In every democratic political system the fundamental power belongs to citizens. Full access to information is the base of democracy. Mass media should fulfill the important role to inform society about politics, state policy and political institution. The fundamental thesis of this article is the following: the role of media in Polish democratic political system, especially in Polish civil society, is for democracy and civil society rather more negative (destructive) than positive (constructive). Author argues that non-dialogical nature, aggressive attacks of governors, journalists non professionalism and political party options cause that polish media more destruct than build democracy and civil society. Party engagement moved Polish medias from area of civil society to area of political power subsystem. This is a serious challenge for media, democracy and civil society. This state may be interpreted as evolving new type of democracy, democracy without social capital. I prefer to interpret it as democracy in danger, as cripplehood of democracy. Maybe, it is natural state of each political system.
Leadership is a very special social relation not only of power but of mutual needs, aspirations, values, etc. Leadership strengthens managers and politicians in their roles. Organizational and political leadership is treated as effectively strengthening the power of managers and politicians. This is the positive side of leadership. On the other hand, organizational and political leadership is in crisis. Many leaders failed. Real leaders are more and more rare. The author argues that leadership — either organizational or political — is non-democratic in its essence. So-called democratic leaders are such especially because their followers blindly identify distinctive leadership roles and qualities. Leaders’ followers are non-criticized. More leadership means more dependency and less autonomy. Most distinguished political leaders (for example: Charles de Gaulle, Józef Piłsudski, Jawaharlal Nehru) and most distinguished managers (for example: Henry Ford, John Rockefeller, William Gates) are the worst possible symbols of democracy.
Michał Kulesza, Jerzy Regulski, and Jerzy Stępień are three co-authors of polish self-government reform (1990 – 1998). The author of the article searches their roles as experts as well as politicians in shaping self-government system. Final conclusion is as follows: although they were “scientific owners” of the problem, their important part in resolving it was more political (bureaucratic) than professional. The matter of their professional role was generally out of question. Practically, the most difficult task was not the shape of future self-government system but the implementation of it. Key in resolving this problem was the political position of aforementioned co-authors, their participation in bureaucratic power, and openness for lobbying. It is a meaningful lesson for the future reformers, each and every one of them.
In this article we take on the issue of territorial division of the state. Under consideration are practical rather than theoretical aspects of such division. The fundamental thesis is as follows: practical utility of the appropriate division is very often sacrificed for the satisfaction of those who occupy positions in the administrative structures. It is no accident that in 1990, when self-government communes were appointed, their number increased (in comparison with the number of communes before self-government reform). The organizational units of less than a minimum size should not be created, and the entire organizational performance in creating organizational structures should be a minimalist action. This principle, which derives from management sciences, seems to be forgotten in Polish territorial division.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.