Talk:Your Movement

Political position

The note in the infobox listing all the political positions the party has been labelled as has right-wing cited with the most recent sources from 2020 and 2024, so why is it labelled as centrist when this is stated by older sources? Helper201 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Polish kurd, Robby.is.on, ErickTheMerrick, Darklilac, Aadirulez8, Allan Nonymous, Autospark, Brat Forelli, (pinged editors of the page from the last three months), can I get some help with the above post please? Helper201 (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I think because of its very ideologically complex standing, it should remain as is. The sources for centrism are not very old and should be kept. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201 Hello there man, I believe I saw your message before but I got distracted by other things.

The issue with the party is that it was a short-lived "flash in the pan" kind of party that achieved success 'out of nowhere', and then quickly flopped afterwards. The short-lived political relevance of the party and also the kind of alliances it entered produce some confusion that resulted in the party being described as anything from right-wing to left-wing.

So, it was a social liberal and anti-clerical party - this is a description that appears quite frequently. Founded by an MP of Civic Platform, Janusz Palikot, it combined right-wing economics with socially libertarian stances such as anti-clericalism, pro-abortion, legalization of soft drugs and LGBT/feminist causes. Campaigning on this un-Catholic platform, it took Polish politics by storm in 2011, winning 10.0% of the popular vote and 40 seats, enough to overtake both the SLD (post-communist social democrats, won in a landslide in 2001 campaigning on anti-austerity, then did extreme austerity and had been in decline ever since, until becoming extra-parliamentary in 2015) and the PSL (post-communist agrarian party, initially left-wing and agrarian socialist, but shifted towards the centre in late 2000s, in late 2010s it then shifted right-wing).

Once in the Sejm, the party relied on controversy generated by pushing bold, libertarian causes that rubbed both the socially conservative and socially liberal (such as PO, which always moved pragmatically) parties the wrong way. It pushed for legalizing marijuana, allowing legal gender transition, and picking a fight with the Church. This was arguably the hill that the party died on, pushing radical anti-clerical measures that failed to gain much support in the Sejm. As this source says, the problem lied not only in this radicalism, but also in the lack of professionalism of the party.

This lack of success was combined with successful mobilization against Palikot by moderates, conservatives, Catholics. Palikot would try to repair his image by toning down the social liberalism and emphasizing free-market economics instead, but to no avail. This became especially visible in the 2014 European Parliament election in Poland, where Korwin-Mikke's Congress of the New Right stunned observers by winning 7% of the vote and 4 MEPs, while Your Movement's coalition flopped, with the party itself winning just 1% of the vote. Lastly came the 2015 parliamentary election, where the party ran as a part of the United Left coalition composed of nominally left-wing parties - the coalition failed to cross the 8% electoral threshold for coalition, and thus all participants - Your Movement included, lost all their seats. With this, Palikot retired from politics, and the party never regained political relevance, quietly dissolving in early 2023.

But anyway, I was the one who found some sources and then settled on a 'centrist' classification. Someone changed it to "syncretic", but I changed it back because I haven't seen any source that calls the party that, which makes it pure WP:OR. This is a part of the larger issue where "syncretism" is also interpreted in a much broader meaning than in political science. You ask why it shouldn't be right-wing. The issue is that the public opinion sees the party as left-wing, and this can be observed by IP editors changing the position to "centre-left".

This is caused by a few factors - firstly, the party was extremely GAL on GAL/TAN, and this was at the time when social issues were much more important than economic ones in Poland. This can also be observed in the case of Law and Justice, which is commonly regarded as right-wing even though a plethora of political science sources point out to the party being economically left-wing. Secondly, the party targeted left-wing voters. Lastly but most importantly, the party led the ill-fated United Left coalition together with SLD in the 2015 Polish parliamentary election.

But of course, there are many caveats here that are easy to miss. To the first point, a subtle detail is that the Polish left-right is influenced not just by GAL/TAN, but also other factors such as the post-communist and anti-communist divide. This graph shows it so well. LPR, Samoobrona and PiS (which had a coalition between 2006 and 2007) were all very TAN but economically left-wing, yet PiS is considered right-wing, LPR far-right, Samoobrona far-left (or left-wing). This can be explained by the fact that Samoobrona was a post-communist party, while PiS is a post-Solidarność formation, and LPR was a neo-Endecja party. Likewise, SLD was hardly left-wing economically at all, but it was very GAL. Yet it was considered centre-left given that it was a director successor of the fallen Polish United Workers' Party. Your Movement was a split from Civic Platform, which is post-Solidarność, economically right-wing and very GAL. In many ways, Your Movement was simply a "radicalization" of Civic Platform's agenda, moving even more GAL and postulating economic reforms that Civic Platform moderated away from, such as flat tax and increasing retirement age.

Second point poses the question if we can define parties solely by their electorate. If that were the case, then Law and Justice should not be seen as so clearly right-wing, as Voting PiS: Voting Left when Voting Far-Right Populist? by Pascal Siemsen, an article published in the Polish Political Science Review, nicely explains. Plus in case of Your Movement, well, their electorate was economically right-wing... According to one source, it competed with SLD over social progressives, and with PO over economic liberals.

But lastly, the United Left affair. The inclusion of Palikot and his party itself in United Left was met with controversy. In fact, this made the Razem party refuse to join United Left and run separately, winning over 3% of the popular vote. They are considered the reason why United Left failed to meet their electoral threshold. As trivia, this turned to be a fateful decision, as it allowed PiS to win parliamentary majority with just 37% of the popular vote, and ended up ruling Poland between 2015-2023.

But none of what I just said is able to shift the public perception of this fallen party. Thus I considered "centre" a reasonable position to settle down on, especially since if it was "right-wing", then we would get a lot more IP editors changing it and insisting that it is just wrong, because look, how can this party be right-wing? They're pro-LGBT, pro-drugs, pro-abortion, anti-Church! Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion! Meanwhile, the centrist label produced quite little dissent.

If not centre, then there's one more position that I believe would be even more accurate - "economically right-wing" and "culturally left-wing". I do have a source which defines the party as liberal, but not left-wing. I have a source that calls the party "culturally left-wing". And I have a source which calls it economically right-wing. Brat Forelli🦊 09:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Brat Forelli thank you for taking the time to write that very detailed explanation. From what I gather from you've written is does very much seem a socially left-wing party and an economically right-wing one. I tend to favour using the term "social" or "socially" over "cultural" or "culturally", cultures, at least my opinion are a bit different and can follow ethnic or nationalist lines, whereas saying "social" or "socially" basically clarifies it’s a matter of politics that's non-economic but typically not one related so much to ethnicity, nationhood or nationalism (at least in terms of left-wing politics). In that regard I would favour it to be defined in the infobox as:

"Economically: Right-wing

Socially: Left-wing"

I'd also be happy to keep "Centre" but just expanded the note in the infobox after Thatcherism to say something like, "it is typically seen as socially left-wing and economically right-wing" or something like that, providing we can find sources that explicitly state this. As an aside we definetly need a much more recent source in the infobox for "left-wing" if we are going to retain it, given only one source states that from circa 14-years-ago.

Taking another look over the lead I definetly think its weighted too heavily in favour of the party's social polices and needs balancing out by expanding on the party's economics. We could probably also do with adding an ideology to the infobox showing its economic leaning if possible. Helper201 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm really glad I could write something informative. I fully agree that it is a socially left-wing and economically right-wing party, and have managed to gather enough sources to make that case now. As for "social" vs. "cultural", the difference in meaning or implication of these words elude me, so I can trust you on that. I went for "sociocultural", something that was forced on me by Polish sources which use a broad word that can be translated as such. I still have a lot of sources to use on the party's page, but I have settled on that for now.

I did keep the infobox for now, not sure if it should be there or not, but it can be helpful. I decided to not keep it centre for the sole fact that it will not prevent a random user to simply see "Centre" and see it as wrong, changing it to "centre-left" without bothering to read the footnote. Meanwhile doing the economic/social divide is something that is more accurate and prevents this, because a random user who relies on original research and a personal, society-shaped understanding of political left-right can hardly argue that a party which promoted flat tax, retirement age increases and anti-union policies is really simply "centre-left".

Alright, I found a new source for "left-wing", I have more but that will come later on when I get more time to utilize all the sources I got. As for the age, you are very vigilant about that - well, you are about most things, and this gets underappreciated! Here I think WP:AGEMATTERS is not really a problem for us in this particular case, as the party is not only dissolved now, it had been dormant since 2015 and so whether it is 2015 or 2025, nothing new is brought to light. The fragment I take interest in is this: Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. And indeed, nothing new was discovered about the party. I try my hardest to find semi-recent sources, though there is a notable decline in interest in the party past the 2010s.

This does seem to occur in Polish politics, and in other countries as well of course, you have parties that were in the centre of attention in 2000s or 2010s, or even 1990s, then a tragedy struck and they were pushed to margins, and stayed there ever since, not having dissolved but also not doing anything that attracts attention of anyone but national/local media of middling reliability. This is the case for Samoobrona, where every political science analysis of it is retroactive, i.e. discussing the period of 1991-2011, when the party was relevant. The party had a catastrophic performance in the 2007 Polish parliamentary election that made it go from the 3rd largest party in the Sejm to an extra-parliamentary one, and in 2011 its leader, Andrzej Lepper, the "Polish Chavez", died.

I can write a whole thesis on the party, and indeed no academic source ever attempted a political or ideological analysis of the party after 2011, despite the fact that it still exists. At latest there is Bad weather for populists: the presidential campaigns of Andrzej Lepper and Bogusław Ziętek in 2010 (Polish: Niepogoda dla populistów: kampanie prezydenckie Andrzeja Leppera i Bogusława Ziętka w 2010 r.) by Jarosław Tomasiewicz that analyzes Lepper's 2010 presidential run, one which was to be the last of his life. In itself the analysis is "boring" in that Lepper's campaign was completely consistent with the party's ideology and proposals, what made it stand out to me was Tomasiewicz discussing subtle changes in Lepper's personality, and Tomasiewicz's conclusion that while abysmal, Lepper's performance rivaled that of the PSL, which had way more funds and men than he did. This made him Tomasiewicz speculate that Lepper has a good shot at making Samoobrona re-enter the Sejm.

Of course, Tomasiewicz's speculation turned out wrong because of Lepper's mysterious death in 2011, in what is considered either a suicide or murder depending on whom you ask. This is an interesting case of itself and it is something that a lot of works tend to focus on, some reading like detective novels. Some sources simply state the official ruling of a suicide, others are ambiguous. It is surprising since I even know a case of a well-known Polish political scientist, Mirosława Drozd-Piasecka, expressing doubt in one of her academic works, The image of Samoobrona's leader Andrzej Lepper in the media (Polish: Wizerunek przywódcy Samoobrony Andrzeja Leppera w przekazie medialnym):

Of course, it cannot be ruled out that Lepper took his own life. At the same time, however, several arguments have recently emerged that could undermine this highly publicised version, which is convenient for the political establishment and the investigation undertaken by the public prosecutor's office.
After his death, several interviews with psychiatrists and psychologists appeared on television and in the press, including the tabloids, discussing suicide in general, the psychological and physical predispositions of people who decide to end their own lives, their behaviour and emotional states, and the causes of their despair and trauma. However, the ones I have read do not seem adequate to explain the case of Andrzej Lepper.

Ever since, all the sources are 'retroactive', including very recent ones like The right road The future of the European centre-right, which also fail to mention anything that is not covered by Wikipedia already. The party did try a comeback this year by nominating its own presidential candidate (for the first time since 2010), but she narrowly fell short of the 100,000 signatures needed to appear on the ballot. I did pay attention to any sources that document this candidate, but she, perhaps unsurprisingly, campaigned on being a follower of Lepper and just parroted his famous quotes. There was a pro-Russian stance, but that was just pure consistency. And well, neither was it uniquely controversial. And way more interesting things happened anyway.

But anyway, sorry about the digression - unlike Samoobrona, Your Movement has been dissolved after prolonged inactivity, and while not dead, Palikot certainly can't make a come back. So to avoid my suffering, we likely do not have to worry about how old the sources are too much.

Thank you for your advice and opinion, one which I will try to satisfy despite the fact that you probably know me as a somewhat WP:BATTLEGROUND type of editor, a behavior I am regretful of. Take care! Brat Forelli🦊 22:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Brat Forelli🦊 22:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

References