Two weeks after Europe had a bumper election Sunday, Poland returns to the polls for the runoff in its presidential election [link added]. Pro-government candidate and mayor of Warsaw Rafał Trzaskowski led in the first round with 31.4%, about 357,000 votes ahead of the far right’s Karol Nawrocki on 29.5%. Another two far-right candidates collected 21.1% between them, so Nawrocki is in a strong position.
Supporters of the government, a mostly centrist coalition led by prime minister Donald Tusk, are hoping for the same sort of swing to the mainstream as occurred in Romania’s second round, but there’s not much sign of it in the opinion polls. (Then again, there wasn’t in Romania either.) The two candidates appear neck and neck: Politico’s aggregator and its Polish equivalent both have Trzaskowski leading by a single percentage point.
There’s somewhat less at stake in Poland, though, than there was in Romania. Romania’s system is semi-presidential: the president is independently powerful, although he appoints a prime minister who is responsible to parliament. (You can read here about how Nicușor Dan is approaching the task after being sworn in this week.) Poland, on the other hand, is a parliamentary system; there’s no risk of Tusk being dismissed by the president, who is supposed to be more of a figurehead.
In practice a far-right president would be a substantial irritant, as Andrzej Duda already has been. With a fresh mandate – and particularly if he were to outdo the polls and win well – Nawrocki would be even more so, both in practical terms and as a sign of which way the wind was blowing. That’s how it was ten years ago when Tusk’s party was also in government and Duda was first elected: it presaged the defeat of the government later the same year.
With that all said, it’s also possible that the voters don’t see it that way, and that even for those who are happy with Tusk in government there’s some value in keeping a balance at the top. And while no doubt Tusk’s frustration with Duda’s obstructionism is quite genuine, he is enough of a politician to appreciate the value of a convenient scapegoat for when promises are not met. If he gets his own man in the top job, there will be no-one else to blame.
Nor should you assume that it’s only elected presidents that pose these questions. In yesterday’s Guardian Martin Kettle has a very interesting piece about the way in which King Charles III has aligned himself with the anti-Trump agenda of his British and (especially) Canadian governments. For the moment he seems in tune with the public mood, but there are potential dangers for the future should he find himself dealing with a far-right government.
Also a quick update from the third election of a fortnight ago, in Portugal. You might remember that preliminary results showed the incumbent centre-right Democratic Alliance well in the lead, with a close contest for second place between the centre-left Socialists and the far-right Chega. The Socialists led Chega by about a point, but they were equal on seats.
That, however, was without the votes from expatriate voters, who get four seats (two in Europe and two in the rest of the world). They came in this week: centre-right and far right won two each, putting the latter ahead of the Socialists in terms of seats, 60 to 58, although the Socialists are very narrowly ahead on votes (both 22.8%, about 4,300 votes apart). So assuming it is not taken into government, Chega will now be the official opposition.
The World is Not Enough 
There may be some people who think there is nothing more important than preserving the monarchy. I don’t know whether Martin Kettle would be one of them. Perhaps he isn’t. What I know is that I’m not
There may be some people who wouldn’t go that far but who would still say that preserving the monarchy should be the most important thing for the monarch and that’s how the monarch should behave. I don’t know whether Martin Kettle would be one of them. Perhaps he is. What I know is that I’m not.
Whatever Martin Kettle may think about these questions, I know that there are more important things than preserving the monarchy, that the monarch should not behave as if there is nothing more important than preserving the monarchy, and that the greatest dangers for the future if the UK gets a far-right government will not be dangers to the monarchy. Regardless of what positions the monarch has taken or does take, it will be a bad thing for the UK and for the world if the UK gets a far-right government, and insofar as the monarch’s position makes a difference, a monarch determined to avoid conflict with a far-right government would make things worse, not better. Even in the unlikely event that 50%, or 60%, or 70% of the UK decides to vote for a government led by Nigel Farage, that would not make it right or a good thing for the monarch to knuckle under. Somebody who considers that prospect and has as their first question ‘What will that mean for the monarchy?’ has their priorities wrong.
LikeLike
Thanks J-D. Of course I can’t speak for Kettle (altho he seems mostly very sensible), but I agree that prioritising the survival of the monarchy first is the wrong way to look at things. That said, the king does have some responsibility to the institution, at least other things being equal, and you can imagine circumstances where (say) resistance to a far-right govt is better served by ensuring that the monarchy lives to fight another day rather than provoking a conflict first up that might lead to something much worse.
LikeLike