DOCSLIB.ORG

Freedom in the World - Poland (2008)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Freedom in the World - Poland (2008) Page 1 of 4 Print Freedom in the World - Poland (2008) Political Rights Score: 1 Capital: Warsaw Civil Liberties Score: 1 Status: Free Population: 38,100,000 Trend Arrow Poland received an upward trend arrow due to improvements in freedom of expression and association following the October electoral victory of the Civic Platform party and leader Donald Tusk’s appointment as prime minister. Overview Political turmoil surrounding the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party continued in 2007 until the parliament voted to dissolve, prompting elections in October. The center-right opposition party Civic Platform won the polls, and its leader, Donald Tusk, became the new prime minster. Tusk is considered more modern and EU-oriented, and was widely welcomed by the media. A loosening of restrictions was immediately apparent, including an undisturbed gay rights demonstration and a more relaxed press atmosphere. After being destroyed by its powerful neighbors in a series of 18th-century partitions, Poland enjoyed a window of independence from 1918 to 1939, only to be invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union at the opening of World War II. The country then endured decades as a Soviet satellite state until 1989, when the Solidarity trade union movement forced the government to accept democratic elections. Fundamental democratic and free-market reforms were introduced during the 1989–91 period. Later changes came as Poland prepared its bid for membership in the European Union (EU). Political parties with a background in Solidarity held power from 1989 to 1993 and from 1997 to 2001. In 1995, former communist Alexander Kwasniewski replaced Solidarity’s Lech Walesa as president and was subsequently reelected by a large margin in 2000. In September 2001, voters handed the Solidarity government of Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek a decisive defeat in parliamentary elections, and Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) leader Leszek Miller became the new prime minister. The Solidarity movement and the right-leaning Freedom Union (UW) failed to secure a single seat. http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?year=2008&co... 1/2/2009 Page 2 of 4 On May 1, 2004, Poland joined the EU along with nine other mostly former communist Central and Eastern Europe countries. Poland has since been a somewhat awkward EU member, fighting aggressively over its share of the EU’s budget and voting privileges. Law and Justice (PiS), a conservative party with strong anticommunist roots headed by identical twin brothers Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, won a stunning victory in the September 2005 elections. Although Jaroslaw was the formal party leader, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz was named prime minister–designate to avoid damaging Lech Kaczynski’s presidential bid. He duly won the presidential contest in October, and PiS eventually formed a fragile majority coalition with the leftist- populist, agrarian Self-Defense Party (Samoobrona) and the socially conservative, Catholic-oriented League of Polish Families (LPR). Marcinkiewicz gained popularity for running a capable, modest government, but in July 2006 he was replaced by Jaroslaw Kaczynski. The ruling coalition broke apart in September 2006, only to reform in a weakened state the following month. The Kaczynskis pressed ahead with their increasingly unpopular policies in 2007, including “lustration” legislation that took effect in March. The law required as many as 700,000 citizens in positions of authority—such as civil servants, journalists, and academics—to declare in writing whether they had cooperated with the communist-era secret service. Refusal to comply would result in a 10-year ban from public office. However, the Constitutional Tribunal struck down many of the law’s provisions in May. The paranoid political atmosphere was worsened by the initial publication in September by the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) of the names of public figures who had spied for or were spied upon by the former regime. Political instability continued over the summer as the prime minister fired a number of senior officials, including the deputy prime minister and agriculture minister, Self-Defense Party leader Andrzej Lepper. The dismissals led to the collapse of the governing coalition, and on September 7 the Sejm (lower house of parliament) voted to dissolve itself, triggering national elections on October 21. Some 55 percent of eligible voters turned out for the polls, the highest rate since the fall of communism, and handed victory to the center-right Civic Platform (PO) party. The PO, advocating business-friendly and pro-EU policies, won 209 seats in the Sejm, followed by PiS with 166, the Left and Democrats (LiD) coalition with 53, and the Polish People’s Party (PSL) with 31. The PO and PSL formed a coalition government in November, with PO leader Donald Tusk as prime minister. Given the outgoing PiS government’s acrimonious relations with the EU, most EU leaders applauded Tusk’s election. Political Rights and Civil Liberties Poland is an electoral democracy. Voters elect the president for five-year terms and members of the bicameral National Assembly for four-year terms. The president’s appointment of the prime minister is subject to confirmation by the http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?year=2008&co... 1/2/2009 Page 3 of 4 460-seat Sejm, the National Assembly’s lower house. The prime minister is responsible for most government policy, but the president also has an important role, especially in foreign relations. The 100-member Senate, the upper house, can delay and amend legislation but has few other powers. The conservative PiS and the center-right PO have become the two most important political parties, while smaller left-leaning parties, including the SLD, have joined forces in the LiD coalition. PiS’s former coalition partners, Self-Defense and the LPR, failed to win representation in the October 2007 legislative elections. The PiS government elected in 2005 made anticorruption efforts a priority, and PiS itself has generally been seen as less graft-prone than its predecessors in government. However, that reputation was tainted by accusations that it used job offers to convince other parties’ members to defect to PiS. Those in power have also been criticized for using communist-era intelligence files to discredit political enemies. Poland was ranked 61 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index. The 1997 constitution guarantees freedom of expression and forbids censorship. However, the country’s libel law treats slander as a criminal offense. Infringements on media freedom include gag orders and arbitrary judicial decisions concerning investigations of individuals affiliated with parties in power. LPR officials in June 2007 filed a lawsuit against former Spanish lawmaker Pilar Rahola, accusing her of criminal defamation of the Polish nation in an article for the Spanish daily El Pais. Separately, in August, the recently fired interior minister reported that intelligence services had tapped the telephones of journalists who were critical of the government. Tusk’s election, however, resulted in the perception that the media will be freer than under the previous government. Poland’s print media are diverse and for the most part privately owned. The state-owned television and radio broadcaster is dominant but faces growing competition from private Polish and foreign outlets. The government does not restrict internet access. The state respects freedom of religion. Religious groups are not required to register but receive tax benefits if they do. Roman Catholic priest Tadeusz Rydzyk, a PiS supporter and head of a media group that includes the ultraconservative Radio Maryja, was criticized in 2007 for making anti-Semitic remarks. Radio Maryja, although owned by a private Catholic group, enjoys fee exemptions and public-broadcaster status. Academic freedom is generally respected, though one rarely invoked law threatens anyone who “publicly insults or humiliates a constitutional institution” with a fine or up to two years’ imprisonment. Polish citizens can petition the government, assemble legally, organize professional and other associations, and engage in collective bargaining. Public demonstrations require permits from local authorities. A demonstration by gay rights activists took place in November without incident, in contrast to previous years. Poland has a robust labor movement, but groups including the self-employed and those working under individual contracts are barred from joining a union. Union pluralism is http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?year=2008&co... 1/2/2009 Page 4 of 4 recognized with the exception of law enforcement personnel, who mounted a successful informal strike in 2007. Labor leaders have complained of harassment by employers. Poland has an independent judiciary, but courts are notorious for delays in administering cases. State prosecutors have proceeded slowly on corruption investigations, contributing to concerns that they are subject to considerable political pressure. A November 2007 report by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute on the status of rule of law in Poland found that several recently passed and proposed legislative amendments introduced by the PiS during the year would threaten the judiciary, the legal profession, and prosecutors. They included fee-capping measures for advocates and legal advisors, requirements for cases
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Poland (Mainly) Chooses Stability and Continuity: the October 2011 Polish Parliamentary Election
    Poland (mainly) chooses stability and continuity: The October 2011 Polish parliamentary election Aleks Szczerbiak [email protected] University of Sussex SEI Working Paper No. 129 1 The Sussex European Institute publishes Working Papers (ISSN 1350-4649) to make research results, accounts of work-in-progress and background information available to those concerned with contemporary European issues. The Institute does not express opinions of its own; the views expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author. The Sussex European Institute, founded in Autumn 1992, is a research and graduate teaching centre of the University of Sussex, specialising in studies of contemporary Europe, particularly in the social sciences and contemporary history. The SEI has a developing research programme which defines Europe broadly and seeks to draw on the contributions of a range of disciplines to the understanding of contemporary Europe. The SEI draws on the expertise of many faculty members from the University, as well as on those of its own staff and visiting fellows. In addition, the SEI provides one-year MA courses in Contemporary European Studies and European Politics and opportunities for MPhil and DPhil research degrees. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/ First published in March 2012 by the Sussex European Institute University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RG Tel: 01273 678578 Fax: 01273 678571 E-mail: [email protected] © Sussex European Institute Ordering Details The price of this Working Paper is £5.00 plus postage and packing. Orders should be sent to the Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RG.
    [Show full text]
  • Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej
    CENTRUM BADANIA OPINII SPOŁECZNEJ SEKRETARIAT 629 - 35 - 69, 628 - 37 - 04 UL. ŻURAWIA 4A, SKR. PT.24 OŚRODEK INFORMACJI 693 - 46 - 92, 625 - 76 - 23 00 - 503 W A R S Z A W A TELEFAX 629 - 40 - 89 INTERNET http://www.cbos.pl E-mail: [email protected] BS/158/2005 WYBORY PREZYDENCKIE: PEWNOŚĆ GŁOSOWANIA, PREFERENCJE NIEZDECYDOWANYCH I PRZEWIDYWANIA CO DO WYNIKU WYBORÓW KOMUNIKAT Z BADAŃ WARSZAWA, WRZESIEŃ 2005 PRZEDRUK MATERIAŁÓW CBOS W CAŁOŚCI LUB W CZĘŚCI ORAZ WYKORZYSTANIE DANYCH EMPIRYCZNYCH JEST DOZWOLONE WYŁĄCZNIE Z PODANIEM ŹRÓDŁA Prezentowane wyniki pochodzą z wrześniowego sondażu1 przeprowadzonego przed wyborami parlamentarnymi. Podstawowe informacje dotyczące przewidywanego udziału w wyborach prezydenckich i preferencji wyborczych były już publikowane2. Obecnie powracamy do tych danych proponując szersze ujęcie tematu. PEWNOŚĆ DECYZJI WYBORCZYCH W tym roku Polacy nie mają łatwego zadania, jeśli chodzi o podejmowanie decyzji w wyborach prezydenckich. Lista ewentualnych pretendentów do prezydentury bardzo długo pozostawała niekompletna, później ze startu w wyborach zrezygnował tracący poparcie Zbigniew Religa. Przed koniecznością zmiany decyzji wyborczej postawieni zostali zwolennicy jednego z najbardziej liczących się kandydatów - Włodzimierza Cimoszewicza, który zrezygnował z ubiegania się o najwyższy urząd w państwie. Ostatnio mówi się też, że nad wycofaniem swojej kandydatury zastanawia się Maciej Giertych, choć oficjalnie wiadomość ta nie została jeszcze potwierdzona. Zmiany w ofercie wyborczej nie sprzyjają krystalizacji i stabilności preferencji wyborczych. Trudno też oprzeć się wrażeniu, że początkowo Polacy z dużą rezerwą podchodzili do oferty wyborczej, bazującej głównie na dość często kontrowersyjnych liderach partyjnych. Przez długi czas wyborcy nie traktowali swych wyborów politycznych jako ostatecznych i niezmiennych. Stabilizacji elektoratów zapewne nie sprzyjały także zmiany w sondażowych rankingach poparcia dla kandydatów.
    [Show full text]
  • Być Premierem
    Być premierem Materiał składa się z sekcji: "Premierzy III RP", "Tadeusz Mazowiecki", "Premierzy II Rzeczpospolitej". Materiał zawiera: - 19 ilustracji (fotografii, obrazów, rysunków), 3 ćwiczenia; - wirtualny spacer po kancelarii Prezesa Rady Ministrów wraz z opisem jej historii; - opis informacji i opinii o Tadeuszu Mazowieckim wraz ćwiczeniem do wykonania na ich podstawie; - zdjęcie, na którym przedstawiono premiera Tadeusza Mazowieckiego w 1989 r.; - galerię zdjęć premierów III RP (Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, Jan Olszewski, Waldemar Pawlak, Hanna Suchocka, Józef Oleksy, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Jerzy Buzek, Leszek Miller, Marek Belka, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Jarosław Kaczyński, Donald Tusk, Ewa Kopacz, Beata Szydło); - opis działalności politycznej premierów II RP (Wincenty Witos, Walery Sławek, Felicjan Sławoj Składkowski); - zdjęcie, na którym przedstawiono Wincentego Witosa przemawiającego do tłumu; - zdjęcie, na którym przedstawiono Walerego Sławka; - zdjęcie, na którym przedstawiono Felicjana Sławoj Składkowskiego przemawiającego do urzędników Prezydium Rady Ministrów; - ćwiczenie, które polega na poszukaniu i przedstawieniu różnych ciekawostek o życiu znanych polityków z okresu II i III Rzeczypospolitej; - propozycje pytań do dyskusji na tematy polityczne; - ćwiczenie, które polega na opracowaniu galerii premierów II RP. Być premierem Kancelaria Prezesa Rady Ministrów Laleczki, licencja: CC BY-SA 4.0 Zobacz, jak wygląda kancelaria Prezesa Rady Ministrów, miejsce pracy premiera. Źródło: PANORAMIX, licencja: CC BY 3.0. Premierzy III RP Sprawowanie urzędu premiera to wielki zaszczyt, ale i ogromna odpowiedzialność. Prezes Rady Ministrów jest zgodnie z Konstytucją RP dopiero czwartą osobą w państwie (po prezydencie, marszałakch Sejmu i Senatu), ale w praktyce skupia w swoich rękach niemal całą władzę wykonawczą. Od decyzji, które podejmuje szef rządu, zależy jakość życia wielu milionów ludzi. Znane są dzieje narodów, które pod mądrym przewodnictwem rozkwitały, a pod złym popadały w biedę i chaos.
    [Show full text]
  • Polityk Roku 2012 W Polsce I Na Świecie
    Warszawa, grudzień 2012 BS/176/2012 POLITYK ROKU 2012 W POLSCE I NA ŚWIECIE Znak jakości przyznany CBOS przez Organizację Firm Badania Opinii i Rynku 11 stycznia 2012 roku Fundacja Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej ul. Żurawia 4a, 00-503 Warszawa e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] http://www.cbos.pl (48 22) 629 35 69 Koniec roku to okres bilansów i podsumowań, a także różnych rankingów i plebiscytów, które – w mniej lub bardziej poważny sposób – rozstrzygają, komu należy się tytuł osobowości roku w tej lub innej dziedzinie. Podobnie jak w ubiegłych latach, w grudniowym sondażu1 pytaliśmy Polaków, kto − ich zdaniem – w mijającym roku 2012 zasłużył na miano polityka roku. Respondenci sami wymieniali nazwiska kandydatów spośród znanych im polityków krajowych oraz – na tej samej zasadzie – wskazywali najbardziej zasłużonego przedstawiciela światowej sceny politycznej. POLITYK ROKU 2012 W POLSCE Pytanie otwarte, jakie zadaliśmy Polakom brzmiało: „Któremu z polskich polityków należy się, Pana(i) zdaniem, miano polityka roku 2012? Chodzi o człowieka, który najlepiej działał, zrobił najwięcej w interesie kraju, społeczeństwa, ludzi takich jak Pan(i)”. Prawie trzy piąte ankietowanych (58%) nie umiało wskazać żadnego polityka, który by na takie wyróżnienie zasłużył. Większą grupę wśród nich stanowiły osoby, które uznały, że żaden ze znanych im przedstawicieli sceny politycznej nie zasługuje na taki tytuł (odpowiedzi: „nie ma takiego”, „żaden” lub inny sposób wyrażenia negatywnej opinii – 33%). Co czwarty badany stwierdził, że żadne nazwisko nie przychodzi mu na myśl, bo nie interesuje się polityką, nie zna polityków, czy po prostu trudno mu odpowiedzieć na to pytanie. Pozostali respondenci wymienili w sumie pięćdziesiąt nazwisk polityków, z których jednak tylko siedmiu uzyskało przynajmniej po 2% głosów.
    [Show full text]
  • Declining Support for Government of Donald Tusk and for Civic Platform (Po)
    DECLINING SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT OF DONALD TUSK AND FOR CIVIC PLATFORM (PO) The coalition of Civic Platform and Polish Peasant Party (PO-PSL), which has governed Poland for over four years, is losing social support. Evaluations of the government of Donald Tusk have deteriorated. At present, they are the worst, if both parliamentary terms are considered. The decline was precipitated by, among others, problems with implementation of new rules on refunding medicines, signing of the ACTA agreement (a decision from which the government eventually withdrew), and planned changes in the pension system, especially raising the retirement age to 67 years. From Dec. 2011 to March 2012 the proportion of government supporters fell from 44% to 31%, while the number of opponents rose from 31% to 45%. ATTITUDE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF DONALD TUSK “Don't know” omitted The popularity of the Prime Minster is diminishing. The proportion of respondents satisfied with the work of Donald Tusk as Prime Minister fell from 49% in Dec. 2011 to 33% in March 2012. At the same time, the number of the dissatisfied rose from 38% to 57%. SATISFACTION WITH DONALD TUSK AS PRIME MINISTER “Don't know” omitted The effects of government's activities are perceived ever more critically. The proportion of people satisfied with them fell in the last four months from 45% to 25%, while the number of the dissatisfied rose from 40% to 67%. EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF ACTIVITY OF DONALD TUSK'S GOVERNMENT UP TO DATE “Don't know” omitted The decline in support for the government is accompanied by a drop in the ratings of the Civic Platform (PO).
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Infirmity of Social Democracy in Postcommunist Poland a Cultural History of the Socialist Discourse, 1970-1991
    The Infirmity of Social Democracy in Postcommunist Poland A cultural history of the socialist discourse, 1970-1991 by Jan Kubik Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University American Society of Learned Societies Fellow, 1990-91 Program on Central and Eastem Europe Working Paper Series #20 January 1992 2 The relative weakness of social democracy in postcommunist Eastern Europe and the poor showing of social democratic parties in the 1990-91 Polish and Hungarian elections are intriguing phenom­ ena. In countries where economic reforms have resulted in increasing poverty, job loss, and nagging insecurity, it could be expected that social democrats would have a considerable follOwing. Also, the presence of relatively large working class populations and a tradition of left-inclined intellec­ tual opposition movements would suggest that the social democratic option should be popular. Yet, in the March-April 1990 Hungarian parliamentary elections, "the political forces ready to use the 'socialist' or the 'social democratic' label in the elections received less than 16 percent of the popular vote, although the class-analytic approach predicted that at least 20-30 percent of the working population ... could have voted for them" (Szelenyi and Szelenyi 1992:120). Simi­ larly, in the October 1991 Polish parliamentary elections, the Democratic Left Alliance (an elec­ toral coalition of reformed communists) received almost 12% of the vote. Social democratic parties (explicitly using this label) that emerged from Solidarity won less than 3% of the popular vote. The Szelenyis concluded in their study of social democracy in postcommunist Hungary that, "the major opposition parties all posited themselves on the political Right (in the Western sense of the term), but public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of social democratic measures" (1992:125).
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in Central Europe
    Program on Central & Eastern Europe Working Paper Series #52, j\Tovember 1999 Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in Central Europe Anna Grzymala-Busse· Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Harvard University Cambridge, lvlA 02138 Abstract The study examines the formation of coalitions in East Central Europe after the democratic transi­ tions of 1989. Existing explanations of coalition formations, which focus on either office-seeking and minimum wmning considerations, or on policy-seeking and spatial ideological convergence. However, they fail to account for the coalition patterns in the new democracies of East Central Europe. Instead, these parties' flrst goal is to develop clear and consistent reputations. To that end, they will form coalitions exclusively within the two camps of the regime divide: that is, amongst par­ ties stemming from the former communist parties, and those with roots in the former opposition to the communist regimes. The two corollaries are that defectors are punished at unusually high rates, and the communist party successors seek, rather than are sought for, coalitions. This model explains 85% of the coalitions that formed in the region after 1989. The study then examines the communist successor parties, and how their efforts illustrate these dynamics . • I would like to thank Grzegorz Ekiert, Gary King, Kenneth Shepsle, Michael Tomz, and the participants ofthe Faculty Workshop at Yale University for their helpful comments. 2 I. Introduction The patterns of coalition fonnation in East Central Europe are as diverse as they are puzzling. Since the ability to fonn stable governing coalitions is a basic precondition of effective democratic governance in multi-party parliamentary systems, several explanations have emerged of how political parties fonn such coalitions.
    [Show full text]
  • February 21, 1948 Report of the Special Action of the Polish Socialist Party in Prague, 21-25 February 1948
    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified February 21, 1948 Report of the Special Action of the Polish Socialist Party in Prague, 21-25 February 1948 Citation: “Report of the Special Action of the Polish Socialist Party in Prague, 21-25 February 1948,” February 21, 1948, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Warsaw), file 217, packet 16, pp. 1-11. Translated by Anna Elliot-Zielinska. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/117117 Summary: In the midst of a cabinet crisis in Czechoslovakia that would lead to the February Communist coup, several delegates from the Polish Socialist Party were sent to Prague to spread socialist influence. The crisis is outlined, as well as a thorough report of the conference in Prague. Credits: This document was made possible with support from the Leon Levy Foundation. Original Language: Polish Contents: English Translation In accordance with the resolution of the Political Commission and General Secretariat of the Central Executive Committee (CKW) of the Polish Socialist Party (PPS), made late on the night of 20 February 1948, Com. Kazimierz Rusinek, Adam Rapacki, Henryk Jablonski, and Stefan Arski were delegated to go to Prague. This decision was made after a thorough analysis of the political situation in Czechoslovakia brought on by a cabinet crisis there. The goal of the delegation was to inform the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party (SD) about the basic stance of the PPS and possibly to influence the SD Central Committee in the spirit of leftist-socialist and revolutionary politics. The motive behind the decision of the Political Commission and General Secretariat was the fear that, from the leftist socialist point of view, the situation at the heart of SD after the Brno Congress was taking an unfavorable shape.
    [Show full text]
  • Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej
    CENTRUM BADANIA OPINII SPOŁECZNEJ SEKRETARIAT 629 - 35 - 69, 628 - 37 - 04 UL. ŻURAWIA 4A, SKR. PT.24 OŚRODEK INFORMACJI 693 - 46 - 92, 625 - 76 - 23 00 - 503 W A R S Z A W A TELEFAX 629 - 40 - 89 INTERNET http://www.cbos.pl E-mail: [email protected] BS/48/2009 ZAUFANIE DO POLITYKÓW W MARCU KOMUNIKAT Z BADAŃ WARSZAWA, MARZEC 2009 PRZEDRUK I ROZPOWSZECHNIANIE MATERIAŁÓW CBOS W CAŁOŚCI LUB W CZĘŚCI ORAZ WYKORZYSTANIE DANYCH EMPIRYCZNYCH JEST DOZWOLONE WYŁĄCZNIE Z PODANIEM ŹRÓDŁA W marcu1 politykiem cieszącym się wśród Polaków największym zaufaniem jest minister spraw zagranicznych Radosław Sikorski (61%), który minimalnie wyprzedza w tym rankingu premiera Donalda Tuska (59%) oraz Lecha Wałęsę (58%). Zaufaniem nieco ponad połowy Polaków cieszy się marszałek Sejmu Bronisław Komorowski (52%), niewiele mniej osób ufa wicepremierowi i ministrowi gospodarki Waldemarowi Pawlakowi (50%). Na zbliżonym poziomie kształtuje się też zaufanie do Włodzimierza Cimoszewicza (48%), którego nazwisko ponownie umieściliśmy na naszej liście w związku ze zgłoszeniem jego kandydatury na stanowisko sekretarza generalnego Rady Europy. Kolejne miejsca w rankingu zaufania do polityków, jednak już z wyraźnie słabszym wynikiem, zajmują liderzy ugrupowań lewicowych Marek Borowski (40%) oraz Wojciech Olejniczak (37%). Poza czołówką najpopularniejszych polityków znalazł się w tym miesiącu Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, do którego zaufanie deklaruje obecnie co trzeci ankietowany (33%). Niemal tyle samo sympatyków mają prezydent Lech Kaczyński (32% deklaracji zaufania), minister zdrowia Ewa Kopacz (32%) oraz szef MON Bogdan Klich (31%). Zaufaniem niespełna jednej trzeciej badanych cieszą się: przewodniczący klubu parlamentarnego PO Zbigniew Chlebowski (29%), Janusz Palikot (29%), a także wicepremier i szef MSWiA Grzegorz Schetyna (28%). Co czwarty respondent deklaruje zaufanie do marszałka Senatu Bogdana Borusewicza (26%) oraz do lidera głównej partii opozycyjnej Jarosława Kaczyńskiego (25%).
    [Show full text]
  • SS.7.C.2.8 Low Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation
    SS.7.C.2.8 Low Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation Question What are the names of the two major political parties in the The correct answer should identify the two current and United States today? main political parties in the United States. A Democratic and Republican Correct – The Democrats and Republicans are currently the two major political parties in the United States. B Democratic and Libertarian Incorrect – The Libertarian Party is a minor, or third party. C Socialist and Republican Incorrect – The Socialist Party is a minor, or third party. D Socialist and Libertarian Incorrect – Both parties are minor, or third parties. SS.7.C.2.8 Moderate Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation Question The statement below is from a political party platform. The passage describes the ideas of a modern political party. We, the workers and our allies, need to take power from the hands of the wealthy few, their The correct answer should identify the current political corporations, and their political operatives. party that the passage describes. Which political party’s position is represented in the statement? A Communist Correct – The Communist Party supports workers controlling all governmental power. B Democratic Incorrect – The Democratic Party supports a stronger federal government and more government services but does not support a worker-controlled government. C Republican Incorrect – The Republican Party supports a weaker federal government, lower taxes, and fewer government services. D Socialist Incorrect – The Socialist Party supports cooperative ownership of private industry but does not support taking all power from the rich and giving it to the working class.
    [Show full text]