Poland is a pretty young democracy. There are no strong democratic institutions, there isn't much faith in them and people are quite doubtful. After partitions Poland spent a few hundreds years off the map, at the time when many social changes were talking place (at the start of industrial revolution). For a few centuries Poles no longer ruled themselves and there's no strong tradition of civilized debate. Don't get me started about "democracy of gentry", because the class composed at most 20% of society. So a vast majority had no say in what's going on.
There's still admiration for strong figures like Putin, Piłsudski, Churchill, even Stalin. People who don't trust institutions are sympathetic towards autocrats and their displays of strength.
The Polish law works in such a way that a party member can jump ship, join another party and still have a seat in parliament. Then if he's loyal enough they put him on a voting list (in many cases you vote on lists of people, not individuals).
> After partitions Poland spent a few hundreds years off the map
Your being incorrect on such a basic historical fact is quite a red flag.
> For a few centuries Poles no longer ruled themselves
1.23 of a century (1795-1918) is not "a few". Unless my 8 year old nephew is a few meters tall :)
> and there's no strong tradition of civilized debate
Yes and no. It's true that when Poland didn't exist as an independent state, much of the political debate was pushed underground - or abroad.
On the other hand, this very political debate - at least among the intelligentsia - flourished nevertheless. A great many of Poland's finest political writers (such as Staszic, Ściegienny or the Stańczycy) were active in the 19th century.
> Don't get me started about "democracy of gentry", because the class composed at most 20% of society. So a vast majority had no say in what's going on.
"Don't get me started about Athenian democracy, they had slavery".
That's blatant ahistoricism. Democracy of gentry predated the concept of nation in its modern sense. By the standards of the era, this political system was way ahead of its times. The gentry - or the citizens with political rights - accounted for no more than a few percent of the population elsewhere in Europe.
And it Poland they weren't a closed caste, either; you could attain the status as well as lose it. There was some degree of social mobility.
Poor gentry was pretty much indistinguishable from commoners in terms of affluence, and mixed marriages weren't anything out of the ordinary.
Also note that Poland eg. granted voting rights to women as soon as it regained independence (1918). Quite a few democratic countries kept them waiting longer. It wasn't until 1944 in France or 1971 in Switzerland that roughly 50% of the population had no voting rights.
> There's still admiration for strong figures like Putin, Piłsudski, Churchill, even Stalin. People who don't trust institutions are sympathetic towards autocrats and their displays of strength.
I find it doubtful whether Churchill really counts as an autocrat.
And would you care to substantiate your claim of "admiration" for Putin or Stalin?
> The Polish law works in such a way that a party member can jump ship, join another party and still have a seat in parliament.
That's the whole point of democracy. The mandate comes from the voters, not the party. If the voters feel cheated, they shouldn't elect the guy the next time.
