It is of course the coalition with populists

Everywhere in Europe, there is a rise of the populist tendencies and growing extremist and nationalist parties support. Hence the inevitable question more and more often: what should be the attitude of the parties established in this surge of radical, democratically elected groups As much as in good number of cases, the formation of a Government is impossible without their competition. Such a situation had already occurred in 1999 in Austria, where Jörg Haider's party, the FP, had made a dramatic breakthrough. How to respond ask potential partners, and voters: to agree to a coalition Government or deny any relationship with populist and nationalist parties When mainstream parties for the first hypothesis, they are generally strong civilize their partners, dulling their radicalism, curb the populist excesses. Co-option appears to be the safest way to tame their recent critics.

As voters, them away often protest party which, once the Government stop the, cut off from their roots. Many voters who had supported radical leaders to disavow them the next day, because they believe corrupt kicked appointments and privileges to them. This explains why a populist party in power sees little by little its electoral base shrink. The case that we describe is a successful attempt of Taming of a populist movement that was introduced in the halls of power.

The decision to integrate a populist party in the Government is not without danger: it gives legitimacy and makes it presentable for the extreme positions. Far from letting coax, a populist or nationalist movement may, once in power, try to impose his radical views on the society as a whole. Certainly, it can be used, in the end, by the test of power, but, previously, a few safeguards will have disappeared: what appeared unacceptable yesterday will become tomorrow, an acceptable point of view. In addition, government functions may offer to populist parties a beautiful opportunity to establish their influence. Another risk is that the populist tarnish the image of the entire team in place by their behaviour, their words, or their way of being. This can lead to a shift of the electoral body to the Government, or even lead to its downfall.

These questions are currently the subject of public debate in Poland. Since the PIS (party right-wing of the Kaczyski brothers) has failed to forge a coalition with the civic platform (PO, reform movement), he decided to govern with the nationalist LPR (League of Polish families) and the "Samoobrona" (self defence) populist of Andrzej Lepper. This caused the indignation of a substantial part of public opinion, especially represented by the educated fringe of the population and the inhabitants of large cities.

The Kaczyski brothers to realize that if they could not be a stable parliamentary majority and losing power, they would long for the re-conquest. According to them, the purposes they were assigned justified means. It is, of course, the coalition with populists. These purposes, they were clearly displayed: creation of an anti-corruption Office, WSI (military intelligence) liquidation, appointment "of hers" at many institutions of the State, including the Council of the audiovisual or the Constitutional Court. Beyond the objectives for the Government, Jaroslaw Kaczyski had a specific political purpose: create a large party of right is national and popular, somewhat like the German Christian Democrats. Indeed, during the last fifteen years, the Polish political spectrum was atomized and particularly unstable. By inviting the Government of nationalist and populist parties, Jaroslaw Kaczyski wanted to capture their electorate for those parties within a single block, that he would lead himself.

Must confess that, for Kaczyski, this plan was successful in large part. The last regional elections showed an erosion of popular support of the two radical parties (Samoobrona and LPR). Many voters have postponed their voices to the PIS. "cooptation" has therefore not benefited to the radical members of the coalition.

Nevertheless, the vicissitudes experienced by the Party of the Kaczyski brothers show that can pactise not with impunity with the populists. The price is sometimes too high. Indeed, by wanting to seduce the electorate populist and nationalist, the worse it is radicalized, evolving still more to the right. This cost him the alienation of a part of the centrist electorate in large cities, that little appreciated the alliance with the populist and is not left to convince of the need to engage the moral revolution and the construction of the new Republic. The weakening of the radicalism by its absorption has therefore resulted in emergence instead of a few small radical parties of a single party, moving visibly to the nationalist right.

Another consequence of the introduction of the populists in "salons of power": the ranks of the radical parties are powered by persons who, until then, did not have much to do with politics, but who are convinced that all "is not more complicated than that", and it is therefore to turn to take positions and privileges. These people are almost always, the most negative heroes of media because of their behaviour or dangerous words. Thus, many ink sank recently on the excesses of the Samoobrona politicians have proposed some women against sexual services jobs. The press covered the "lumpenprolétariat" to power, the dirt that invades politics, people sentenced today in the positions of the most important.

These scandals are, no doubt, the high price that today pay parties of the "mainstream" for spawning with radicals. What is, ultimately, this will be paying PIS will manage to its end, without compromising its future It will know. And, one day, be asked again, truly, all means were good to reach the goal. Certainly, if a moral revival in politics or, quite simply, the minimum criteria of decency must be respected.