Search results

Celem artykułu jest przedstawione podejścia władz Republiki Białoruś wobec pandemii COVID-19. Główna hipoteza badawcza przyjęta przez autora głosi, iż Białoruś od początku pandemii zdecydowała się na świadome ignorowanie pojawiającego się zagrożenia epidemiologicznego, przyjmując strategię uspokajania społeczeństwa i bagatelizowania globalnego niebezpieczeństwa. Na podstawie analizy danych dowiedziono, iż większość Białorusinów podczas pandemii COVID-19 całkowicie utraciło zaufanie do państwa i jego organów, które ich zdaniem okazały się niezdolne do podjęcia ochrony swoich obywateli przed negatywnymi skutkami (zdrowotnymi, ekonomicznymi) pandemii.

The article is dedicated to Central Europe in the foreign policy of Belarus. In the process of shaping the concept of Belarus' foreign policy in the early 1990s, Minsk considered the Central European option. Already at that time, attention was paid to the region of Central Europe and the need to center the road between East and West. However, NATO enlargement in the region led to the choice of the eastern vector and to close cooperation with Russia. After 20 years of close integration, it turned out that the alliance with Russia is not perfect. Belarus has once again activated the Central European vector in foreign policy. Central Europe is a natural area for the pursuing Belarussian interest. Cooperation with neighboring countries (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary) is a positive impulse for comprehensive economic and possibly political reforms in the near future.

The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991.

The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991. ; The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991.

W niniejszym artykule autor analizuje procesy kształtowania się politycznych systemów w państwach Kaukazu Południowego. Wskazuje przy tym na patologiczne zjawiska funkcjonujące w elitach władzy oraz w systemach politycznych tych państw. Analizie poddane zostały także konflikty w Górskim Karabachu, Abchazji i Osetii Południowej, które nadal dominują w życiu politycznym Armenii, Azerbejdżanu i Gruzji. Są podstawą ideologii i programów politycznych elit walczących o władzę, a także znacząco wpływają na styl przywództwa. W politycznej walce znaczącą rolę odgrywały elity wojskowe, które szybko awansowały na szczyt władzy. Autor próbuje wyjaśnić, jak konflikty w Górskim Karabachu, Abchazji i Osetii Południowej wpływają na proces transformacji ustrojowej państw regionu. Kolejnym aspektem analizy jest odpowiedź na pytanie, jak tradycja, kultura, psychologia, styl życia i interesy politycznych elit Armenii, Azerbejdżanu i Gruzji wpływają na rezultaty pokojowego uregulowania konfliktów. ; The Author analyses proces of the formation of political regimes in Southern Caucasus. He points to the pathological phenomena in the functioning of power elites and political regimes of those states. The Author analyses the influence of conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the domestic and foreign policy of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. He proves that the described conflict for many years dominated in the political life of this country and was a basis of the ideology and the programs of elites struggling for power. In the struggle of the elites, the military elites played the main role, while being an important path to advancement to the peaks of power. The author tries to explain the influence of the Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia question on political transformation of the states in conflict. Another important thread of the analysis is to search answers to the question, how tradition, culture, psychology, life styles and political interests of elites in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia affect the course and the effects of a peacemaking process aimed solving the Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The Author analyses the infl uence of confl ict in Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the domestic and foreign policy of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. He proves that the described confl ict for many years dominated in the political life of this country and was a basis of the ideology and the programs of elites struggling for power. In the struggle of the elites, the military elites played the main role, while being an important path to advancement to the peaks of power. The author tries to explain the infl uence of the Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia question on political transformation of the states in confl ict. Another important thread of the analysis is to search answers to the question, how tradition, culture, psychology, life styles and political interests of elites in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia affect the course and the effects of a peacemaking process aimed solving the Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The revolution in the Ukraine in 2014 brought about transformation of the political system in the direction of the parliamentary form of government. The issues associated with the process of the formation of the political system are not only the problem of Ukraine. In the first period of the independence of Ukraine, defining the desired shape of the political system was the priority. During the works on passing of a new constitution, the possibility of inserting a model of the parliamentary republic was being considered. However, the constitution of Ukraine from 1996 implemented a model closest to the solutions of a presidential parliamentary republic. The conversion from the presidential parliamentary republic into a parliamentary presidential republic in 2006 was characterized by enhancing the position of the govern- ment, in particular of the prime minister, at the cost of a distinct limitation of the powers of the President. It quickly became one of the causes of more and more frequent conflicts within that triangle of power. Current attempts to change the political regime for a parliamentary system were made in a con- text of a political crisis. In case of Ukraine, the change of the political system will not bring the nation any solution of the fundamental issues with which Ukraine has struggled with.

The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991.

An element which should be analysed was the underestimation by Poland of the fears of Belarus concerning Polonisation and the activities of the Catholic Church. Initially, issues which were of slight importance to Poland later became the main reason for serious divergences in bilateral understanding. Also of importance is the question of the awareness on the Polish side of the change in the geopolitical future of Belarus following Poland's accession to NATO. Political changes in Belarus in the years 1994-1996 were analysed in this work as well as their influence on the deterioration of mutual relations. It was also important to answer the question about the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the policy of critical dialogue with Belarus and the causes of the conflict concerning the Polish minority in 2005.

For over ten years Polish-Belarusian political relations have been characterized by a lack of opportunities for real collaboration, caused by the non-democratic nature of the Belarusian political system. The international isolation of its authoritarian regime also influences bilateral relations. In the period from 1996–2008 Poland adopted a principle of critical dialogue in its policy towards Belarus. This implied official criticism of the infringement of human rights and breaking of democratic rules while refraining from a total abandonment of dialogue with the Belarusian authorities, although the level and intensity of this dialogue was significantly diminished. It was assumed that the complete isolation of the Belarusian authorities was not in Polish interests and preferential treatment would help to ensure the fundamental rights of the Polish minority in Belarus. This policy turned out to be ineffective, though, in relation to a state that does not acknowledge the basic principles and laws of international relations. To a large extent, the specific character of the Belarusian political system has been, and will remain, the greatest obstacle in the further development of Polish-Belarusian relations, and will significantly restrict the possibility of building good relations in the future. ; For over ten years Polish-Belarusian political relations have been characterized by a lack of opportunities for real collaboration, caused by the non-democratic nature of the Belarusian political system. The international isolation of its authoritarian regime also influences bilateral relations. In the period from 1996–2008 Poland adopted a principle of critical dialogue in its policy towards Belarus. This implied official criticism of the infringement of human rights and breaking of democratic rules while refraining from a total abandonment of dialogue with the Belarusian authorities, although the level and intensity of this dialogue was significantly diminished. It was assumed that the complete isolation of the Belarusian authorities was not in Polish interests and preferential treatment would help to ensure the fundamental rights of the Polish minority in Belarus. This policy turned out to be ineffective, though, in relation to a state that does not acknowledge the basic principles and laws of international relations. To a large extent, the specific character of the Belarusian political system has been, and will remain, the greatest obstacle in the further development of Polish-Belarusian relations, and will significantly restrict the possibility of building good relations in the future.

The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991.

For over ten years Polish-Belarusian political relations have been characterized by a lack of opportunities for real collaboration, caused by the non-democratic nature of the Belarusian political system. The international isolation of its authoritarian regime also influences bilateral relations. In the period from 1996–2008 Poland adopted a principle of critical dialogue in its policy towards Belarus. This implied official criticism of the infringement of human rights and breaking of democratic rules while refraining from a total abandonment of dialogue with the Belarusian authorities, although the level and intensity of this dialogue was significantly diminished. It was assumed that the complete isolation of the Belarusian authorities was not in Polish interests and preferential treatment would help to ensure the fundamental rights of the Polish minority in Belarus. This policy turned out to be ineffective, though, in relation to a state that does not acknowledge the basic principles and laws of international relations. To a large extent, the specific character of the Belarusian political system has been, and will remain, the greatest obstacle in the further development of Polish-Belarusian relations, and will significantly restrict the possibility of building good relations in the future.