The concept of trust in the context of voting behavior is difficult to define, because it is not a factor specific solely to this domain. Firstly, trust is an essential element of social life. It is the essence of social capital that has signifi can't impact on many issues – education, economic growth, crime level, quality of functioning of the democratic institutions, community of the citizens. Secondly, in large partly due to the multiple contexts of use of this concept, there are difficulties as regards distinguishing it from related concepts such as empathy, community, respect, kindness, brotherhood, esteem, unity. Despite the many shortcomings and imperfections in the concept of trust, it appears that the concept is well understood intuitively – individuals answering questions in surveys on trust seem to understand the concept very well, and their expressed trust level is proportionate to their individually observable behaviour.

Politics is a particular field of social activity where accusing an opponent of mental incapacitation occurs as a frequent element of the conducted narrative. Moreover, public opinion discrediting a profession of a politician is very eager to question the mental health of political actors. Vocabulary used in the public is a vital testimony of societies attitude towards people with mental disorders. However, we refer paranoia to personality traits of individuals while political paranoia refers to reaction to events, facts or to the way it is seen by individuals or groups. The authors do not have any ambition to carry out a psychological analysis of politicians. What is intriguing is the issue of using political paranoia (searching for enemies, tracking plots, fighting in defence of ideals, irrational justifi - cation of failures) in the group spectrum for elections. What is also intriguing is the answer to the question whether politicians are paranoid, or it is a well planned election strategy which aims to identify an opponent to consolidate a group of voters around the leader.

Scientific discussion on political leadership increasingly takes on the form of interdisciplinary argumentation, in which different research perspectives, models and explanatory conceptual grids overlap. This state of affairs is on the one hand dictated by the contemporary trends in scientific research, especially in the broadly defined social sciences, where the cognitive, explanatory or descriptive relevance is achieved only by taking into account a broader, inter-disciplinary nature of scientific knowledge. In this sense, a thorough, reliable research practice consists primarily in crossing the formal borders of scientific disciplines, where researchers renounce the “complex” of detailed and firm definitions of their own subject of study to turn instead towards integration of knowledge from various, often very different, areas. The above is mainly due to the dispersion of objective scientific knowledge, which is conditioned, among others by: scientific and technical progress, the phenomenon of intertextuality (modern researchers in humanities concentrate their research effort on the texts and practices associated with this phenomenon, which means that their primary method in analyses of political phenomena is to fortify the text – specifically, to prepare the scientific text in such a way as to meet the standards of scientific writing and withstand criticism in the absence of the writer; as well as conceptual-theoretical pluralism present in social sciences. On the other hand, it is the result of scientific analysis of the given forms and practices of leadership, where nowadays greater attention is paid to the multi-dimensionality of leadership processes in politics, related to: the multi-level nature of concepts and research (meso, micro and macro-theoretical level analyses) and the need to take into account a large number of variables in the study of leadership (personality and environmental, situational, institutional factors, economic, political or religious variables). The consequence of this state of affairs is the multi-paradigm character of leadership, which in this case means that very often highly different ways of defining and explaining the complex relationship between a particular political leader and followers co-exist within the discipline. In addition, the multiplicity of paradigms of political leadership is a feature demonstrating the interdisciplinary nature of knowledge generated by political science, where various claims, theses, observations or conclusions complement each other, for example those originating in disciplines such as sociology, law, psychology, management sciences and cultural studies.

The changes in political life in Poland in the period 2005–2011, which restructured the existing balance of power (dominance of post-Solidarity parties at the expense of the post-communist party) force us to consider whether the party system evolution involves changes in the sphere of ideological divisions. But there also arises another question about the crisis of the left, which could mean the end of the previous model, intergroup rivalry. But there is no doubt that it occurred after 2005 events. Initiated processes took a completely different direction than those in the 90^s. The purpose of the article is to explain the ongoing political disputes, and also attempt to answer the question: what factors shape the profile of program-ideological political formations in Poland.

It is not without reason that we reflect more and more on the causes of the current state of political thinking in Polish society. Indeed, in modern times, difficult and uncertain, and turbulent times of great transformation, human thought is clearly not keeping pace. Given the rapidly changing external circumstances we have become increasingly confused and inept. We do not really know how to deal with the emerging threats and challenges of modern times, described by the eminent sociologist and philosopher Zygmunt Bauman as the era of “liquid modernity”. It is noticeable that our perception and image of social reality and our role in it, including its political dimension, is quite imperfect and restricted, and that our ideological life is in deep crisis or has perhaps even disappeared.

It is already the third time when the International Scientifi c Conference has taken place in Torun, attended by more than 100 scholars from all scientific centres as well as several participants from abroad. The initiator and scientific manager of all so far conferences has been dr Joanna Marszałek-Kawa, assistant director of the Faculty of Political Sciences of Nicolaus Copernicus University. The conference was arranged by the Asia – Pacific Society and the Faculty of Political Sciences, Faculty of International Studies of Nicolaus Copernicus University and Polish-Chinese Friendship Society.

On the 21st and 22nd of May 2009, an International Scientific Conference "The Faces of Asian Statehood. Civilization, Cultural, Political, Legal and Economic Aspects" was held in Toruń, Poland. The event took place thanks to the joint initiative of the Asia and Paci! c Society and its Chairman Adam Marszałek – the main organizing institution, Institute of Political Science & Institute of International Relations – University of Nicolaus Copernicus, Toruń, Poland, as well as local (President of Toruń) and regional (Marshal of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Region) authorities. Joanna Marszałek- -Kawa was the Scientific Manager of the sessions. Members of the Organizing Committee include also Lucyna Osińska, Robert Gawłowski, Joanna Modrzyńska and Mariusz Popławski.

From the perspective of the political party, defining the sources and funding models are very important issues. Defining the legal standards, which provide in particular the certain and secure political parties funding, in a right manner, enables to direct their main activity on the more substantive areas. The subject area of the sources and models of political parties funding causes a great deal of emotions and controversy, not only among the political class, but also among the representatives of the science world and scholars. While the issue concerning the scope and amount of the funds has been revived at almost every single local, parliamentary or presidential elections, the analysis of and debate on the systemic solutions have been continued permanently.