means justifying one’s own lawlessness. When we talk about “freedom of the media”, we mean the introduction of ideological and political censorship. When I observe demoralized European politicians, I do not conclude that they are bad people. They are weak people. Then I remember Thucydides, and imagine that under less depraved circumstances, where honest speech would prevail, they would behave more decently.
And Poland? Lately, we’ve been dealing with baseless accusations leveled not only at those in power, but also at people who have shaped our identities.
The current situation is characterized by deep conflict, almost as described by a Greek historian. The difference is that the cold civil war was started and led by only one side. The government is mainly reluctant because it is busy with work. The opposition, on the other hand, laid its entire raison d’être in aggression. And this aggression has reached such a level of madness that it destroys the aggressors themselves, their minds, basic moral reflexes, sense of decency and shame. What can be said about the mental and moral status of people who flatly accuse the most anti-Putin party in the Third Polish Republic of being pro-Putin? It is extreme cynicism at best and political amok at worst. But such amok cannot remain without serious mental and moral consequences for the people who succumb to it. The escalation of insults and accusations affects less those against whom it is directed, but morally destroys those who utter them. Take the recent attack on Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Adam Sapieha. It is not based on facts, or even the probability of facts. The source is pure hatred. People who sow it are deprived of all concern for the common good and for Poland, and their actions are driven only by the desire to destroy. In a sense, they are a natural product of the logic of progressive aggression. We could have foreseen that at some point such people would appear and attack the pope and the indomitable prince. If we don’t stop them today, let’s wonder what will be the next target of their aggression? But this attack unfortunately also revealed a wider scope of demoralization. For it also included those who are silent. Politics has also poisoned their souls and infected them with cowardice. How else can one explain the silence of the Jagiellonian University, where Karol Wojtyła studied and taught and where he received an honorary doctorate? Or the silence of the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland?
Shouldn’t a responsible politician focus on fulfilling his obligations to the electorate and thereby building his popularity, rather than making a name for himself with vague, often demagogic slogans and playing on emotions? We also have the example of Radosław Sikorski and his money from the UAE – he claims that everything is legal, but such a financial bond always involves a risk.
There are certain rules, well known and recognized, that should be in place to stop demoralization. One such principle is, for example, the exclusion of conflicts of interest. If a politician earns income from advising a foreign government, he may not participate in activities that benefit that government. There is always the suspicion that he might be biased. This applies not only to politicians, but also to journalists. Today the situation is such that those who belong to the political mainstream and have a monopoly allow themselves to break this rule with impunity. We have the example of the well-known American journalist Anne Applebaum. She is an excellent journalist, author of great books, but she has been writing about Polish topics for some time now, supporting her husband’s political line and his party. This is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable. However, American and Polish salons consider this a normal thing, which, of course, only confirms the degree of their demoralization. This is a kind of version of the “Neumann principle”. When you’re on our side, you’re free to do anything and we’ll always be by your side.
We have the above “Neumann Doctrine”, the Katargate scandal in the European Parliament, do you see any corrective action, make changes, Professor? I have the impression that in the case of the EU institutions it ends with the statement: maybe we are doing something wrong, but it is not as bad as the harm you are doing – as in the case of Poland, the already mythical ” rule of the law”.
The scandal in the European Parliament is not only an example of the corruption of individual MEPs, but also proof that this institution is poorly designed and raises questions as to whether it is even needed at all. There is a lot of talk about corruption, but I don’t know if that will make a difference. Let us not forget that the EU institutions are extremely partisan. They are governed by one political constellation that defends its own line in all these institutions, including those that are supposed to control others. To some extent, the Neumann Doctrine also applies in the EU: ours is allowed and we will defend them, the others are not and we will attack them. All this makes it impossible to refer to principles in the EU because they are interpreted in a partisan way. If there is a principle that there can be no conflict of interest, then it should apply to everyone – no matter what political side. If there are certain rules regarding, for example, the handling of gatherings, then it cannot be the case that if the police in Poland are attacked by demonstrators, the EU is attacked by the Polish government, and if in France the police beat up demonstrators , there is no case. There should be a rule that applies whether it’s France, Poland or the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, the EU doesn’t work like that: those in power bend the rules to their will. Some do it very drastically, others less so. As long as partisanship prevails in the EU, demoralization will continue.
Weronika Tomaszewska spoke
READ ALSO:
– The shocking details of the case did not win the “Neumann Doctrine”? Prosecutor: 20 witnesses spoke of giving money to Grodzki
— The corruption scandal in the EP is being investigated. The main socialists Marc Tarabella and Eva Kaili changed places of detention
– Showoff and malice. For example, Sikorski tries to defend himself in an interview for “GW”. “I don’t know what to check here”
Source: wPolityce