One day, during an interesting conversation with Grzegorz (greetings to him), I came to a thunderous discovery regarding politics. This idea revolved around treating beliefs and politics as mathematical values.

As you read, you will find that this short text is a somewhat bitter assessment of today's politics, stemming from the conclusions drawn from the theories below.

Initial Assumptions:

We assume that people have beliefs. This set of beliefs can be treated as characteristic traits of a person. It is well-known that different people have different beliefs, but often these beliefs overlap. We will treat these individual beliefs as abstractions that repeat themselves.

Ideal:

Imagine a person with exceptional qualities. A true leader who has the right answer for everything and is not concerned with his own life—meaning, he doesn't have a selfish approach to anything. Such an ideal person should become a politician. This is quite obvious. And it would be best if he ruled us and established the law—because it would be good for the common good.

Reality:

However, we quickly realize, encountering the realities of the modern "market," that no matter how wonderful someone is, without proper marketing, that person's beliefs cannot be widely disseminated.

Yes, it's obvious. That's why the political party institution was created, so that individuals can create political institutions that, in the long run, can establish the law.

However, what happens when other people start joining the party?

Unfortunately, the ideal beliefs (resulting from that ideal person) begin to shift towards a certain generality. Because each person brings their own set of beliefs. With an increasing number of people in the party, the set of characteristics that characterize this party from its members changes from the profile of that ideal person to the average person from a certain group of people.

Large Political Parties:

Furthermore, a party that wants to be very significant, one that wants to be in power, must have many members and a lot of money. It can be assumed that with the influx of money into the party, negative traits follow, because money sometimes conflicts with such an idealistic approach to the common good. Consequently, the result of this influx is a further departure from the idealized party founder's beliefs and characteristics towards those of an even more average person.

And So We Arrive at the Crux:

Large political parties lead to the generalization of characteristics toward the so-called "average Pole," who carries the stereotype of a Pole, along with his inherent flaws and virtues. No matter what the party's program may be, the generalized member of that party is an ordinary person who wants to live, wants money, and perhaps doesn't even align with the party's principles but acts based on personal preferences.

In Conclusion:

It somewhat frightens me that instead of parties being ideals, they are just ordinary people. I know that by voting in the current system, I vote for big money spent on the party's advertising, I vote for human conflicts, not for ideals...

As long as parties are not represented by their beliefs (ideals) and not their interests (ordinary human ones), we will have a negative opinion of politics. As long as the set of ideals presented by the party does not reflect its actual work, we will say, "What difference does it make which party is in power, as they all care about those in power and not about the experts in power"...