You are absolutely right, maybe I should reformulate a bit. I think Poland would be in a much better position if we avoided those two years under Law and Justice rule. The only positive I can see in the, by all means, sad fact that we had to go through them is how it all ended, and maybe also how opposed people were even during these two years. I don’t think there were that many student marches and demonstrations since 1989, maybe apart from events, such as the support demonstrations for the Orange Revolution.

I was playing the devil’s advocate a bit in the previous posts cheers. K

Of course in relative terms we can make assumptions almost about everything. We could also say that Milosevic was good for the future of the individual republics of former Yugoslavia (which declared independence and now prosper or not). We could also say that the same Milosevic was beneficial to democracy in Serbia, since it mobilised people.

I’m just of the opinions that it’s better to have normal politics, without extremes, to run countries than having “adventures” like Kaczynski. But in very abstract and general terms I could agree with you, Kacper.

First of all – my paper will be value-free in terms of judging the death penalty or abortion. I just want to point out that the support for death penalty in Europe is a priority to be adressed by the governments. And avoiding the task is yet another proof of the democratic deficit in the EU.

Secondly – comparing Kaczynski to German skinheads or even to Le Pen is a big exageration. I think You should rethink the term ‘populism’, as it is used to name anything left or right from the speaker, a pejorative label without meaning. Then, if You would care to read me right, I said that in the Polish case a period of political insanity made large groups of the society more mobilised, aware and moved it towards a full blown ‘civil society’. I wrote that democracy ‘can benefit’, not that it always does. But then, I also think that where there is extremism, there should also appear a counter-force. If it doesn’t show up – that doesn’t say much good about a society.

There is always a trade-off between participatory democracy and ‘reason’, for sure. But as in the case of lynching – You have to protect the murderer from the mob, but not by pretending nothin happened, nor by shooting at the mob. It would also be useful to explain why extra-judicial killing (be it murder or lynch) is not acceptable (cause it clearly is not).

First, I think there are certain issues where responsible politicians should lead the debate, not follow the public opinion. Ask whether people would like to lynch someone that has killed 3 kids. For sure you will get 100% yes if you ask 1 day after it has been discovered. People would be even in favour of a public execution. I think you should re-think how you look at the issue and consider this in the paper.

Second, you claim that populism and extremism are good for democracy. This is a very dangerous statement. Is Vlaamsbelang beneficial to democracy in Belgium, is Le Pen beneficial in France, is JelinÄ?iÄ? beneficial for democracy in Slovenian (he received 20% at the last elections)? No, these are dangerous political actors. What do you think about youth Skinheads in Germany? Are they also welcome in the debate?

If the public demands something with 99% majority, this should not automatically become law. If yes, it’s time to leave that place.

they are rather limited, but I am looking for more. I know that even in Slovenia there were rightwing extremists calling for the restitution of capital punishment for pedophiles, but I am not saying that one can observe a ‘degeneration of democracy’ in Slovenia (especially after Turk’s election After surviving Kaczynski’s rule over the last 2 years I am quite convinced that populism and extremism can make democracy benefit – by mobilizing the society in protest and showing it that change is feasible. Sort of like vaccination

Once again – I am not a supporter of death penalty, but I am a fan of discussion and democracy. If in fact there are so many Europeans who do not feel death penalty is ‘wrong’, maybe the EU should launch some kind of campaign aimed to change that. And certainly it should not put the ‘value of the right to life’ on the pan-European banner. I just feel that this whole affair reeks of hypocrycy, and European heads of state wanting to feel better.

then the question of euthanasia and abortion. Euthanasia of the patient’s or family’s wn will is a private decision. But i the Netherlands it is also (in ‘extreme cases’) for the medical staff to decide if the patient will receive life support or not. How is that private? And then there is abortion which is all too complex for me. To be frank, I can’t say I have a firm point of view on it. All this debate about ‘when does the egg cell become a human being’ and ‘why can you kill it when its inside, and feel its murder once its outside’ is just too much.

And about the ‘anti something’ day. If Europe ever wanted to pressure China on Human Rights issues, it has plenty of instruments to do that. I can see Beijing trembling before the ‘European Day Against Death Penalty’, oh they are affraid. It would be quite cool if the majority of EU states helped Poland in pressuring the Belarussians and monitoring their HR situation, supporting the dissdents, better than trying to kill an elephant with a needle.

If a majority of EU citizens support death penalty, for which I don’t see any proof (if you have some relevant statistics, please post here), we have a problem. But the reaction of responsible politicians should not be to re-introduce death penalty, but rather make sure the sanctions regime is effective without it.

Then, I don’t see an immediate link between euthanasia and death penalty. One is supposed to be a free decision of an individual in extreme circumstances, the other is a type of punishment by the state i.e. enforced on an individual against his/her will.

I share the point on pointless “anti something” days, but perhaps death penalty is one of the less pointless…