Talk:Law and Justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Ideology 2 International Comparison 3 POV 4 IRI 5 structure of the page 6 Translation and major edit 7 "Conservative" 8 2001 cat added 9 Far-Left? 10 Political program section is out of date 11 national conservatism or conservatism 12 Vocal criticism 13 Removing old stuff

[edit] Ideology

"PiS is in fact an ultra right party which carries echo's of the German Nazi party's policies before the second world war." That's a pretty extreme statement. No one is going to debate whether Poland has just voted for Nazis or not? 68.218.182.215 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not just extreme, it's NPOV and removed. Trilemma 22:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

At the gay demonstration banned by Lech Kaczyński, the anti-gay protestors shouted nazi slogans such as "Auschwitz! Tralalala!" and made nazi salutes, as well as throwing stones and bottles and participants. However, while Kaczyński's failure to criticise this is shocking (IMHO), these protestors were mostly from the "young people" component of the LPR, not PiS. IMHO "echos of the German Nazi party's policies before the second world war" is probably a reasonably correct statement. Unfortunately, it is not exaggeration. However, while the statement is probably correct (if a reasonable interpretation is made), "echos" is rather vague, so for me this is not so much an NPOV problem, it's a vagueness problem.

Do we really need a special section: "Attitude to homosexuals' political and job rights" in this article? It is important, but there are much more interesting things about PiS to mention (social and taxes policy, foreign policy, atitude to European Union). Homosexual's rights aren't nowadays the main political question in Poland. Morover, PiS isn't so homophobic party as some people would maintain.

Poland is the country in which homosexuals were sent to concentration camps and massacred in large numbers. It happened under foreign occupation, sure, but it happened on Polish territory. And now people are throwing stones and bottles against homosexuals and making nazi salutes. In any case, if you have some NPOV facts to add to the article, then go ahead, add them. Boud 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You will find that PIS are not going aginst the grain and are not extreme; they merely reflect the attitude the Polish people have; the Polish people are maily anti-abortion, practising Catholics, anti gay marriage and for execution; so is PIS; they merly reprsent the people and that is what democracy is about; DEMOCRACY IS NOT ABOUT ALLOWING LIBERALS TO HAVE THEIR WAY BUT WHAT THE PEOPLE WHAT- AND IN POLANFD LOIBERALS ARE A SMALL MINORITY.

"It happened under foreign occupation, sure, but it happened on Polish territory." What's your point? Territory? Second World War? It's over man and has nothing to do with! Nevertheless I agree that attitude to homosexuals should be mentioned clearly. But I can't pass over such inappriopriate argumentation with silence... PolishMan 21, November 2005

Warschauer 02:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Unless a complete, detailed description of a broad base of PiS's platform is created, continuing concentration on one smaller aspect is inapropriate.Trilemma 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

So feel free to add the other parts of its platform. From what i've heard, PiS claims it will do a lot to defend social human rights which people have had since the communist epoch, even while it opposes individual human rights. Feel free to find the primary (or secondary) sources and collect and organise the information from them. Boud 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm absolutely shocked on how little information is put in the party's political program. Other parties, like the demokraci, have so much written on them, but that party barely got any vote. It would be like not talking about the Democrats but a lot of information on the Green Party of USA. Viktor

Hi. I'll leave the editing to others. Check this out - an official English summary of PiS's policies. http://www.pis.org.pl/dokumenty/PiS_Press_Release.pdf

Just a quick note for the paragraphs below: PiS refers to Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice), and PO refers to Platforma Obywatelska (The Citizen's Platform aka Civic Platform)

I would also encourage editors to treat suggestions that this party is socialist with scepticism. Their proposition to scrap the 40% upper tax band, reduce the lower one by 1% to 18% and progressively reduce the 32% middle band to 28% is quite a radical reduction in taxes. They also want to gradually reduce the upper VAT level from the current 22%. One should expect a certain degree of social spending from a centre-right party. They also support privatisation, which has been considered an overwhelming failure by many Poles. This can hardly be called socialist, and this was probably a media overreaction to their opposition to the 15% flat tax of the Citizen's Platform, which was favoured by the media, and, in addition, PiS's electoral campaign, which did play on the fears of ordinary Poles WRT the proposition of the rival party to scrap most forms of tax relief.

They have a program called "Tanie Państwo" which literally means "Cheap State." It is summarised as "ograniczenie wydatków na administację państwową, rządową i samorządową," lit. "the reduction of state, government and local government administration expenditures." PiS considers the government bureaucracy to be extensive, inefficient and corrupt and proposes, among other things, a 20% reduction in employment in the administration.

This party also portrays itself as fiercely anti-communist and purportedly wants to reduce the role that former communist special service agents play in the state.

There are also two viewpoints with regard to why coalition talks collapsed. On the one hand, PO supporters and the vast majority of media suggest that this was due to the incompatibility of the two parties' programs WRT social spending, and in addition due to the triumphalism and inability to compromise of the winning party, while PiS supporters and a small number of right wing media outlets are keen to remind the reader that PO was offered half of all government posts and that the whole thing collapsed over MSWiA (the ministry of internal affairs and administration) - something neither party would compromise on. They suspect that this was because PO wanted to keep the current special service elite in place.

Like I said, I'll let others do the editing. There is quite a lot of controversy regarding the elections in Poland, and I'd suggest the authors be as neutral as possible. I tried to represent more of PiS's take on things above, since I think that that POV is underrepresented. I hope that this'll be useful and will help y'all. Michael

[edit] International Comparison

It was a good idea to provide an international comparison for the party, but whoever keeps editing it back to say that the PiS is similar to the German CSU or the Austrian OVP should stop putting their subjective judgment into a neutral article. The PiS is certainly more to the left on economic issues than the German CSU and Austrian OVP, and certainly further to the right on cultural issues than both these parties. The European Parliament allows parties across Europe with similar political programs to group together, and so the most neutral thing to say is simply that the PiS is affiliated through the Union for a Europe of Nations (UEN) with parties such as Italy's Alleanza Nazionale.

It was a good idea to mention its european parliament affiliation, but that edit also ended up incorrect − for example PiS is not "anti-EU" at all (although other members of the UEN are), although it appears to have reservations about details in the way the EU runs. I've tried to put your comparison of differences with the CSU and OVP in, but PiS's economic policies differ in various ways from them depending on the topic (left or right), so it's hard to make a blanket statement. Deuar 11:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention was not to say that the PiS is the SAME as OVP or CSU, but only MOST SIMILAR. I am aware of the differences, although I don't really think that they are so big to write about them. Alleanza Nazionale is a party with neo-fascist past, so I would be reluctant to compare it to Law and Justice. And, last but not least, i'm not sure if you could say about a party which wants to decrease taxes, continue privatization, and diminish bureaucracy, that it has centre-left stance on fiscal issues. Ammon86 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ammon86, Poland's recent history and the political landscape in and against which PiS defines itself is so very different from that of Germany and Austria, that comparisons with any parties in those countries create more confusion than they could possibly explain. --Thorsten1 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that comparison to CSU and OVP parties is accurate, for few reasons: first, both PiS and these parties are socially conservative in such cases as abortion and same-sex marriage; all three are centrist or possibly even centre-left on fiscal issues, and all of these parties base on Social Magisterium of the Catholic Church in their policies. And besides, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the Law and Justice, when asked in interview to polish quarterly Nowe Państwo (New State) in 10.01.2006, to which european party the PiS could be compared, replied that his party is situating somewhere between german CDU and CSU parties, and also, it has some resemblances to OVP. But he stated that these are only analogies. You can look at this interview (in polish) here: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1305686,2677,1,1,kioskart.html Ammon86 08:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In Sweden the Moderate Party "emphasises personal freedom, free markets, privatisation and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party emphasises issues such as actions against crime, lower taxes, a strong defence and quality in the education system". You can also say 90% of these things about the Law and Justice. The Moderate Party is considered centrist party on fiscal issues, but the PiS, with similar programme, you consider as centre-left. Please write some justification. Ammon86 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ammon86, but your sweeping comparisons with CSU and OVP don't hold any water. Let me point you to some decisive differences. Both the CDU and its regional version CSU, as well as the OVP have histories spanning the entire post-war history of their respective countries and are mainstays of the party landscape. They are also volksparteien, i.e. they represent the interests and enjoy the support of large parts of the electorate, typically reaching around 40 per cent of the votes with turnouts around 80%. Their existence is independent of any charismatic leaders, in fact they have produced several generations of leaders.

PiS, on the other hand, was formed as recently as 2001, is totally focused on the appeal of its two identical founding fathers, and has yet to prove it is more than a temporary phenomenon in Poland's ever changing right-wing political landscape. PiS is characterized by an aggressive, populist affect against the entire political establishment, something which is totally absent from both the CDU/CSU and the OVP, and quite logically so, since they are very much part of the political establishment. By the same token, PiS represents an isolationist, resentment-ridden foreign policy which cannot be found in any of the parties you cite. Also, PiS lacks the broad electoral support of CDU/CSU and OVP, having achieved roughly a quarter of the votes with a turn-out representing less than half of the potential electorate. You cite the issues of abortion and same-sex marriages; you will probably not find any centrist or right-of-center party in Europe that would support these. However, their rejection is a very low-key issue for the German and Austrian conservatives. There is an official homosexual comitee in the CDU/CSU, which even advocates adoption for same-sex couples; Hamburg's mayor, of the CDU, is known to be gay. This is in complete contrast to PiS, which tends to make the rejection of all things homosexual some kind of political touchstone.

With your superficial "evidence", PiS will actually look "similar" to almost any major conservative/liberal/right-of-center party in Western Europe, in which case there's no point at all in singling out the CSU, ÖVP, or the Moderate Party. However, taking a slightly closer look, PiS turns out to be decisively different from any of those parties, due to its different political environment, its voter demographic, its internal structure, its underlying ideology etc. Finally, your source doesn't prove anything at all, except maybe for Kaczyński's wishful thinking. I can well believe that he hopes his party will have a future similar to the parties of Western mainstream conservatism, but that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. BTW, Kaczynski has alway stressed his ignorance about all things German, so he is hardly qualified to make any such comparisons with CDU or CSU. Quite apart from that, being (or striving to be) a neutral encyclopedia, we must not base our descriptions of politicians and parties on what they describe themselves as, but what independent observers describe them as. Therefore, it might still be acceptable to quote Kaczynski's self-comparison with a proper reference, but we absolutely musn't present it as an objectively true fact the way you're trying to. --Thorsten1 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You said that one of the major differences between PiS and parties like CDU/CSU or OVP is that PiS don’t have as big voter support as these parties. In the Netherlands, CDA, a party which is very similar to german CDU, in last three elections received results around 27-28% - almost the same as PiS in 2005 polish parliamentary elections.

CDU at the beginning of its existance based heavily on personality of Konrad Adenauer.

PiS has a very strong “law and order” stance, typical for right-wing parties in coutries tackling with heavy corruption, so it’s natural that it’s anti-establishment, because polish establishment is more similar to russian or italian (before the Mani Pulite, or Clean Hands, action) than, for example american. Proof – the Rywin affair.

Now, issues of abortion and same-sex marriage – I suppose that you have little knowledge about european right, because many major right-wing or centre-right parties on this continent are socially liberal on both of these things. Examples are: british Conservative Party, swedish Moderate Party, dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy or Conservative Party of Norway. So it is not a common thing for a european right-wing party, and that’s why I’ve made a comparison to CSU and OVP when talking about these issues.

You wrote that “PiS tends to make the rejection of all things homosexual some kind of political touchstone”. Well, I could agree that this party defends the traditional definition of marriage and is against promotion of LGBT ideology, but you are going too far in your statement. Kaczynski stated in few interviews that he is against discrimination and violence towards people of different sexual orientation.

I would disagree that PiS has different voter demographics, than for example, the CSU, which has a strong support in the rural parts of Bavaria, or dutch CDA, which is “mainly supported by religious voters (...). These tend to live in rural areas and tend to be elderly.”

Now, I repeat that I am aware of the differences between the PiS and these parties which I included in comparison. But I believe it is a good idea to make such thing. Look at the articles about dutch political parties, from which the idea was borrowed – almost every major party has International Comparison section. And I think it is helpful in describing them :) Ammon86 07:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. Hence, I have added that template at the top. As background: This is a very mainstream political party which gathered about 27% of the votes in recent elections, and apparently has even higher support in opinion polls now.

However, in this article we find e.g.:

• Reference to a weird fringe website which appears to be a purveyor of amateur theories. I read the news every day here in Warsaw, they love attacking politicians, but I have never heard of any involvement by some IRI from the US.
• While PiS are clearly not supporters of the gay movement, this is really a very minor issue in their political program, if it's there at all. It does not deserve 2/3 of the Political program section. They talk about the usual -- creating more jobs, dealing with a falling birthrate, combatting corruption, etc. Get real, people!
  • So please add some NPOV facts on their claims of creating more jobs, contributing to overpopulation, combatting corruption etc. There are some comments above to help you get started. Boud 00:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Boud for putting those headings in. I wish someone who actually supports them (and hence, cares enough) would fill them in. Otherwise i'll eventually feel I have to get off my butt and find out. Groan. Deuar 13:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, here, I'm not a fan of PiS in any respect, and would never vote for them (don't you vote for them either! ;-)), but the bizzare impression I get from reading this article is that its a smear campaign against Poland rather than a factual article. Deuar 18:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRI

i have written the IRI reference as:

which, according to the US federal government funded International Republican Institute (IRI), had been to a large degree organised by the IRI [1].

Deuar: i suggest you read the IRI's own claims for having largely organised the AWS: http://www.iri.org/countries.asp?id=8369274321 Have a look through their web site. It is not just some IRI, it is a USA federal budget funded institution involved in regime change around the world. Whether this method of regime change is good or bad is a POV. The fact that the IRI (and the Democrats' NDI) is involved in regime change, or from its point of view, promotion of democracy, i.e. funding center-right political parties, is an NPOV fact. Boud 00:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I've read that weppage. Honestly, I found it extremely anglo-centric (US-centric?), and seemingly set up as an advertisement for reading by the IRI's funding sources. If I was some clueless american, I could be forgiven for thinking the IRI was doing all the work, and the Polish politicians were just along for the ride. Note also how there's no mention of anything that happened after 1997. Maybe the AWS is still happily governing away?

In any case, the whole issue if IRI involvement does not belong in the introductory paragraph:

• It's not even about PiS, but the AWS, and concerns a time period (up to 1997) when PiS was either nonexistent, or still irrelevant to the political scene.
• Introductory paragraphs are meant to give defining characteristics of a topic. IRI involvement would not be a defining characteristic even if its support was significant and ongoing, or even if we were talking about the AWS.
• As a case in point, note how the IRI is given more priority in this PiS article than even in the (more relevant) AWS article. Claims of its importance are also more inflated here. Compare the ludicrous "... to a large degree orgainzed by ..." with "played a major role in uniting".

I would be inclined to remove the IRI comments altogether, but in the interests of avoiding reverts etc., i'm moving them lower down. Deuar 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

When the militarily most powerful country on this planet sets up organisations to get involved in the national politics of other countries, i hardly think that is irrelevant to the political scene. It may not be widely known, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is exaggerated.

• i do not see how you can claim that IRI involvement was not a defining characteristic - if the diverse right-wing parties had not found a way to get together, then they would never have got into power at all.
• I could be forgiven for thinking the IRI was doing all the work, and the Polish politicians were just along for the ride: getting a diverse range of small political parties to work together when everyone's struggling for power and probably many of them still, deep down, have some ideals is necessarily something difficult. An organisation which can bring in big bucks, people doing strategic opinion polls, people skilled in political manipulation of all sorts, people experienced in manipulating, whoops, talking to the media, and you can get these small parties to unite. That doesn't mean that the Polish politicians were just along for the ride: they certainly wanted power, but they were willing to accept US budget funded political strategy advice in order to get to power.

i'm putting the reference into the history section. It is not trivial when the militarily most powerful country on this planet sets up organisations to get involved in the national politics of other countries and then those organisations actually do get involved in those national politics. Boud 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] structure of the page

Attitude to homosexuals' political and job rights and Government Representative for the Equal Status of Women and Men are not criticisms of PiS: they are a list of things that happened and/or were stated, which show parts of PiS' political program - whether or not they show PiS as good or bad is a PoV. The fact that they are actions by Kaczyński and by PiS are NPOV facts. Boud 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation and major edit

With the aim of making this article less lopsided, i'm in the process of translating the information in the more extensive article from the Polish wikipedia. Also, I have moved the existing part on policies regarding gay and equal opportunity rights to its own section. The aim of that move is to achieve a general review of topics in the "political program" section (balanced with respect to completeness), without removing the coverage of the particular issues which have attracted so much attention in the english language article. Deuar 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A ja bede muwił po wiejskiej odmianie polskiego: PiS najlepszoł partioł jest (na drugim miejscu som: LPR i Samoobrona)

[edit] "Conservative"

Describing the PiS as "conservative" is simply misleading, as the party advocates very different policies from those of conservative parties of Europe, including aggressive nationalism, homophobia and anti-semitism - it clearly has close ties to the anti-semitic broadcaster Radio Maryja. I would compare the PiS to the NPD of Germany rather than the conservative CDU.

It is more appropriate to describe it as nationalist, and obviously anti-semitic connections should not be erased from the article. Skruee 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The label "conservative" is certainly too weak and too vague - the Civic Platform (PO) is conservative, too, resembling the German CDU more closely. Also, PiS is nationalist, at least by West European standards, and its homophobia can hardly be denied, either. However, it has never been foolish enough to style itself as anti-Semitic - in contrast to its brandnew bedfellows in the League of Polish Families, which more closely resembles the conventional nationalist parties in West European countries. PiS received considerable support from the (among other things) fiercely anti-Semitic Radio Maryja. This must be seen in its pre-election context, when Radio Maryja mobilised its listenership against PiS's more liberal, poll-leading rival PO. But that fact alone does not make the party anti-Semitic. One can call PiS many things, with varying degrees of justification, including but not limited to "conservative", "populist", "pro-welfare state", "intolerant", "homopobhic", "anti-German", "anti-Russian", "anti-European", "anti-liberal" - you name it. But branding it "anti-Semitic" is implying too much. Last but not least, it would also trivialise real anti-Semitic forces. I hope we can agree on a description that doesn't hide any of the charges being made against this party, but doesn't raise new ones, either. --Thorsten1 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that someone advocates anti-semitism is pretty serious. As such, it requires correspondingly serious evidence. None has been presented so far, and unless someone finds such evidence, the article shouldn't make unsupported claims of this sort. Please see WP:V. Furthermore, even if true, this sort of statement does not belong in the introduction of an encyclopedic article. Please see WP:NPOV, especially "Let the facts speak about themselves", explaining why the Hitler article does not start with "Hitler was a bad man..." Deuar 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"aggressive nationalism, homophobia and anti-semitism" can be described as pretty conservative traits. EvilEuropean (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2001 cat added

I think a political party is a "long lasting" phenomenon so adding a particular year category is somehow misleading. I guess you meant the creation of the party. Still, the qualification is doubious for me. I could elaborate on it. But let me simply suggest that maybe a "long lasting" category would suit better ("XXI century" or so)? Personally, I'd refrain from even giving this cat - as it is not clear now whether Law and Justice (or any other party) is relevant enough to this. Best, --Beaumont (@) 12:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far-Left?

Could any one provide any academic references and soruces to the PiS characterization as far-left, before he or she reinserts this categorization. C mon 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to label PiS as far-left party, and nobody, neither supporters nor opponents would do so. It's just a plain vandalism... Ammon86 11:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn´t any vandalism. It gives a clear definition of "anti-german" from german "Verfassungsschutz", which fulfil PiS. And the "Verfassungsschutz" tells, that "anti-german" is far-left. Deutscher Patriot 13:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not making much sense. What "gives a clear definition ..."? I have to say this is the first time I've heard that "anti-german" means far-left. This is a pretty bizzare statement. On the side, I should also point out that neither PiS nor any notable member of it is particularly anti-german anyway. They have an exaggerated issue with the Prussian Claims Society, but that's about it. Deuar 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't care how you prove that the PiS is far left (although this proof seems non-sensical, none of the relations in "PiS=anti-german=far left" hold.) as long as you prove it: can you find an academic or journalistic reference for it. C mon

[edit] Political program section is out of date

This whole section and its subsections are getting out of date. They seem to have been written in the heat of the moment soon after PiS formed government about a year ago. Also, the Social issues subsection is pretty embarassing for a serious encyclopedia. It covers only a tiny fragment of relevant issues, and the choice of what topics were covered suffers from a painfully obvious political lean. Deuar 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. The economic section needs to be rewritten to reflect what the party is actually doing, which is very different from its pre-election rhetorics. PiS is neither leftist or rightist. It's simultaneously hostile to both big businesses and labor unions. Basically the party just wants to maximize its control over the economy. Balcerowicz put it best, I think: PiS are "conservative marxists or anti-communist communists." It's hard to convey this paradox without sounding too critical. --Chernyshevsky 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that you have the right to have any opinion about this party or about actions of PiS-led government, I must remind you that this is encyclopedia, and as such it shouldn't reflect anybody's political views, but instead it should be objective to highest possible degree. To say that PiS are "conservative marxists or anti-communist communists" is just a weak political propaganda with no connection to reality. I see no signs of marxist thinking in their programme or policy. Frankly, they are quite liberal on many economic issues, such as tax decreases or continuation of privatization. Milton Friedman once said, when commenting tranformation of eastern european nations that "It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatization. Privatization is meaningless if you don't have the rule of law." That is what PiS is trying to do. Implement the rule of law in Poland, for example in privatization, which they are doing via stock exchange, not through tenders, where there were many possibilities of corruption. They also implemented many other anti-corruption policies, and that is the main reason they receive so much hatred from polish "elites", talking about PiS wanting to "maximize its control over the economy". Ammon86 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, those are not my words. If you are going to dismiss Balcerowicz's criticism as having no "connection to reality", then I really don't know what to say. We're talking about a man who was credited with creating the current economic reality in Poland in the first place. --83.7.176.68 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that all (if any) of his political diagnosis are accurate, and that he is not making mistakes. He may be not a bad economist, but that doesn't mean that he cannot get driven by emotions in his judgements. Ammon86 09:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] national conservatism or conservatism

Regarding recent edits of infobox as to whether the party should be considered conservatives or national conservatives. In the National conservative article:

... a type of conservatism which is mainly concerned with promoting nationalist feelings, as well as upholding cultural and ethnic identity. 

Note the word "mainly" which was italicised here by me. PiS is not mainly concerned with these issues, although as we know they do form some significant part of their attitude, sure. The above definition is well applicable to the League of Polish Families, though.

Please do not suppose that you can get a balanced view of the internal politics of some country by reading a couple of random foreign media articles. They understandably concentrate only on those few things which will be unusual, shocking, or otherwise of interest to overseas people who mostly care nothing about local Polish issues. Normal everyday issues are alomst never covered in such articles, although they form the bulk of the politics of mainstream parties, among them the "Law and Justice" party. Deuar 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think that Law and Justice is a national-conservative party as Italy's National Alliance, which is fairly more moderate, is. The definition of national conservatism in that page can be incorrect, but PiS is definitely national-conservative, as stated also in Parties and Elections. PiS is not such a conservative party for Polish standards, but here we need to attain ourselves to European standars. Moreover, PiS is member of the Alliance for Europe of the Nations. --Checco 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, PiS is national conservative by the above definition, similar to the National Alliance in Italy, as Checco has stated. —Nightstallion 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of Checco's points appear to be valid. I looks like the definition over at national conservatism (that I mentioned above) is what is in the wrong. I'm not sure how well informed parties-and-elections.de is, but I note that here where they define their categories, "national-conservative" is not properly defined, rather given as a variant of "conservative". Presumably, it is meant to denote parties that concentrate a bit more on national interests, as they put it, than your standard "conservative" party. The definition over at national conservatism is rather a definition of plain nationalism, and should be amended. Deuar 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As the definition in national conservatism's article was emended correctly by Deaur, can we define PiS as national-conservative now? --Checco 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye! —Nightstallion 11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the definition of PiS as a national-conservative party. Italian National Alliance is a party which origin is neo-fascism, and was stained with anti-Semitism and generally was rather radical party. On the opposite, PiS predecessor was the Centre Agreement (Porozumienie Centrum), centrist and christian democratic party. PiS definitely is not an anti-semitic party as many of its leaders are people of Jewish heritage (eg. deputy prime minister Dorn or minister Wasserman). PiS main concern is not "upholding national identity" but fight with corruption. Their stance in foreign politics is of course much more decisive than that of previous polish governments, but decisive foreign politics isn't anything unusual for conservative parties. Margaret Thatcher fought very fiercely for position of her country in the EU, and strongly emphasised patriotism eg. during Falkands war and after it (before 1983 elections), but nobody defined her and her party as national-conservative. Ammon86 16:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid points also. Now I don't know much about "national conservatism" - never heard of the term before this discussion here, but neither anti-semitism nor fascism are menitoned anywhere in its WP article. Is their lack or presence relevant? For example in that article, we have Likud listed, which obviously never had anything to do with anti-semitism or fascism.

The more I follow this thread, the more it seems to me that the national conservatism article is in poor shape, and possibly approaching some sort of own research. At first glance it has some references, but upon closer inspection, they're just newspaper cuttings about tangential topics. No sources about the meaning of the term or about political systems as such. I think it's clear PiS are conservatives and christian democrats, perhaps we should just leave it at that. Certainly, removing national conservatism is what should be done if the term carries implications of fascism or anti-semitism in english. Deuar 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that "national conservatism" carries, that kind of connotation -- unless Ammon has got a source for that, I sincerely question that idea. National conservatism would indeed have been an apt description of Thatcher's politics, if you ask me. —Nightstallion 13:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am only against comparing PiS to parties like Alleanza Nazionale, parties with fascist and anti-semitic past. I'm not really sure if such term like national conservatism really exist, and I agree with Deuar that it looks more like some own research than scientific term, and in my opinion it is mainly used to create negative association of some conservative parties with national socialism. Nevertheless, if it exists, I see no reason to define PiS as national conservative party, as they emphasize patriotism, but certainly not nationalism. Ammon86 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed national conservatism is not nationalism and AN is a very moderate party compared to PiS, despite its past. Remember also that AN is the strongest supporter of Israel in Italy. National conservatism does not carry any fascist connotation: simply a national-conservative party is a conservative party emphasizing patriotism, social conservatism and the welfare state, instead of being a staunch supporter of economical liberalism as normally conservatives are. --Checco 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, PiS is also lukewarm about economic liberalism, indeed. Are you sure about "AN is a very moderate party compared to PiS", though? Now I can't say for sure because I know almost nothing about AN, but I wonder if you might be lumping the until-recently coalition partners League of Polish Families and Samoobrona with PiS in that? Deuar 09:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AEN is a very loose group (launched by very moderate-conservative and economically liberal Fianna Fail, but, anyway, AN is trying to enter in the EPP. On the issues, AN supports strongly US, Israel and European integration, it is economically liberal (but less than Forza Italia, though) and its leader Fini is a supporter of stem cell research and civil unions. The party is anyway national-conservative because of its strong patriotism and its mixed record in the economy (sometimes liberal, sometimes statist). What is sure is that AN is more centrist compared with PiS. --Checco 14:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And AN is also a very against death penalty and many of its core supporters are criticizing it for its "too moderate" views. There were even various splits by hardline groups. --Checco 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal criticism

"Human Rights Watch, for instance, called a government proposal to ban discussions of homosexuality in school a threat to basic rights." That is correct, but you should remember that this article is about Law and Justice party, and that proposal came from deputy education minister Mirosław Orzechowski, whose party is League of Polish Families, so it is inappropriate to put this on account of PiS.

"Reporters Without Borders, in its annual report, noted the governing party's intolerance of criticism and the privilege it grants to Radio Maryja..." Where in this raport do you see any notion about giving them "privileges"? In case of "intolerance of criticism", it was one case when they reacted on offence from die Tageszeitung, so this sentence is gravely exaggerated.

"The press freedom organization became especially alarmed in the Summer of 2007, when revelations about alleged wiretapping of journalists by the special service began to surface". That's right - alleged... These accusations came from Janusz Kaczmarek, former communist party (PZPR) member, trained as a political officer during communist rule in Poland, who was proven lying when testifying under oath, when he was accused of taking part in a leak about an anti-corruption operation against another former communist party member, Andrzej Lepper. He started to accuse government about these things just after when he was sacked from his post as interior minister under the charges of warning Lepper about the operation. He concealed informations about his communist past before prime minister and president, which were revealed only recently. Second person who was mentioned in the the reference when talking about alleged wiretaping was Sylwester Latkowski, journalist of post-communist weekly Polityka, in which few persons of editorial team were proven to be former agents of secret police during the time of PRL.

"The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights is a frequent critic of the party's policies. It has challenged government's actions on numerous occasions, on issues ranging from freedom of assembly, reproductive rights, and the rights of the accused..." - in case of freedom of assembly, it was about cancelling few Gay Pride Parades due to security concerns (possible clashes with far-right organizations); reproductive rights - it is euphemism which means abortion, and it is a scandal that this organization is using a cover of fighting for Human Rigths in order to impose left-wing agenda to its member countries; rights of the accused - is suggests that situation in Poland is similar to that of Putin's Russia - trials with no right to defence, imprisonment of political oponents etc. but the truth is that this accusations of breaking "rights of the accused" was in the case of doctor who was accused of fifty criminal offences and killing his patient, for which he was arrested.

"According to Reporters Without Borders, in 2006 Poland was ranked lowest of the then 25 EU members in their worldwide press freedom ranking, due to the perceived considerable institutional pressure exerted by those in power on the news media" - well i would say that situation is rather opposite, as before 2005 there was a considerable institutional pressure on centre-right and right-wing newspapers, and very few journalist of right-wing views were invited to the public television. Now situation is more balanced; of course, sometimes there are sharp verbal skirmishes between government figures and some journalist (mostly left-wing), but this is only rhetorics.

"In an editorial written following the arrest of an opposition figure, Adam Michnik, the editor-in-chief and dissident during communist times, said that he no long feel safe in Poland. "The Rubicon has been crossed; the Rubicon separating a law-governed democracy from the country of a creeping coup d'etat," he wrote." That "opposition figure" was Janusz Kaczmarek, who was accused of (and proven) of hindering of corruption trial. Adam Michnik is misusing his position of former dissident to attack his political opponents in foreign press. A former trotskyist, as an editor-in-chief he often used his Gazeta Wyborcza (until recently) dominant position on newspaper market to destroy many right-wing politicians with very unfavourable articles, and giving them no right to reply on Wyborcza's pages. If we would seek a person in polish political life who is showing signs of "intolerance of criticism", that person would be Adam Michnik, who files a lawsuits against almost everyone who dares to criticize him in public. His words about "creeping coup d'etat" were simply a lie, but the problem is that his statements in foreign media are rarely balanced by journalists and politicians of opposite political views.

"Former president Lech Wałęsa has called for the arrest of the Kaczyński brothers. "They have broken so many laws, they deserve to go to jail." Commenting on the increasing authoritarian methods the PiS government, the former leader of the Solidarity Movement said that "they are ready to impose martial martial law" to order to hold onto power." Former president Wałęsa is known of making numerous gaffes in his comments, and there are not many people in Poland who are taking them serious. He is not anyone significant in contemporary polish politics, and while he may have played a significant role in defeating communism in Poland, it turned out after '89 that he was a politician who was (and unfortunately still is) often driven by personal animosities in his judgments, and case of Kaczyński government isn't an exception.

This whole section is very biased and defamatory, and it's intention was to describe PiS as very authoritarian and undemocratic party... It is something normal to criticize politicians, but in Wikipedia we should write only about criticism which can be taken serious, and we should write about it in such a way to avoid any bias, no matter left- or right-wing. Ammon86 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it certainly suffers heavily from undue weight, like most sections of this type wikipedia-wide. I won't be crying for it if it is removed. There are so many more factual things that could fill out the article instead of this joyful creation. Deuar 22:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it should be removed, but everyone should be informed why, otherwise we would probably have another senseless edit war... Ammon86 11:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about removing those parts. --Checco 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because the critics of PiS do paint the party as authoritarian and undemocratic. Just because you think their criticisms are unjustified and biased doesn't mean the world should be igorant for them. Chernyshevsky 11:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I will revert your edit because, as you see, we are 3 against 1 on this. In Wikipedia decision are not taken democratically but through consensus, and your positions has definitely less support than ours. Sorry. --Checco 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of these sections means a misrepresentation of the actual situation. No objective observer of Poland would say that the party is only criticized for its views on homosexuality and the death penalty. Were these issues the reason Vaclav Havel called for elections with independent observers? No. The most salient criticism is that the actions and policies of PiS are damaging democracy in Poland. It's a view that's echoed through out the Western press. Chernyshevsky 07:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I unnderstand your criticism, but I think that you *should* respect consensus. --Checco 11:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Either we present all criticisms, or we present none. To imply that PiS is criticized mainly for its conservativism is to tell a lie.

As this section in its entirety concerns PiS in power, it'll cease to be relevant should the party loses the elections. I would not object to its complete removal in such a case. Chernyshevsky 11:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus. I've nothing to say more. --Checco 11:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And please do not remove my comments in talk page, as you did before. --Checco 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing old stuff

As PiS is ceasing to be the governing party in Poland, a lot of stuff in the article is no longer pertinent. The party's attitude towards homosexuals mattered greatly when it could force through laws unfavorable towards them. Now that it's removed, I see little reason to detail every occasion where Kaczynski &co displayed their homofobia. Chernyshevsky 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We can shorten that section if you want, but I am strongly against removing the whole thing. --Checco 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason to have a separate section on the party's views on homosexuality. They can be summed up in a single sentence: they're against gay marriage and dissemination of information about homosexuality. The section about equality opportunity should be cut too, as it doesn't really say anything. Chernyshevsky 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what's the problem. --Checco 11:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a difficulty articulating your "strong objection." If you see a reason we should accentuate the anti-homosexual character of the PiS's ideology, please state it. --Chernyshevsky 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to accentuate anything, I only say that the current version is good for me. --Checco 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good for you? Your personal preference has nothing to do with the merit of the passage. --Chernyshevsky 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is balanced, well-written and worthy of a citation. --Checco 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)