Dirty deeds
There is something about cars which exercises a morbid fascination over the government. Never mind doctors who want their bribes legalised, total atrophy in the legal system, recession nerves jangling around the country, let's fix this business of how we are going to get to work. The now departed health minister Mariusz Łapiński did just that, in order not to look down at heel among his EU peers, and when the subsequent scandal grew too big for even the prime minister to endure, he lopped off his head. Poor Łapiński wasn't actually dispatched for bagging plush limos, but everyone knew that was what it was all about.
The blood wiped freshly from his hands, the executioner himself plunged back into the motor trade. It appears that he has decided the government service requires more or less immediately 100 new cars. His representatives quoted on the Internet declared that some would be better than others, even some of a positively low standard. Jesters suggested this meant the prime minister would order two different models of the Lancia.
The moral of this tale is that scandals which surround the peculiar priorities of the administration may be safely ignored on the grounds that the electorate is fixed up with a short-term memory. Or that there are simply so many scandals and red-hot rumours doing the rounds at any given time, that instead of being displayed as exceptional circumstances, they begin to look like the normal standard of public morality.
The great fuse of public opinion does not actually blow for a number of reasons, and among the most significant of them is the entrenched belief that corruption, dishonesty and office favouring is now so entrenched in the system that it will prove impossible to root out. So voters turn their backs on the polling stations, and what should be the most influential opinion-forming community in the country - business - cold-shoulders any idea of getting involved in politics. The word itself is a dirty one, the associations grubby and distasteful.
It means that what happens in other countries, the transfer of business ethics and standards to the public administration, simply does not occur. And nor does it work in the opposite direction. Very few companies would offer a boardroom seat to an MP. In the Polish context, it might give a very bad impression. So, the cross-fertilisation of ideas between the private sector and the public one is virtually absent. It means that not enough politicians have direct experience of the commercial world, which leads to the making of bad law and the perpetuation of another entrenched creed, that "biznes" in whatever form it is conducted is a shady and probably dishonest activity.
It is argued in this week's Business Journal interview that political meddling is making life extremely difficult for the nascent pension funds, that civil servants and politicians unable to understand complex ideas in financial markets are hobbling pension funds in such a fashion that they are denied access to legitimate profits. It is a good example because it underlines the dislike of the present administration for excessive participation by the private sector in what has always been a traditional state fiefdom. It also illustrates perfectly the "can't let go" principle, that government must in the end call the shots over everything. As we have consistently argued in this column, this cannot be described as a true market economy until the state evacuates from being the ultimate universal arbiter.
The civil service itself is another factor. The rewards are so miserable, few in their right minds wish to labour in the service of the people. There are those in government employ who are paid less than multilingual secretaries in large private companies. The virtual absence of modern facilities, such as research, IT, international travel and experience, skilled and qualified back-up staff, an inner core of top quality legal advisers, spread right across the system, means that again ill-judged law is made and little account taken of the need for market forces to function with as few restrictions as possible. And, as the Business Journal interview confirms, instead of logging into financial mechanisms commonplace outside the country, the system plays safe by rejecting all that it does not understand.
The word "deregulation" is rarely heard. Instead, we are going to revisit the total failure of a totally centralised public healthcare system for entirely political reasons. There is no logical rationale behind this initiative. It is simply the state reconquering what had formerly been its own exclusive territory. By retaining golden shares in privatised state companies, the real benefits of the public sector are restricted and thus denied to the population at large.
Will it ever change? The "generational theory" is a fashionable one. It suggests that after the expiry of a certain number of years, enough people will emerge from a reinvigorated nation to complete the ultimate transition to a transparent and effective market economy, supported by a strong and soundly-based political system. Such faith in investing in the future may prove to be justified, but almost certainly it is a false hope. This is because nothing is being done to work towards change, and no framework put in place to achieve it. To have a top quality civil service functioning in 10 years' time, then deep institutional reform is required now, not left to the vagaries of chance and history.
The civil service cannot award itself a sovereign pay increase, and businessmen cannot be compelled to go into politics. Young people pouring out of the universities want jobs in commerce, not public service. Those who should be the future DGs in government service are very likely not even going to remain in the country. Why should the brightest and the best cling on here when the great world of Europe shortly lies open before them?
The blood wiped freshly from his hands, the executioner himself plunged back into the motor trade. It appears that he has decided the government service requires more or less immediately 100 new cars. His representatives quoted on the Internet declared that some would be better than others, even some of a positively low standard. Jesters suggested this meant the prime minister would order two different models of the Lancia.
The moral of this tale is that scandals which surround the peculiar priorities of the administration may be safely ignored on the grounds that the electorate is fixed up with a short-term memory. Or that there are simply so many scandals and red-hot rumours doing the rounds at any given time, that instead of being displayed as exceptional circumstances, they begin to look like the normal standard of public morality.
The great fuse of public opinion does not actually blow for a number of reasons, and among the most significant of them is the entrenched belief that corruption, dishonesty and office favouring is now so entrenched in the system that it will prove impossible to root out. So voters turn their backs on the polling stations, and what should be the most influential opinion-forming community in the country - business - cold-shoulders any idea of getting involved in politics. The word itself is a dirty one, the associations grubby and distasteful.
It means that what happens in other countries, the transfer of business ethics and standards to the public administration, simply does not occur. And nor does it work in the opposite direction. Very few companies would offer a boardroom seat to an MP. In the Polish context, it might give a very bad impression. So, the cross-fertilisation of ideas between the private sector and the public one is virtually absent. It means that not enough politicians have direct experience of the commercial world, which leads to the making of bad law and the perpetuation of another entrenched creed, that "biznes" in whatever form it is conducted is a shady and probably dishonest activity.
It is argued in this week's Business Journal interview that political meddling is making life extremely difficult for the nascent pension funds, that civil servants and politicians unable to understand complex ideas in financial markets are hobbling pension funds in such a fashion that they are denied access to legitimate profits. It is a good example because it underlines the dislike of the present administration for excessive participation by the private sector in what has always been a traditional state fiefdom. It also illustrates perfectly the "can't let go" principle, that government must in the end call the shots over everything. As we have consistently argued in this column, this cannot be described as a true market economy until the state evacuates from being the ultimate universal arbiter.
The civil service itself is another factor. The rewards are so miserable, few in their right minds wish to labour in the service of the people. There are those in government employ who are paid less than multilingual secretaries in large private companies. The virtual absence of modern facilities, such as research, IT, international travel and experience, skilled and qualified back-up staff, an inner core of top quality legal advisers, spread right across the system, means that again ill-judged law is made and little account taken of the need for market forces to function with as few restrictions as possible. And, as the Business Journal interview confirms, instead of logging into financial mechanisms commonplace outside the country, the system plays safe by rejecting all that it does not understand.
The word "deregulation" is rarely heard. Instead, we are going to revisit the total failure of a totally centralised public healthcare system for entirely political reasons. There is no logical rationale behind this initiative. It is simply the state reconquering what had formerly been its own exclusive territory. By retaining golden shares in privatised state companies, the real benefits of the public sector are restricted and thus denied to the population at large.
Will it ever change? The "generational theory" is a fashionable one. It suggests that after the expiry of a certain number of years, enough people will emerge from a reinvigorated nation to complete the ultimate transition to a transparent and effective market economy, supported by a strong and soundly-based political system. Such faith in investing in the future may prove to be justified, but almost certainly it is a false hope. This is because nothing is being done to work towards change, and no framework put in place to achieve it. To have a top quality civil service functioning in 10 years' time, then deep institutional reform is required now, not left to the vagaries of chance and history.
The civil service cannot award itself a sovereign pay increase, and businessmen cannot be compelled to go into politics. Young people pouring out of the universities want jobs in commerce, not public service. Those who should be the future DGs in government service are very likely not even going to remain in the country. Why should the brightest and the best cling on here when the great world of Europe shortly lies open before them?
