Poland has a new president – and he was endorsed by Trump
A Polish president isn’t like a US president. He doesn’t run the country; there’s also a prime minister, and the Polish prime minister right now is Donald Tusk, the pro-EU leftist/liberal head of state. But the new Polish president, Karol Nawrocki, will have enough power to put the brakes on some of Tusk’s agenda:
Europe’s Liberal elites woke up to a shock on Monday morning as Poland’s Conservative candidate Karol Nawrocki defeated his left-wing rival in a nail-biting finish.
“Nawrocki won 50.9% percent of the votes – ahead of Warsaw’s liberal mayor Rafal Trzaskowski on 49.1% percent,” the BBC reported. …
Nawrocki is expected to promote Christian values and push back against wokism, media fears. Leftist candidate “Trzaskowski, a pro-EU progressive, backed abortion law liberalisation and civil partnerships for LGBTQ+ couples,” British newspaper The Guardian reported. “Nawrocki, who espouses conservative Catholic values, would probably veto any government attempt to implement such moves.”
It’s a curious system; at least, I find it curious. Here’s an explanation of the powers of a Polish president:
The president jointly exercises the executive power together with the Council of Ministers headed by the prime minister. The president has a right to dissolve both chambers of parliament in certain cases determined by the constitution, can veto legislation, represents the Republic on the international stage, and is the commander-in-chief of the nation’s Armed Forces.
Vetoes can be overturned by a 3/5 vote of parliament.
And the prime minister? What’s left for him to do?:
Article 148 of the constitution stipulates that the prime minister shall act as the representative of the cabinet as a whole, delegate its agendas, coordinate the work of ministers, ensure the implementation of policy adopted by the cabinet, and issue regulations. Additionally, the prime minister acts as the superior of all civil servants.
But then this article says Nawrocki’s role will be largely ceremonial. Of course, it’s the BBC, but that doesn’t mean they’re incorrect:
Poland’s president-elect Karol Nawrocki is taking up a largely ceremonial role, but his impact on the country’s politics in the next five years may be profound. …
Poland’s president has limited influence on foreign and defence policy, but can propose and veto bills. Tusk’s government lacks a big enough parliamentary majority to overturn a presidential veto.
The outgoing conservative president, Andrzej Duda, has used his blocking powers and the threat of using them to prevent the prime minister from delivering on many of his key campaign promises.
If you can fully understand that, I’m impressed. I don’t see how someone can have a “largely ceremonial” role and also a big impact on politics and a veto power, as well as being commander-in-chief.
“I don’t see how someone can have a “largely ceremonial” role and also a big impact on politics and a veto power, as well as being commander-in-chief.”
Forget it, Jake. It’s the BBC.
Was he actually endorsed by Trump or was their some expression of affinity for Trump or by Trump?
==
The rap on Tusk has been that his object has been to make use of the prosecutor’s office to abuse the political opposition. Not sure if that’s true or not, but given the behavior of globalist elements in one occidental country after the other, it’s a plausible charge.
Whatever his constitutional power(s), he has high visibility and can affect public opinion which might translate to politics.
Most EU democracies have a split Head of state President, along with a Prime Minister who is the head of the current government. With Prime Ministers being more, or far more powerful than the President. Especially at getting new laws, new powers of the govt, new taxes, new govt benefits.
The BBC is wrong about it being mostly ceremonial, but right that it is weaker, or much weaker, than the Prime Mister. Closer to an elected, temporary King, as in England, with limited legal power.
The threat and use of the veto is a strong conservative/ anti-change power.
Many multi-party Parliments, like Israel, require a majority to pass laws, so that a strong party has to ally with one or more weaker, minor parties in a coalition. Then, some crisis occurs, the coalition partners don’t agree on what to do, and the govt falls with unscheduled early elections. Like Slovakia.
Now that I’ve lived under both, I think the stability and predictability of the US system is better than the advantage of voting for a small party that is much closer to your ideal. The big US parties are pre-formed coalitions. So if the Black men split off from The Black voter block and vote Rep instead of Dem, it’s a bit like one coalition partner leaving the Dem govt.
Many in Slovakia think the Woke mind virus of the globalist elites of Anywhere folk who oppose borders is worse than Rusia’s aggression. The progressives are often strongly anti- Christian, tho also often not, tho most often supporting legal abortions in more cases ( later weeks). When being anti-woke is what makes one popular, what will actually be done seems far less certain.