DOCSLIB.ORG

Zaufanie Do Polityków W Lutym

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zaufanie Do Polityków W Lutym Warszawa, luty 2011 BS/21/2011 ZAUFANIE DO POLITYKÓW W LUTYM Znak jakości przyznany CBOS przez Organizację Firm Badania Opinii i Rynku 4 lutego 2010 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 W lutym1 największym zaufaniem Polaków niezmiennie cieszy się prezydent Bronisław Komorowski. Ufa mu – według ich własnych deklaracji – prawie dwie trzecie respondentów (65%). Dystans między prezydentem, a pozostałymi uwzględnionymi w naszym badaniu przedstawicielami sceny politycznej jeszcze się powiększył. Nieco inny niż miesiąc temu jest też układ sił na kolejnych pozycjach naszego rankingu. Drugie miejsce wśród najczęściej obdarzanych zaufaniem przedstawicieli sceny politycznej zajmuje Grzegorz Napieralski (51%), który pod względem liczby pozytywnych ocen wyprzedził premiera Donalda Tuska oraz szefa MSZ Radosława Sikorskiego (po 47% deklaracji zaufania). Awans na drugie miejsce przewodniczący SLD zawdzięcza jednak przede wszystkim pogorszeniu ocen obu polityków, przy utrzymujących się dobrych własnych notowaniach. Mniej osób, około dwie piąte badanych, deklaruje zaufanie do wicepremiera i szefa resortu gospodarki Waldemara Pawlaka, prezesa NBP Marka Belki oraz Leszka Balcerowicza (po 41% deklaracji zaufania). Niemal tyle samo respondentów ma zaufanie do minister zdrowia Ewy Kopacz (40%), nieco mniej do przewodniczącego międzyresortowej komisji ustalającej przyczyny katastrofy smoleńskiej – szefa MSWiA Jerzego Millera (37%). Zaufaniem nieco ponad jednej trzeciej respondentów cieszą się marszałek Sejmu Grzegorz Schetyna (35%) oraz doradca prezydenta Tomasz Nałęcz (34%). Kolejne miejsca w lutowym rankingu zajmują: minister obrony Bogdan Klich (29% deklaracji zaufania), przewodniczący Rady Gospodarczej przy Prezesie Rady Ministrów Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, liderka PJN Joanna Kluzik-Rostkowska (po 28% wskazań) oraz prezes PiS Jarosław Kaczyński (27%). Co czwarty badany darzy zaufaniem marszałka Senatu Bogdana Borusewicza (25%) i prawie tyle samo ufa szefowi doradców premiera Michałowi Boniemu. Mniejszym zaufaniem – około jednej piątej badanych – cieszą się Antoni Macierewicz, którego nazwisko po kilkumiesięcznej przerwie ponownie uwzględniliśmy w lutowym badaniu, minister sprawiedliwości Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, szef resortu finansów Jacek Rostowski, a także wicemarszałek Sejmu z ramienia SLD Jerzy Wenderlich. 1 Badanie „Aktualne problemy i wydarzenia” (249) przeprowadzono w dniach 3 – 9 lutego 2011 roku na liczącej 1002 osoby reprezentatywnej próbie losowej dorosłych mieszkańców Polski. - 2 - Tabela 1. Stosunek do polityków w lutym 2011 Zaufanie Nieufność II ’11 zmiana II ’11 zmiana Obojętność Nieznajomość od I ’11 od I ’11 w procentach Bronisław Komorowski 65 0 15 1 16 1 Grzegorz Napieralski 51 1 14 0 19 10 Radosław Sikorski 47 -4 16 3 19 12 Donald Tusk 47 -5 34 4 15 1 Marek Belka 41 2 15 3 24 14 Leszek Balcerowicz 41 -8 24 5 23 6 Waldemar Pawlak 41 -2 25 4 25 5 Ewa Kopacz 40 1 28 1 17 11 Jerzy Miller 37 10 18 1 23 16 Grzegorz Schetyna 35 2 21 2 23 15 Tomasz Nałęcz 34 2 11 2 21 29 Bogdan Klich 29 -3 23 10 25 18 Jan Krzysztof Bielecki 28 -2 11 3 26 28 Joanna Kluzik-Rostkowska 28 -5 17 3 23 26 Jarosław Kaczyński 27 -4 56 5 13 1 Bogdan Borusewicz 25 -1 10 2 25 34 Michał Boni 23 1 13 3 21 38 Antoni Macierewicz 21 * 41 * 18 15 Krzysztof Kwiatkowski 20 3 6 0 15 54 Jacek Rostowski 20 0 15 1 18 40 Jerzy Wenderlich 18 1 11 3 18 49 Jolanta Fedak 15 -2 12 -2 20 48 Andrzej Seremet 14 * 5 * 16 60 Mariusz Błaszczak 12 1 19 5 14 51 Cezary Grabarczyk 12 2 28 4 16 38 Pominięto odpowiedzi „trudno powiedzieć” * W styczniu brak pomiaru - 3 - Tabela 2. Zmiany zaufania do polityków Wskazania respondentów według terminów badań 2009 2010 2011 Politycy VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II w procentach L. Balcerowicz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49 41 M. Belka - - - - - - - - - - 51 48 45 46 - - - 39 41 J. K. Bielecki - - - - 27 - - - 34 31 - 29 - - - - - 30 28 M. Błaszczak - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 9 8 10 12 11 12 M. Boni 17 17 15 16 19 20 19 19 20 24 24 22 22 26 22 22 21 22 23 B. Borusewicz 28 24 23 - 20 22 22 20 31 29 27 30 28 33 28 29 28 26 25 J. Fedak 9 - - 9 - 10 11 - 10 - - - 13 14 - - 15 17 15 C. Grabarczyk - - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 12 J. Kaczyński 25 25 24 23 28 28 27 29 42 45 47 48 44 34 34 27 30 31 27 B. Klich - 26 23 - 21 - 23 - - 30 30 26 29 32 28 30 30 32 29 J. Kluzik-Rostkowska 8 - - - - - - - - 16 16 23 - - 25 33 36 33 28 B. Komorowski 50 49 49 48 44 45 54 57 65 70 65 66 63 66 62 66 67 65 65 E. Kopacz 29 29 26 28 26 29 32 30 36 47 48 45 42 45 46 48 43 39 40 K. Kwiatkowski - - - - 7 - 12 - - 12 - - - - - 16 - 17 20 A. Macierewicz - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 23 - - - - 21 J. Miller - - - 17 - - - - - - 37 30 35 33 28 28 29 27 37 T. Nałęcz - - - - - 24 - - 31 - - - - - - 36 37 32 34 G. Napieralski 18 18 19 19 18 19 17 18 25 36 50 62 58 58 52 55 51 50 51 W. Pawlak 41 39 44 44 41 42 45 39 45 47 47 42 44 45 42 44 44 43 41 J. Rostowski 16 15 17 12 16 18 19 18 21 21 21 22 18 21 16 18 20 20 20 G. Schetyna 26 25 21 19 18 20 20 21 29 28 30 33 34 37 34 33 33 33 35 A. Seremet - - - - - - - - - 11 - - 12 - - - - - 14 R. Sikorski 58 56 54 53 52 52 59 52 54 53 54 54 52 57 53 52 53 51 47 D. Tusk 50 55 55 49 48 49 54 53 57 60 61 58 54 58 55 56 54 52 47 J. Wenderlich - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 19 17 18 - 4 - Tabela 3. Zmiany nieufności do polityków Wskazania respondentów według terminów badań 2009 2010 2011 Politycy VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II w procentach L. Balcerowicz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 24 M. Belka - - - - - - - - - - 11 12 14 12 - - - 12 15 J.K. Bielecki - - - - 10 - - - 6 10 - 10 - - - - - 8 11 M. Błaszczak - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 12 15 18 14 19 M. Boni 11 11 10 11 11 11 14 10 8 10 9 9 12 11 10 10 11 10 13 B. Borusewicz 9 11 9 - 10 11 10 8 5 7 9 8 9 9 9 7 8 8 10 J. Fedak 8 - - 10 - 12 13 - 5 - - - 9 9 - - 9 14 12 C. Grabarczyk - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 28 J. Kaczyński 57 55 56 54 52 51 51 51 28 34 34 34 40 47 47 57 53 51 56 B. Klich - 13 13 - 13 - 12 - - 13 13 13 16 14 15 14 16 13 23 J. Kluzik-Rostkowska 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 12 14 17 B. Komorowski 13 12 11 12 14 14 12 12 9 13 18 17 21 13 16 14 13 14 15 E. Kopacz 28 27 28 33 34 38 32 33 28 22 19 25 26 21 22 22 25 27 28 K. Kwiatkowski - - - - 4 - 7 - - 4 - - - - - 4 6 6 A. Macierewicz - - - - - - - - - - - - 32 36 - - - - 41 J. Miller - - - 17 - - - - - - 15 15 17 15 18 15 17 17 18 T. Nałęcz - - - - - 11 - - 5 - - - - - - 8 9 9 11 G. Napieralski 19 18 19 19 17 18 19 20 12 13 12 8 11 10 13 12 12 14 14 W. Pawlak 26 27 23 21 24 23 22 25 16 23 22 25 23 22 25 22 20 21 25 J. Rostowski 14 13 10 12 11 11 11 8 5 7 8 6 11 7 12 11 12 14 15 G. Schetyna 17 15 21 25 27 24 31 25 18 18 19 20 21 18 20 18 21 19 21 A. Seremet - - - - - - - - - 4 - - 4 - - - - - 5 R. Sikorski 10 11 11 11 10 13 11 18 14 16 12 12 16 12 14 14 13 13 16 D. Tusk 31 28 25 30 33 33 29 29 22 24 24 26 30 27 28 27 26 30 34 J. Wenderlich - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 8 8 11 - 5 - Spośród polityków uwzględnionych w badaniu, najrzadziej z zaufaniem ankietowanych spotykają się wyraźnie krytycznie odbierani minister infrastruktury Cezary Grabarczyk oraz szef klubu parlamentarnego PiS Mariusz Błaszczak. Zaufanie do nich deklaruje po 12% ankietowanych. Niewiele większym zaufaniem cieszą się, nieznany większości badanych prokurator generalny Andrzej Seremet (14%) oraz znacznie częściej rozpoznawana, ale postrzegana wyraźnie krytycznie minister pracy Jolanta Fedak (15%). Niezmiennie największą nieufność wśród Polaków budzi prezes PiS Jarosław Kaczyński. Nie ufa mu ponad połowa badanych (56%). Z dużą nieufnością spotyka się także Antoni Macierewicz (41%). W ocenach obu tych polityków nieufność zdecydowanie przeważa nad zaufaniem. Podobnie jak w ubiegłych miesiącach trzecie miejsce pod względem liczby krytycznych ocen zajmuje premier Donald Tusk. Nie ufa mu co trzeci badany (34%). Nieco częściej krytycznie odbierani są ponadto minister zdrowia Ewa Kopacz oraz minister infrastruktury Cezary Grabarczyk (po 28% wskazań), w którego ocenie – inaczej niż w przypadku premiera i minister zdrowia – dominują noty negatywne. Wydarzenia ostatnich tygodni nie sprzyjały korzystnym ocenom polityków. Pogorszyły się notowania zarówno przedstawicieli rządu jak i opozycji. Do wyjątków należą politycy, którzy zyskali w ocenie badanych. O dużej poprawie notowań można mówić jedynie w przypadku szefa MSWiA Jerzego Millera. W porównaniu ze styczniowym pomiarem, realizowanym jeszcze przed opubliko- waniem raportu MAK, rozpoznawalność tego polityka wyraźnie wzrosła (o 8 punktów procentowych). W jeszcze większym stopniu (o 10 punktów) wzrósł odsetek badanych, którzy darzą go zaufaniem. Są to najlepsze z dotychczas rejestrowanych oceny Jerzego Millera. Minimalnie zyskał słabo wciąż rozpoznawany minister sprawiedliwości Krzysztof Kwiatkowski. Odsetek mających do niego zaufanie jest obecnie wyższy o 3 punkty procentowe.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of the Partnership for Democracy in Respect of the Parliament of Morocco
    http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 13807 08 June 2015 Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Morocco Report1 Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy Rapporteur: Mr Bogdan KLICH, Poland, Group of the European People's Party Summary The report is a follow-up to Resolution 1942 (2013) whereby the Assembly resolved to continue reviewing the implementation of the partnership for democracy with the Parliament of Morocco, and to make a new assessment within two years. It takes stock of the state of political reform in the country and of the respect of political commitments undertaken in the framework of the partnership. The report makes an overall positive assessment of the results achieved, and welcomes the fact that the partnership has been instrumental in launching and developing crucial reforms in a number of key areas, and in triggering multi-faceted co-operation between the Council of Europe and Moroccan institutions. The partnership must remain an important tool aimed at streamlining the programme of reforms and increasing the role and responsibility of the parliament in this process. In this context, the report notes that the pace of legislative and institutional reforms needs to be stepped up so as to implement fully the ambitions of the 2011 Constitution. More efforts are needed, on the part of the Moroccan Parliament, to make progress towards the abolition of death penalty, preventing human rights violations, and ensuring equal opportunities for women and men. The report suggests that the Parliamentary Assembly should continue reviewing the implementation of political reforms in Morocco and offering its assistance to the Moroccan Parliament, and make a new assessment of the partnership when appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Poland by Piotr Arak, Andrzej Bobiński
    Poland by Piotr Arak, Andrzej Bobiński Capital: Warsaw Population: 38 million GNI/capita, PPP: $25,930 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 National Democratic 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.25 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 Governance Electoral Process 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 Civil Society 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 Independent Media 2.25 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 3.00 Local Democratic 1.75 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 Governance Judicial Framework 3.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 and Independence Corruption 3.00 2.75 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 Democracy Score 2.39 2.25 2.32 2.21 2.14 2.18 2.18 2.21 2.32 2.57 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. If consensus cannot be reached, Freedom House is responsible for the final ratings. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest.
    [Show full text]
  • 60 Years of Diplomatic Relations Between Poland and the People’S Republic of China  Historical Review
    POLISH POLITICAL SCIENCE VOL XL 2011 PL ISSN 0208-7375 60 YEARS OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN POLAND AND THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA HISTORICAL REVIEW by Marceli Burdelski ! e diplomatic relations between Poland and China had been estab- lished before World War II. ! e new stage in the relations has started on October 7, 1949, when Poland o" cially recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which was declared on October 1, 1949. 1 ! erefore, in 2009, we had two anniversaries: the 60 th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of china and the 60 th anniversary of establishing the diplomatic relations between Poland and PRC. ! is gives the opportunity to summarize mutual relations. ! ose 60 years have been # lled with positive stories, which had signi# cant in$ uence on the development of bilateral relations. However, one can also # nd di" cult, even tragic moments during the history of these two nations. ! ose uneasy moments had also direct impact on mutual relations. 1 J. Rowiński, Wahadło, czyli stosunki polityczne PRL–ChRL , [in:] Polska–Chiny Wczo raj, dziś, jutro , ed. B. Góralczyk, Toruń 2009, p. 19. 212 MARCELI BURDELSKI 1. THE INTERWAR PERIOD 1918 1939 AND THE POSTWAR ERA AFTER 1945 When Poland restored its independence in 1918, China was immersed in post-revolution chaos. A! er the Revolution of 1911, which overthrown the Qing dynasty, the attempts to implement multi-parties, parliamentary democracy based on the western model have failed completely. As a result the informal dissolution of the state – that transformed into smaller and greater quasi-state entities controlled by local warlords, sometimes waging wars against each other – took place.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe
    Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe Steven A. Hildreth Specialist in Missile Defense Carl Ek Specialist in International Relations September 23, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34051 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe Summary In early 2007, after several years of internal discussions and consultations with Poland and the Czech Republic, the Bush Administration formally proposed deploying a ground-based mid- course defense (GMD) element in Europe of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would have included 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a reported cost of at least $4 billion. The proposed European BMD capability raised a number of foreign policy challenges in Europe and with Russia. On September 17, 2009, the Obama Administration announced it would cancel the Bush- proposed European BMD program. Instead, Defense Secretary Gates announced U.S. plans to develop and deploy a regional BMD capability that can be deployed around the world on relatively short notice during crises or as the situation may demand. Gates argued this new capability, based primarily around current BMD sensors and interceptors, would be more responsive and adaptable to growing concern over the direction of Iranian short- and medium- range ballistic missile proliferation. This capability would continue to evolve and expand over the next decade. This report is updated for Senate consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Review–Chronicle
    REVIEWCHRONICLE of the human rights violations in Belarus in 2005 Human Rights Center Viasna ReviewChronicle » of the Human Rights Violations in Belarus in 2005 VIASNA « Human Rights Center Minsk 2006 1 REVIEWCHRONICLE of the human rights violations in Belarus in 2005 » VIASNA « Human Rights Center 2 Human Rights Center Viasna, 2006 REVIEWCHRONICLE of the human rights violations in Belarus in 2005 INTRODUCTION: main trends and generalizations The year of 2005 was marked by a considerable aggravation of the general situation in the field of human rights in Belarus. It was not only political rights » that were violated but social, economic and cultural rights as well. These viola- tions are constant and conditioned by the authoritys voluntary policy, with Lu- kashenka at its head. At the same time, human rights violations are not merely VIASNA a side-effect of the authoritarian state control; they are deliberately used as a « means of eradicating political opponents and creating an atmosphere of intimi- dation in the society. The negative dynamics is characterized by the growth of the number of victims of human rights violations and discrimination. Under these circums- tances, with a high level of latent violations and concealed facts, with great obstacles to human rights activity and overall fear in the society, the growth points to drastic stiffening of the regimes methods. Apart from the growing number of registered violations, one should men- Human Rights Center tion the increase of their new forms, caused in most cases by the development of the state oppressive machine, the expansion of legal restrictions and ad- ministrative control over social life and individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • General Performance of the Polish Presidency
    117 GENERAL PERFORMANCE OF THE POLISH PRESIDENCY Piotr Maciej Kaczyński* The Treaty of Lisbon has made the rotating Council Presidency politically irrelevant. Before December 2009, national leaders controlled the activities of the Council, and the relationship between the Council and the Parliament favoured the Council much more than after December 2009. On the one hand, under the new rules the Council has lost political weight and is now balanced in almost all its activities by the European Parliament. The European Council, on the other hand, has largely taken political clout over from the Council Presidency, as it now has its own permanent president, and there is no special role left for the rotating Presidency. On top of these things, not only have the Council powers regarding other institutions been limited, but also within the Council the rotating Presidency has been limited by the permanent chair of the Foreign Affairs Council and many of the subsidiary working parties and committees. Because of all these limitations, the rotating Presidency is no longer a Union Presidency. If this concept was not yet fully visible before the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second semester of 2011, then the Polish experience was very telling. Poland is a larger EU member state; it was committed to the preparations for the Presidency for a number of years and had a dedicated political and administrative leadership. The Polish officials executed the Presidency effectively although they were doing it for the first time. And still, they fell short with political weight. Their leverage over the European Council was similar to every other country’s leverage over the European Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Report
    THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-INVESTIGATION OF THE SMOLENSK AIR CRASH TECHNICAL REPORT Facts regarding the crash of the TU-154M No. 101, (Fight PLF101), that took place in Smolensk, Russia on the 10th of April 2010 This crash is being investigated by the Committee for the Re-Investigation of Air Crashes (hereby referred to as the “Committee”) and is a part of the Committee for the Investigation of National Aviation Accidents. The Committee has been tasked with the responsibility of determining the circumstances and causes of this air crash, and with the issuance of appropriate preventive recommendations. This Technical Report includes findings concerning the most important technical aspects of this crash. According to Art. 134, Sec. 1, Item 2 of the Act of July 3, 2002, Aviation Law (Unified Journal of Laws of 2017, Item 89): "The Committee does not adjudicate blame and liability", therefore any form of use of this Technical Report for purposes other than prevention of accidents and serious aviation incidents, should be considered as unauthorized, as it may lead to wrong conclusions and interpretations. 1 Chairman 1. Antoni Macierewicz First Vice Chairman 2. Kazimierz Nowaczyk Second Vice Chairman 3. Wiesław Binienda Secretary 4. Marta Palonek Members 5. Janusz Bujnowski 6. Wiesław Chrzanowski 7. Marek Dąbrowski 8. Wojciech Fabianowski 9. Kazimierz Grono 10. Andrzej Łuczak 11. Ewa Anna Gruszczyńska-Ziółkowska 12. Marcin Gugulski 13. Paweł Jacek Jabczyński 14. Glenn Jørgensen 15. Jacek Kołota 16. Beata Majczyna 17. Bogdan Nienałtowski 18. Grzegorz Szuladziński 19. Janusz Więckowski 20. Piotr Witakowski 21. Tomasz Ziemski 22. Krystyna Zieniuk 2 PREFACE..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Poland by Piotr Arak, Piotr Żakowiecki
    Poland by Piotr Arak, Piotr Żakowiecki Capital: Warsaw Population: 38 million GNI/capita, PPP: $23,930 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 National Democratic 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.25 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 Governance Electoral Process 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 Civil Society 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Independent Media 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 Local Democratic 2.25 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 Governance Judicial Framework 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 and Independence Corruption 3.00 3.00 2.75 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 Democracy Score 2.36 2.39 2.25 2.32 2.21 2.14 2.18 2.18 2.21 2.32 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. If consensus cannot be reached, Freedom House is responsible for the final ratings. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest.
    [Show full text]
  • Poland's Second Return to Europe?
    BRIEF POLICY POLAND’S SECOND RETURN TO EUROPE? Paweł Swieboda´ SUMMARY The parliamentary elections on 21 October 2007 produced Donald Tusk, the new Polish Prime Minister, wants to bring Poland back to the heart of Europe, a new governing coalition between the Civic Platform and the rebuilding ties with Germany and France to create Polish People’s Party, prompting a sigh of relief in Warsaw’s a ‘Weimar Triangle’, lessening tensions with Russia, foreign policy establishment. The new government, headed and trying to make the country a genuine player by Donald Tusk, is set on changing the country’s foreign in European foreign policy. policy profi le and wants to erase memories associated with The new Government will try to rebalance its the self-centred style of their predecessors. The Kaczyn´ski relationship with the United States, slowing down twins wholeheartedly believed that Poland needed to use the move towards missile defence and withdrawing every opportunity to assert its national interests, and its troops from Iraq. eagerly used their veto power on a range of issues, including the new EU-Russia partnership agreement, the January Although there will be a change of style on contentious issues like Russia, the new government 2006 tax package, the directive on the transfer of prisoners, will still be an ‘assertive partner’ opting out of the and the European Day Against the Death Penalty. Donald Charter of Fundamental Rights; unlikely to join Tusk’s new team will follow a different logic, working more the euro; and likely to put up a fi ght against reform through discussion and persuasion rather than obstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Poland by Piotr Arak and Piotr Z˙Akowiecki
    Poland by Piotr Arak and Piotr Z˙akowiecki Capital: Warsaw Population: 38.5 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$22,830 Source: The data above are drawn from the World Bank’sWorld Development Indicators 2015. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Electoral Process 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 Civil Society 1.25 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Independent Media 1.75 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 National Democratic Governance 2.75 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.25 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Local Democratic Governance 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 Judicial Framework and Independence 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Corruption 3.25 3.00 3.00 2.75 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.50 Democracy Score 2.14 2.36 2.39 2.25 2.32 2.21 2.14 2.18 2.18 2.21 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Report
    THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-INVESTIGATION OF THE SMOLENSK AIR CRASH TECHNICAL REPORT Facts regarding the crash of the TU-154M No. 101, (Fight PLF101), that took place in Smolensk, Russia on the 10th of April 2010 This crash is being investigated by the Committee for the Re-Investigation of Air Crashes (hereby referred to as the “Committee”) and is a part of the Committee for the Investigation of National Aviation Accidents. The Committee has been tasked with the responsibility of determining the circumstances and causes of this air crash, and with the issuance of appropriate preventive recommendations. This Technical Report includes findings concerning the most important technical aspects of this crash. According to Art. 134, Sec. 1, Item 2 of the Act of July 3, 2002, Aviation Law (Unified Journal of Laws of 2017, Item 89): "The Committee does not adjudicate blame and liability", therefore any form of use of this Technical Report for purposes other than prevention of accidents and serious aviation incidents, should be considered as unauthorized, as it may lead to wrong conclusions and interpretations. 1 PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Previous investigations ............................................................................................................... 5 Overhaul of the TU-154M, PLF101 .............................................................................................. 8 Access to evidence
    [Show full text]
  • MIĘDZYNARODOWA KONFERENCJA „Ofiary Wypadków Drogowych - Nasza Wspólna Odpowiedzialność” 21-22 Listopada 2010 R
    MIĘDZYNARODOWA KONFERENCJA „Ofiary Wypadków Drogowych - Nasza Wspólna Odpowiedzialność” 21-22 listopada 2010 r. pod patronatem Marszałka Sejmu RP Grzegorza Schetyny Komitet Honorowy: Minister Sprawiedliwości – Krzysztof Kwiatkowski Minister Infrastruktury – Cezary Grabarczyk Minister Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji – Jerzy Miller Minister Zdrowia – Ewa Kopacz Minister Edukacji Narodowej – Katarzyna Hall Minister Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego – Barbara Kudrycka Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich – Irena Lipowicz Przewodniczący Konferencji Episkopatu Polski – Arcybiskup Józef Michalik Organizatorzy Konferencji : Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości, Ministerstwo Infrastruktury, Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji, Ministerstwo Zdrowia, Instytut Transportu Samochodowego, „Alter Ego” – Stowarzyszenie Pomocy Poszkodowanym w Wypadkach i Kolizjach Drogowych, „Przejście” – Stowarzyszenie Pomocy Ofiarom Wypadków i Katastrof Komunikacyjnych oraz Krajowe Centrum BRD. Komitet Organizacyjny: Piotr Kluz – Wiceminister Sprawiedliwości – przewodniczący Adam Rapacki – Podsekretarz Stanu w Ministerstwie Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji – wiceprzewodniczący Radosław Stępień – Podsekretarz Stanu w Ministerstwie Infrastruktury – wiceprzewodniczący Janusz Popiel – Prezes „Alter Ego” – Stowarzyszenia Pomocy Poszkodowanym w Wypadkach i Kolizjach Drogowych - wiceprzewodniczący Andrzej Wojciechowski – Dyrektor Instytutu Transportu Samochodowego – wiceprzewodniczący/sekretarz Barbara Bańczak Mysiak – Zastępca Dyrektora Departamentu Spraw Obronnych, Zarządzania
    [Show full text]