Prof. Ryszard Legutko, a philosopher and member of the European Parliament, emphasizes the need for clear rules that prevent demoralization in politics. He cites the exclusion of conflicts of interest as a fundamental principle intended to protect integrity in public life.
wPolityce.pl, observing political conduct both in Poland and globally, raises a timeless question: can politics remain aligned with ethical standards, or do practical power dynamics inevitably override ethical concerns?
Prof. Richard Legutko explains that the relationship between ethics and politics is a perennial challenge. Ethics focuses on the good, personal virtues, and moral choices within an individual and their connections with others. Politics, by contrast, is a distinct, self-contained realm concerned with attaining and wielding power to achieve shared goals for the wider community. A morally upright person can still be a flawed or harmful politician, and a well-meaning person can sometimes engage in controversial political behavior. Political action often carries a moral cost because different means are used to reach common ends, and those costs may be paid in different ways. Since the late eighteenth century, Poles have debated whether armed struggle or organic work better serves national interests. Each path carried risks and imposed a moral price: armed struggle brought bloodshed and repression, while organic work could distance a nation from independence and foster internal forms of servitude. Consequently, a politician may make moral concessions if those concessions advance the common good and yield tangible success. Politics is a contest between two extremes: one that treats law as sufficient justification for action, and another that treats correctness as irrelevant if outcomes are favorable. In this sense, politics is not inherently virtuous, though it is not necessarily immoral or amoral either.
What if politics is stripped of its ethical dimension?
A politician wields power, and power has its seductive pull. To obtain, retain, or expand it, some may resort to deception, cheating, or breaking moral rules. Yet this view is short-sighted. When politics slides into immorality, it risks eroding foundational principles and corroding social life. Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, famously described how deep political conflict temptingly invites immoral means. He chronicled a civil war in a Greek city-state, tracing degeneration: growing hatred, the destruction of language, pervasive lies, violence. If one fast-forwards to today, one can ask how much political conflict has damaged contemporary political life and demoralized society. The contemporary scene in Poland and across Europe shows signs of demoralization continuing despite reforms and rhetoric.
Should normalization include tolerating things once considered shocking?
The European Union has built a system in which demoralization is observable. Critics argue it rests on a vague power structure, leaving unclear who truly rules and by what rules, which weakens accountability and can enable depravity, distortion of truth, and mystification. Some contend that the EU institutions strive for greater power, sometimes pushing boundaries of legality. In such a climate, a political monopoly can appear almost immune to accountability, undermining competing centers of power and drowning opposition in a cloud of misinformation. The language used by the Union, critics say, can itself be misleading, with terms like diversity and pluralism sometimes masking dominant interests. Assertions about lawfulness are seen by some as excuses for lawful or structural breaches, while freedom of the press is portrayed as a pretext for ideological and political censorship. When observing demoralized European politicians, the conclusion is not that every individual is wicked but that many are weak. Thucydides’ lens suggests that under more honest conditions, public figures might behave more decently.
And in Poland, concerns have been raised about baseless accusations directed at both those in power and individuals who help shape national identity.
The current climate is marked by intense conflict, reminiscent of ancient descriptions of civil strife. The government appears preoccupied with policy work, while the opposition has framed its mission around aggressive confrontation. This escalation has reached a level of excess that harms the aggressors themselves, eroding their judgment, decency, and sense of shame. Statements that label opponents as pro-Putin illustrate extreme cynicism or, worse, political frenzy. Such rhetoric, in turn, exacts a toll on those who utter it. The recent episode involving the pope and Cardinal Sapieha, though not grounded in verifiable facts, reveals a broader demoralization—hatred spreading through silence and intimidation. When silence settles in respectable institutions, like universities and conferences, it signals a moral corrosion that permeates the wider political culture.
Should a responsible politician focus on fulfilling obligations to the electorate and building trust and popularity, rather than chasing vague slogans and emotional appeals?
The example of Radosław Sikorski, accused of financial ties with the United Arab Emirates, is cited to illustrate how financial-link risks accompany political activity. Even when legal, such arrangements can create perceived or real conflicts of interest, which can undermine public confidence.
There exist well-known rules intended to curb demoralization. One such principle is the exclusion of conflicts of interest. If a politician earns income from advising a foreign government, participation in activities that benefit that government should be avoided. The suspicion of bias remains a concern for both politicians and journalists. Today, a segment of the political mainstream, seen as a monopoly, sometimes appears willing to overlook this rule. A widely discussed example is the case involving a prominent American journalist who writes on Polish topics while supporting a spouse’s political line, an arrangement critics deem unacceptable. Critics argue that such double standards reflect a broader demoralization, echoing a supposed “Neumann principle” where allies are granted freedom while opponents face scrutiny. The issue underscores how partisan loyalties can distort norms and accountability.
References to the Katargate scandal in the European Parliament and the broader questions about EU reform highlight ongoing concerns about the design and governance of EU institutions. The moral and political dynamics within the EU are often viewed through a partisan lens, complicating calls for universal rules that apply equally to all member states. A consistent standard, proponents argue, should hold whether it concerns national or European governance. Until partisanship ends, demoralization will persist, dimming the prospects for transparent and accountable leadership.
In this climate, questions persist about the behavior of political actors, the integrity of institutions, and the boundaries of acceptable conduct in public life. The dialogue continues as scholars and observers weigh the balance between ethical commitments and pragmatic political necessity, with both Poland and the broader European landscape serving as a backdrop for ongoing reflection on the meaning of responsible governance.
– The article notes the ongoing discussions surrounding these themes and the impact on public trust.