The author puts forward several theses and many opinions. The “new candidates” are unprofessional, while the old candidate is “the host who has been in power for eight years.” The author wonders why the “new” candidates focus mainly “on criticizing investments in the city.” I wonder too: I wonder why she wonders. If someone writes—as she claims—an analysis, they should prepare for it. If they write about municipal investments, they should at least look through the “SzOP RPO WD” (the accumulation of incomprehensible abbreviations is intentional), and they would already know that the criticism is justified. Most investments are unsuccessful, although I admit that many people may like this permanent facelift of the city. Unfortunately. The “host” takes the easy way out, counting—not without a chance, unfortunately again—on the common people buying it. Decorations, bonds, debts—a recipe for Roman’s success? According to the columnist—yes.
The author characterizes the new candidates, but once again unreliably, because, for example, I do not recognize myself in this characterization. She writes that the “new” candidates “either condemn everything the current president does wholesale,” “or use criticism à la praise.” Another oversimplification. I have consistently claimed—from the moment I announced that I was running for president—that the president has done good things (it would be strange if he had only caused harm for eight years), but far too rarely; things that could have been good, but which he spoiled; and bad things. The situation is not stalemate (the chess terminology is probably an allusion to me). The situation is difficult. For me as a candidate. Because the current president—as the “host” for eight years—actually does not have to do anything during the campaign. It is enough that he was and is the “host”—including of local television. This helps him and costs him nothing. Trash bins, Azart-Sat, curbs, Azart-Sat, ribbon-cutting… Standard, but it is enough for some people to proclaim him an icon of local politics. After all, he is a political scientist. And has been in local government for 20 years. And, in addition, an authority—at least in the author’s opinion. An authority calmly waiting for the final showdown. A debate? What debate? Surely the new candidates do not deserve the “host” meeting with them! With the “host”?! I hope that the residents of Bolesławiec will see that by avoiding a direct conversation about the city’s affairs, the current president is disregarding not only me—the new candidate—but them as well: the residents.
The author’s subtle irony in describing the critical voices concerning the fountain, paving blocks and swimming pool may annoy opponents of the current president. Likewise, I admit, her strange tendency to glorify his alleged achievements. The columnist even regards… the absence of defeat as a success! Apparently, it is a success to withdraw from the foolish idea of financing a municipal restaurant with taxpayers’ money. It is a success that people interested in participating in arts and cultural classes apply to the MCC! Does that mean they were not supposed to apply? That the new cinema has a 3D projector. What else should it have—a relic? Will it be a success when someone eventually puts some water into the swimming pool (poolette)? Will the fact that a resident encountered on the street says the debt is OK make the debt OK? Excuse me, does that mean that the “host” will let children into the newly renovated preschool? Amazing. Why is television belonging to the “host” silent about these successes? This is an unacceptable omission. Fortunately, we have professional political analyses online, which unprofessional new candidates can read. I read it. And I admit—the author showed me a completely new face of the “host.” An impeccable authority.
This text is peculiar. The author maliciously claims that the campaign teams of the new candidates are unprofessional: they conduct no research, have no polls, and do not know the methods. How does she know? I do not know. She calls the campaign slogans formulaic. Why does she think so? I do not know—apparently she wants to debate matters of taste. She gives us a short course in communication skills (me too—even though I have “credentials” in both communication theory and andragogy). If she wants to make voters dislike us, she is playing unfairly. If she wants to motivate us to fight during the final few weeks, she is doing us a favor. Where does the truth lie? Is it—as usual—in the middle?
This text is strange. Can we therefore be surprised that comments on the text include claims that “Gwizdała sold out”? We cannot. Although in my opinion, he did not sell out. Elections are coming, so he wants to earn money, like everyone in the “media” business. But, to tell the truth, I do not care about that at all. I believe that the important issue is not whether the “host” bought “Istotne.” A different matter is much more important.
How to defeat the “host”?
I will answer briefly—tell and speak the truth. And have the courage to proclaim it. Because—as someone wise once wrote—“the sister of truth must be courage.” Defensive positions to protect the town hall are being built with great determination. They are being raised not only by members of the current president’s electoral committee. The “host” is preparing a broad support front. Certainty of victory (?) or rather fear of the election result is causing the “host” to promise favors and honors left and right. We already know the new vice presidents (for the next term). Full mobilization. Even one of the new candidates speaks better about the “host” than about himself. But it is hard to be surprised. The “host” and the new candidate are currently in a coalition that… runs the town hall. It will be difficult to defeat the “host” because he has already been in power for eight years. Because over eight years the city could not fail to change. Because residents do not know that things could have been better, but they see the changes. Because the current arrangement is defended by people who have ruled Bolesławiec for many years. Only the names of their electoral committees change. PiS has fallen out of favor. Former party members have become nonpartisan specialists. Presidents, businesspeople who have been lucky in purchase-and-sale transactions, presidents of municipal companies, presidents of sports clubs and associations endorsed by the “host”; officials (unjustly) frightened by the prospect of an attack by hordes of Huns who will behead and dismiss people. It will not be easy to win because the “host” has television and thousands of “promotional pens,” as well as a considerable group of people for whom the “host” is—in their view—a matter of survival.
Can the “host” be defeated? Yes. All it takes is “only” and at the same time “as much as” reaching the majority of residents with the truth. Presenting a sensible alternative. Carrying out the task we have set ourselves. I am running to win. And no significant analysis—especially one that is not particularly reliable—will discourage me from doing so.
P.S. And to begin with, a request to those reading this—answer the question for yourselves: Why does the “host” not want a debate? After all, he is an impeccable authority.
Dariusz Kwaśniewski