The aim of the article was the analysis of the political thought of Unia Demokratyczna, Unia Wolności and Partia Demokratyczna demokraci.pl, that refers to one of fundamental pillars of the activity of this group, i.e. the past, and the influence of Komitet Obrony Robotników (Workers' Defense Committee) and "Solidarności" (Solidarity) on the ideological heritage and functioning of UD, UW and PD. The focus was also put on the issue if, and in what way the leading figures of the analysed political subjects emphasised, in the new political reality, their origins while being in widely understood political opposition in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century, and how the program content of KOR and "Solidarity" was reflected in UD, UW and PD statements. The research aim undertook within the considerations was verification of the following research hypotheses: 1) referring to the tradition of Solidarity in the communities of UD, UW and PD was treated as legitimization of power and social trust; 2) associating of UD, UW and PD with the tradition deriving from the period of political opposition was something artificial and created entirely for the purposes of the political campaign and treated as a marketing measure. Among the applied research methods a significant meaning had the analysis of the sources of political thought, including program documents, stenographs of conferences or numerous interviews, as well as the comparative method that served to compare positions of political parties towards particular issues. The conducted analyses imply that UD, UW and PD had different approaches towards the tradition of KOR and "Solidarity", which resulted from grading the political heritage and adaptability of these aspects of activities undertaken in 70s and 80s that suited the new political reality. In this sense the only acceptable form of emphasising the tradition of "Solidarity" in the political thought of UD, UW and PD was using it for promotional purposes in the period of political campaigns, with almost no reference to the tradition of KOR. ; Celem artykułu była analiza myśli politycznej Unii Demokratycznej, Unii Wolności i Partii Demokratycznej demokraci.pl odnosząca się do jednego z zasadniczych filarów działalności tego środowiska, tj. przeszłości, a zwłaszcza wpływu tradycji Komitetu Obrony Robotników i "Solidarności" na dorobek ideowy i sposób funkcjonowania UD, UW i PD. Uwagę skoncentrowano również na tym, czy i w jaki sposób czołowe postacie analizowanych podmiotów politycznych, podejmując aktywność w ramach szeroko pojętej opozycji politycznej w latach 70. i 80. XX wieku, akcentowały w nowej rzeczywistości politycznej swój rodowód oraz na ile treści programowe KOR i "Solidarności" znalazły swoje odzwierciedlenie w enuncjacjach UD, UW i PD. Celami badawczymi podjętymi w ramach poczynionych rozważań była weryfikacja następujących hipotez badawczych: 1) powoływanie się na tradycję "Solidarności" w środowisku UD, UW i PD traktowano w kategoriach legitymizacji władzy i społecznego zawierzenia; 2) utożsamianie się przez UD, UW i PD z tradycją wywodzoną z okresu działalności opozycji politycznej było tworem sztucznym stworzonym wyłącznie na potrzeby kampanii wyborczych traktowanym jako zabieg marketingowy. Wśród wykorzystanych metod badawczych istotne znaczenie odegrała analiza źródeł myśli politycznej, w tym licznych dokumentów programowych, stenogramów konferencji czy wywiadów, oraz metoda komparatystyczna, służąca porównaniu stanowisk partii politycznych wobec podejmowanej problematyki. Z przeprowadzonych analiz wynika, iż UD, UW i PD odmiennie podchodziły do tradycji KOR i "Solidarności", co wynikało z różnicowania dziedzictwa opozycyjnego i zarazem adaptowalności tych aspektów działalności z lat 70. i 80. XX wieku, które przystawały do nowej rzeczywistości politycznej. W tym znaczeniu jedyną akceptowalną formą eksponowania tradycji "Solidarności" w myśli politycznej UD, UW i PD było wykorzystywanie jej do celów promocyjnych w okresie kampanii wyborczych, przy znikomym wręcz odniesieniu do tradycji KOR.
The book contains a thorough analysis of the European Union institutional system as a specific, sui generis international organisation, in the context of its legitimization (its validity and legitimacy). The book is mainly theoretical. Primarily, the author aims at presenting a reliable depiction of the EU institutional system legitimization through the prism of the theoretical output concerning legitimization of the political power, including and accentuating the indicated specificity of the EU as a distinct international organisation. Secondly, he took into consideration the changes introduced into the legal foundations of the EU functioning, pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty – the latest treaty reforming the structures of the Union. In the context of the main theme of the present study, these changes are important not only in terms of the EU institutions themselves, i.e. their competences and reciprocal relations, but also with regard to the fundamental change of the legal character of the EU, and the alterations introduced into the individual Union politics. Thirdly, the author attempts to present the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization in the special circumstances, i.e. in the situation of the most profound economic crisis that the EU members have faced since the beginning of the integration process. The EU is regarded as a specific structure, being neither a state nor a typical international organisation. Such an approach was the starting point for the main premise of the present book – the idea that the thesis about the deficiency of democracy in the EU, formulated in the literature on the subject and in the public debate, is a certain simplification, and the characteristic features of the EU and its institutions, which provoked the formulation of such a thesis, should be considered in a broader context, such as the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization and, alternatively, the deficiency of that legitimization. For the direct democratic legitimization is only one of many sources of legitimacy of the EU institutional system and of the Union as a specific international organisation in general – an extremely important source, perhaps the most important, yet not the only one. Thus, the legitimization of the EU and its institutions should be analysed in a broader perspective, which also includes other sources of legitimization – as it is done in case of every political power which, striving for its legitimization to be as strong as possible, attempts to derive it from the largest number of sources. According to the author of the book, to base the EU institutional system legitimization only on the grounds of the direct democratic legitimization characteristic of a democratic state, would be tantamount to a certain disruption of the right order. It would rather be a symptom of too advanced an integration on the "institutional" level in comparison to the extent of the "material" integration. Until the EU is a structure sui generis, in which case it is a combination of features characteristic of an intergovernmental, international organisation, a supranational organisation or a state, the nature of legitimization of this structure should also be specific. The most important role should be played by the democratic legitimization, which should be completed with other sources, owing to which the functioning of the EU institutional system, and the whole EU, could be recognised as legally valid. Apart from the main thesis also other theses and hypotheses are posed in the book. The first chapter is a certain theoretical introduction and a basis to the deliberations presented in the further parts of this study. In the first subsection, with reference to the literature on the subject, the problem of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, i.e. the concept, classifications and sources of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, have been synthetically depicted. In another part of chapter one, the author attempts to relate the problem of legitimization to the EU as a specific international organisation and to formulate his own definition of legitimization deficiency with regard to EU institutional system. Bearing in mind that the problem of legitimization deficiency in the EU (EC) has not been discussed on a larger scale until certain stage of development of integration process was reached, in 1.3. subsection, the author raises some questions concerning: the sufficiency of legitimization of the integration process during the first few decades after the Second World War, the grounds for that legitimization and the reasons why, at a certain stage of the EU (EC) development the legitimization of the Union's institutional system started to be considered insufficient, which was manifested in the opinions acknowledging the democracy and legitimization deficiency. The first chapter ends with a passage devoted to the importance of the EU institutional system legitimization, whereas the significance of legitimization to the political power and political institutions in general, consitutes its reference point. The second chapter (subsections 2.3.–2.8.) presents a synthesis of the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization, from the moment of the EC founding treaties ratification, till the time the changes pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty were introduced. The author focused here mainly on the competences of the particular EC (EU) institutions and their reciprocal relations, which should make it possible to observe two main tendencies in the dynamics of changes taking place in this field, and present its specificity and distinctiveness in comparison to the systems of democratic states. At the beginning of this chapter, a thesis has been formulated (simultaneously, becoming an extension of the attempt to determine why, at a certain stage of the integration process, the issue of democracy/legitimization deficiency started to be discussed – a question that was raised in the first chapter), which states that the legitimization of the EU institutional system will be sufficient, if the law regulations and political practice of their functioning are convergent with the level of advancement of the integration process in various spheres of social life; in other words, the "institutional" integration should correspond with the "material" integration (that is the Union politics). To that end, the author made an attempt to present, in a synthetized form, the development of the "material" integration (subsection 2.1.), which he completed with an analogical endeavour to illustrate the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization (subsection 2.9). For in accordance with the increasingly common approach, the EU institutions are treated as a system, the concept and principles of which have been presented in 2.2. subsection. In the third chapter, the author presents the EU institutional system in its current form, that is with the changes introduced under the Lisbon Treaty. Here, the selected aspects regarding competences and functioning of the particular EU institutions have been depicted, as well as the relations between them in the context of legitimization. Additionally, three selected problems regarding the EU institutional system have been raised, which are especially important in the context of its legitimization (the relation between the EU institutional system and the institutions of the EU member states, the question of transparency in the functioning of the EU institutions, as well as the Union budgets in the consecutive years). In the last subsection (3.9.) the specific features of the EU institutional system, significant in the context of its legitimization, have been identified. The fourth chapter is devoted to the functioning of the EU institutional system in the perspective of four basic sources of its legitimization, i.e. indirect and technocratic, direct and democratic, utilitarian, and one consisting of "values". The chapter ends with a conclusion outlining the specificity of the EU and its institutional system with regard to the sources of its legitimization, which is especially important in the context of the book's main thesis. The fifth chapter concerns the problem of legitimization of the EU institutions in the context of the economic crisis, which the EU member states struggle with since around the year 2008. The sixth chapter, in turn, regards the so called subjective (empirical, social) dimension of the EU institutions' legitimization, that is, the way this problem is perceived by the citizens of the EU member states. It has been based on the results of opinion polls conducted for the use of Eurobarometer, from among which these questions and answers were selected, which could be applied to illustrate the way the EU citizens perceive the Union institutions in the context of their legitimization. The closing remarks include the most important conclusions drawn from the conducted analyses and the potential reforms and modifications of the EU institutional system, which may allow for the reinforcement of its legitimization, primarily in its democratic aspect. The bibliography contains a list of sources which were cited and referred to in the book.
In 2015 we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first free local elections to self-governing bodies. Those elections activated local citizens initiatives and greatly contributed to the transformation in our social awareness, leading to real change in Poland's political regime. The underlying rationale of free local elections, however, was the package of laws adopted on 8 March 1990 which created real self-government, enabled the elections to commune and municipality councils of 27 May 1990 and introduced a new dynamic to the process of the decentralisation of the state.Changes are always the result of dreams and our ability to realise them. It is possible to make them if there exist organisational structures and institutions which allow such changes to be made. The need for political transformation had long been felt and deliberated on by those involved in spatial development or and for whom the state monopoly status quo was unacceptable. To quote the late and much missed Professor Jerzy Regulski, the implementation of self-governance was departure from the monopoly of central government, which in turn meant an actual change in the political regime. The reform of 1990 broke up five monopolies of an authoritarian state which had existed in Poland since the end of the World War II: the political monopoly of one party, of centralised power, of uniform state ownership, of public finances and the state budget, and of the uniform public administration of the state.However, it must always be remembered that the possibility of realising dreams of a change in the nature of the state was shaped in the first triumphant stage of the Solidarity period in 1989, and later became a stable basis for the future in the resolution of the First National Congress of Solidarity Delegates and in the 'Samorządna Rzeczpospolita' (A Self-governing Republic) document. The success of the real change of 1990 was rooted in the long term determination and persistence of those whose personal experiences were involved in the quest for rationality in land management. Both Professor Jerzy Regulski and Professor Michał Kulesza drew their inspiration to change the political regime from the need to ensure that society worked in a way that would allow the local needs and initiatives be articulated, and inhabitants having the ability to take concrete decisions about the surrounding environment. In this way, the existing possibility of active involvement in local initiatives, incapable of being realised in the former political system, would become a reality and the citizens would be able to make collective decisions about their local area. This would also give a chance to oppose formally the investment logic resulting from the central planning of those times.The analytic work aimed at the transformation of the political regime that Professor Regulski started in the 1970s during his employment at the University of Lodz were subsequently continued at the Economic Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences and led to the formation of a group of individuals for whom self-governance became a core value of the new regime and a way of looking at the modern state. The change that took place in 1990 was the beginning of the building of a de-centralised, modern state, the status of which was subsequently confirmed when Poland adopted the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Self-government is never an institution whose constitution is ever finished. This was shown during the reform carried out by Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek's government, which continued the break-up of the monopoly of power and implemented subsidiarity principles at the regional level enabling them to exercise powers locally, in newly created districts (powiat), as well as in the later legislative changes pertaining to the regulations governing the election of mayors (wójt or burmistrz) or the work of the Komisja Wspólna Rządu i Samorządu (Joint Committee of the Government and Self-Government). Today, after 25 years of our experience with self-government, we are much more aware of the changes needed in the self-governing system. They include the strengthening of actual independence of self-government achieved through the ensured free choice of the manner in which self-government bodies will carry out their tasks, guaranteed revenues and the possibility given to commune and municipality authorities of exercising real influence on their size, improved cooperation between communes and municipalities (gmina) and districts (powiat), and, fore and foremost, by ensuring all citizens a chance of co-decision on matters which directly affect them. Changes in the regime of self-governance are a consequence of its assessment by external, independent experts but are also motivated by the natural dynamics of the changes resulting from the very essence of self-governance and its institutions, communes and municipalities (gmina), districts (powiat) and regions (voivodships).In 2010 associations of self-governing units realised the need for change and amendments to the law on self-governance. Thus, they formulated a number of proposals which were included in a document called 'Requests to the President of the Republic of Poland to commence work on the white book of territorial self-government in the year of the 20th anniversary.' This document initiated work on a draft law which in 2013 became the subject of a legislative initiative put forward by President Bronisław Komorowski. The purpose of the new law on the collaboration of self-governing bodies in local and regional development is to strengthen the role of the citizen as well as the community in the work of self-government in Poland. The effort that Professors Jerzy Regulski and Michał Kulesza in their capacity as Advisors to President Komorowski put into the legislative work remains invaluable. It is believed that the involvement of individual citizens constitutes the strength of self-government and is a guarantee of its role at the service and in the interest of communities, individual inhabitants and businesses. Hence the need for enhanced collaboration and the partnership of different bodies of self-government and the increased involvement of citizens. There is draft law that contains regulations supporting these activities.Under the draft law, a local referendum is seen as an important tool to ensure the participation of citizens in decision-making processes, including those concerning local development plans. Local referenda should constitute a mechanism used to solve local issues of material importance to residents. Their result should be binding regardless of the turnout.Self-governance helps to create and strengthen the natural inclination of individuals to act together in areas where because of their social, business or cultural ties, a local community spirit develops. In today's world of global challenges and competition, we are looking for a space for the individual which provides a feeling of security. Another important value of self-governance is the possibility of creating affiliations with a community as well as individual entrepreneurship, social activity and a regard for the collective memory of the symbols of a place. The ability to participate in community life is inseparable from the functioning of democracy at a local level, with the consultation process, election of public officers, or participation in referenda.Self-governance is a special value which gives each of us a chance to exercise a real influence on local matters. It therefore occupies a very special place where politics has a personal dimension. The variety of self-governance means at the same time a variety of development policies since there are different communities, with different emotions, different experiences or ability to participate in democratic management. This variety is a special asset in the process of the stabilisation of the state as a whole. The diversity of opinions and experiences, appointments to public office of citizens not affiliated to or necessarily recommended by any party creates the solid foundations of a democratic state. This feeling of freedom within self-governing communities must be continued and promoted.The authors of many of the texts published in this issue of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny devoted to self-governance are, at the same time, authors of the transformation of Polish law and Poland's administration in the last 25 years. Contributions submitted by, among others, Prof. dr hab. Irena Lipowicz, Prof. Jerzy Stępień, Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Buzek, Prof. dr hab. Leon Kieres or Prof. dr hab. Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz are the best proof of the capital importance that self-governance plays in a democratic state. I thank Professor Teresa Rabska and the editorial staff of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny for their active involvement in questions of self-government from the very beginning. This issue is entirely devoted to a range of legal, economic and sociological aspects of new challenges facing self-government and its regime. Once again I thank them for such active involvement and participation in the jubilee celebrations of Self-Government and this special issue of the journal.We need self-governance not only to feel that we can influence decisions being made about local issues but also to be continually able to renew our confidence in institutions at a local level, and through their collaboration at the national level.
