Opinion: Cultural policy and factionalism

Liberty has been beneficial, but liberty without order is like a man without education - free in will, but a slave to conflicting passions which he does not understand.

The source of this disorder rests not in factionalism, which arises naturally with liberty, but in a constitution that makes factionalism systematic rather than channeling it towards the public good. Systemic factionalism is the essence of Polish politics. No faction is capable of capturing a majority for any respectable period of time. Consequently, policies are in revolution as governments rise and fall with shifts in fortune.

The ancient democracies of Greece, and the later Italian city-states all suffered the same malaise - oscillating from anarchy to tyranny on account of a factious democracy. This was also the fate of the Second Republic of Poland and the Wiemar Republic. In these cases, factionalism became detrimental to the public good, and was extinguished by a tyrant who himself is a detriment to liberty. 

Can factionalism be tempered without damaging liberty? This is a constitutional question. The Americans have answered this question by creating an energetic executive, limited by federalism, in their constitution. The French answer was similar under de Gaulle. An active executive, checked by the judicial and legislative branches, and entrusted for a respectable time with the highest powers, makes possible a stable government and stable policy.

In France, energy in the executive made it possible for the wise and bold Andre Malraux to set policy as Minister of Culture for 11 years. We may complain with greater zeal about the policies of an energetic executive, but at least we would have a clear and constant policy to complain of. We would also have a clear and constant authority to reach for in order to effect better policy.

Poland has no durable cultural policy because it has no durable authority, limited yet unbound by factionalism for a respectable period of time. A limited, yet active executive would be just such an authority, and the factious spirit of democracy would better serve the Republic in its capacity as a zealous critic of such executive power rather than being a self-destructive energy that makes a mockery of liberty, forever engaged in counter-productive strife.

Peter S Rieth, Zbigniew Raszewski Theatrical Institute