A major politician admits he was wrong. This doesn't happen often, and in spite of Tusk's many flaws should be recognized. He deserves respect for being able to admit he was wrong.

That's one way to look at the situation. Another is that the politician "changes" his mind to gain popularity.

which is, in fact, fine with me. if we're enough people that are convinced and the politicians act like we want them to, then that's called democracy.

It isn't fine with me. a politician doing simply what the protesters or people in general want is a populist. Indirect democracy is all about choosing people we believe will make the right decision, even if then have to piss some people off.

Tusk said he's not doing this because of the protests, but because the arguments presented to him made sense. That is what I'm expecting of a good politician.

So majority making decisions once every 4 years - that's democracy, but majority making decisions on every issue - it's populism?

I wonder how that magic that makes people wise enough once every 4 years works.

One possible way is that politicians are better than regular people, and they have to lie before elections to ponder to stupid voters. After the election wise and benevolent politicians do what is Right, no matter their stupid voters opinion.

Is THAT why indirect democracy is better? Because it depends heavily on the fact, that the most wise and benevolent politicians have to tell the best lies to the stupid voters. And it's not obvious to me, that this will be always true.

This is the same way corporations run. Shareholders/the board of directors choose one person to run the whole enterprise and take the decision. The person runs the show and makes the decisions, even if shareholders don't like some of them. The shareholders don't get to vote on every single decision, but if too many bad decisions are made, CEO gets a boot.

This is also a similar way the pirate ships were being run.

The reason for this is that person(s) at helm have the better perspective. Not because they are superhumans or sth, but because they spend 15 hours a day involved in the manner.

In other words - yes, the politicians are better to make decisions regarding the country. Not because they were born better, but because that's their job.

It doesn't mean that they won't make mistakes, or be misinformed (as in case of ACTA) - that's why they should listen to people, consult society. But by "listening to people", I mean "hearing their arguments and reasoning", not "doing what people want". The former is called "being wise", the latter "being populist".

btw. majority making decisions on every issue is not a populism. It's a direct democracy. I'd argue that it is as bad as populism.

Because of this distinction I was against ACTA, but at the same time against a referendum against ACTA :)

Maybe in this case (which is quite "new") it's fine. But for example politician who before an election promises things but after he is elected changes his mind (so he won't lose popularity) it's bad. Same goes with opinions about "fundamental" stuff like e.g. abortion - I wouldn't like to see my representative to change opinions about such things.

That sounds closer to the truth. Tusk, like other politicians has the first and foremost goal of getting re-elected.

Just look at Canada's safety minister Vic Toews back-pedal like a champ when he was called out after he compared any person criticising his proposed fascist spying bill to a 'child pornographer' supporter. It seems like there's an open season on moving the goal post when it comes to deteriorating publics right to privacy.

Why does it sound closer to the truth? For me it's the exact opposite.

Tusk over and over again refuses to change his policies when he meets the opposition from huge groups of people (for example the retirement system reform, fighting with football fans, with the doctors, with drug substitutes), I think ACTA is one of the few situations where he reversed his opinion.

On the press conference, IIRC, he said that it's not because of the protest that he changed his mind, but because of the reasonable arguments. He also mentioned his reasons for changing his stance on Acta, and it seems that he genuinely understands now why it was wrong.

Here is why: most of the issues you described when Tusk didn't give in were national and specific to Poland. ACTA is sort of a popular kid on the global political block; emphasis being on global. It's a new kid in school if you will, and one that everyone wants to take a stab at. This is bandwagon politics that caters to scaring the public with a gun, only to apologise and whack them over the head with a stick nevertheless.

You and I probably agree that the outcome is good overall, but be wary of the political song and dance. Stay vigilant is my motto.

Wow, this is actually quite big. I'd say, more significant than the previous decision by Poland (and then other EU counties) to suspend ACTA ratification. Suspension meant merely that they needed to think more about this. Now Poland comes out openly _against_ ACTA, and that's a _first_ among the participants and signatories of the treaty.

Congrats to the participants of the anti-ACTA protests in Poland (possibly the biggest ACTA opposition in the world), who brought about this change.

thanks to #anonymous for making a scene that led to recognizing this issue in our media.

yeah, as much as I sometimes hate their juvenilish behaviour, this time it actually helped...

Well, despite all the "juvenile behavior", Anonymous is a force to be reckoned with. They mean it when they say "Expect us.".

I also think the fact that they don't care how you perceive them (by acting juvenile or otherwise immature) is one of their greatest strengths. Believe it or not, but it frees you from a lot of burdens if you don't have to be polite and politically correct, and makes it a whole lot easier to actually do something (whether or not that something is good and/or justified is certainly debatable).