Suchergebnisse

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.

The article discusses the problem of procedures and specific features of functioning of a modern democratic state, as well as threats resulting from weaknesses of democracy despite existence of mechanisms protecting it from abuse. This problem is analysed on the example of the ongoing political conflict about the Constitutional Tribunal: an institution of constitutionally guaranteed independence. This conflict reveals that in Poland a need for discussion and perhaps for verification of the current philosophy and practice of democracy, has arisen. Furthermore, it demonstrates that law and the rule of law are neither sufficient guarantors of a democratic system's stability, nor guardians of civil rights and freedoms. A weakness of the democratic system lies in the fact that in the name of correctly understood democratic principles it is possible to distort the system through enacting wrong laws. Even though the acts of democracy participants, mainly decision-makers, are lege artis, they lead to impairment of democracy. Without doubt, a democratically organized society is an autonomous community and polyarchy which has adopted a democratic system of government as a form of its organization. On the other hand, democracies are highly conflict-prone systems, for example, due to the fact that they are based on the principle that all views and all participants of democracy are equal. As a consequence, such logic leads directly to emergence of disagreements, conflicts and even fights among democracy participants. This feature of democracy has enforced the establishment of appropriate procedures of conflict solving so that to ensure a possibly optimal resolution of crisis situations which could ultimately cause even a collapse of the democratic system. Thus, a simple mathematical rule has been adopted, albeit secondary in relation to any other methods of conflict solving, that is the majority principle. This is a standard of the democratic conduct without which the rule of majority would not be possible. The Constitutional Tribunal has recently become the object of popular interest – one of the many institutions of a democratic state which has not aroused so much factual and political dispute ever before. The conflict over the Tribunal has basically the formal and legal character, this is a technical dispute whose solution should be dictated by binding regulations and developed by experts in law. However, this is not the case. This conflict has turned into an argument of a political character, so it has become a genuine clash of interests, additionally aggravated by values. Moreover, it has stirred up the society and the environment of lawyers. When a political conflict, as one of the conflict types, is analysed, it is defined as a disagreement over power, whose participants are these individuals, groups, institutions and organizations which have a direct impact on politics or influence it through political channels. The practice of democratic states of the Western world does not prescribe a way at the beginning of which there is a sign "the winner takes it all". This practice is corroborated by philosophy and theory of democracy, as well as by several hundred years of achievements including such principles as Montesquieu's tripartite system of the separation of powers or the contemporary definition of democracy which describes it as a rule of majority that guarantees rights to minorities. ; Artykuł porusza problem procedur i specyfiki funkcjonowania nowoczesnego państwa demokratycznego oraz zagrożeń wynikających ze słabości demokracji mimo istnienia mechanizmów zabezpieczających ją przed nadużyciami. Problem ten jest rozpatrywany na przykładzie toczącego się konfliktu politycznego o Trybunał Konstytucyjny, instytucję o gwarantowanej konstytucyjnie niezależności. Konflikt ten pokazał, że w Polsce pojawiła się konieczność dyskusji i być może weryfikacji dotychczasowej filozofii i praktyki demokratycznej. Również to, że prawo i rządy prawa nie są wystarczającymi gwarantami stabilności ustroju demokratycznego, tym bardziej strażnikami praw i wolności obywatelskich. Ułomność systemu demokratycznego polega na tym, iż w imię właściwie pojętych zasad demokratycznych możliwe jest wypaczanie systemu przez tworzenie złego prawa. Działania uczestników demokracji, głównie decydentów, są lege artis, ale prowadzą do jej osłabiania. Demokratycznie urządzone społeczeństwo jest bez wątpienia autonomiczną wspólnotą i poliarchią, a przyjęło jako formę swojej organizacji demokratyczny system rządów. Demokracje są natomiast systemami wybitnie konfliktogennymi, choćby z tego powodu iż opierają się na zasadzie równości wszystkich poglądów i wszystkich podmiotów biorących udział w demokracji. Taka logika prowadzi w prostej konsekwencji do pojawienia się niezgodności i konfliktów, a nawet walk pomiędzy uczestnikami demokracji. Ta właściwość demokracji wymusiła stworzenie odpowiednich procedur rozstrzygania konfliktów, by zagwarantować w miarę optymalne wychodzenie z sytuacji kryzysowych, mogących w ostateczności doprowadzić nawet do upadku systemu demokratycznego. Przyjęto zatem prostą zasadę matematyczną, co prawda wtórną wobec wszystkich innych sposobów rozwiązywania konfliktów – zasadę większości. Jest ona regułą demokratycznej gry, bez której nie mogłyby istnieć rządy większości. Przedmiotem społecznego zainteresowania stał się ostatnio Trybunał Konstytucyjny, jedna z wielu instytucji demokratycznego państwa, która dotychczas nie wywoływała aż takich sporów merytorycznych i politycznych. Konflikt o Trybunał ma przede wszystkim charakter formalno-prawny, jest to techniczny spór, którego rozwiązanie powinno być podyktowane przez obwiązujące prawo, a jego rozstrzyganiem powinni się zająć eksperci z dziedziny prawa. Tak jednak nie jest. Konflikt ten przerodził się w konflikt o charakterze politycznym, stał się więc rzeczywistym konfliktem interesów, uzupełnionym dodatkowo o wartości. Zaktywizował ponadto społeczeństwo oraz środowisko prawnicze. Gdy rozważa się jeden z typów konfliktów, mianowicie polityczny, definiuje się go jako taki, którego przedmiotem jest władza, a podmiotami biorącymi w nim udział są te jednostki, grupy, instytucje, organizacje, które bezpośrednio mają wpływ na politykę lub oddziałują na nią za pośrednictwem kanałów politycznych. Praktyka demokratycznych państw świata zachodniego nie wskazuje drogi, na początku której stoi znak "zwycięzca bierze wszystko". Praktykę tę wyznacza filozofia i teoria demokracji oraz kilkusetletni dorobek z takimi dogmatami, jak choćby monteskiuszowski trójpodział władz czy współczesna definicja demokracji, według której są to rządy większości gwarantujące prawa mniejszościom.

The article analyzes the peculiarities of the conflict in Ukraine, its preconditions and geopolitical consequences. It provides the examples and numbers, which show the low level of trust to government institutions, law enforcement agencies, judicial system and a much higher level of trust to non-governmental organizations. It covers the issue of democracy condition or, to be more precise, the lack of democracy, which causes the society's tendency to protest. It is stated that the public's discontent was with the oligarchs' influence on the country, with the corruption on all the levels of social relations, with the pressure on small and medium enterprises, and ambiguity about the strategic course of the state's development (European Union, Customs Union). The article defines the issues connected with the beginning and reasons, which made the people go out to the Maidan. The most prevailing causes include the severe beating of the demonstrators on the Maidan overnight into November 30, repressions, Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign an EU association agreement, and the desire to change life in Ukraine. There was also a great wish to change the authorities in Ukraine. The article analyzes the Russian Federation's armed aggression against Ukraine, which became a long-term factor of influence on the Ukrainian political, economical, military and social reality. It is stated that due to the RF actions within 2014-2015, the system of global and regional security and the current system of international law have been deformed. Almost all international security assurances for Ukraine (the Budapest Memorandum, in particular) proved to be deprived of legal capacity in conditions when the aggressor is one of the guarantors – Russian Federation. It is demonstrated that the Russian invasion and seizure of the part of the Eastern-Ukrainian region, the Crimea became a direct challenge both to the European system of security and Ukraine. ; W artykule przeanalizowano сechy konfliktu na Ukrainie, jego uwarunkowania oraz konsekwencje geopolityczne. Autor podaje przykłady, dane, które wskazują na niski poziom zaufania do instytucji rządowych, sił bezpieczeństwa, wymiaru sprawiedliwości i znacznie wyższy poziom zaufania do instytucji pozarządowych. Rozważane jest pytanie o stan demokracji, a raczej jej braku, co tworzy w społeczeństwie tendencję do protestu. Powszechne niezadowolenie ludności skierowane było przeciwko rosnącemu wpływowi oligarchów w kraju, korupcji na wszystkich poziomach relacji społecznych, naciskowi na małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa, niepewności kursu strategicznego państwa (Unia Europejska, Euroazjatycka Unia Celna). Autor określa zagadnienia związane z początkiem i motywami, które doprowadziły ludzi do Rewolucji godności. Główne przyczyny niezadowolenia: ciężkie pobicie demonstrantów na Placu Niepodległości w noc na 30 listopada, represje, odmowa Wiktora Janukowycza podpisania umowy stowarzyszeniowej z UE oraz pragnienie zmiany stanu życia na Ukrainie.Również dość wyraźne było pragnienie zmiany władzy na Ukrainie. Przeanalizowano zbrojną agresję Rosji przeciwko Ukrainie, która stała się długoterminowym czynnikiem wpływającym na rzeczywistość polityczną, gospodarczą, wojskową i społeczną. Z powodu działań Federacji Rosyjskiej w latach 2014–2015 był zniekształcony system globalnego i regionalnego bezpieczeństwa oraz obecny system prawa międzynarodowego. Prawie wszystkie międzynarodowe gwarancje bezpieczeństwa dla Ukrainy (w tym w ramach Memorandum Budapesztańskiego) okazały się niezdolne w sytuacji, gdy agresorem został jeden z gwarantów – Federacja Rosyjska. Udowodniono, że rosyjska inwazja i zajęcie części wschodniego regionu Ukrainy oraz Krymu było bezpośrednim wyzwaniem dla bezpieczeństwa europejskiego i państwa ukraińskiego. ; Проаналізовано особливості конфлікту в Україні, його передумови та геополітичні наслідки. Наводяться приклади, цифри, які свідчать про низький рівень довіри до інститутів влади, силових структур, судової системи і значно вищий рівень довіри до недержавних інституцій. Розглядаються питання стану демократії, а точніше її відсутність, що породжує у суспільстві схильність до протестних акцій. Стверджується, що невдоволення населення було спрямоване проти посилення впливу олігархів у країні, корупції на всіх рівнях суспільних взаємовідносин, тиск на малий і середній бізнес, невизначеність із стратегічним курсом розвитку держави (Європейський Союз, Митний Союз). Окреслюються питання, пов'язані з початком і мотивами, що спонукали людей вийти на Майдан, серед яких найбільш поширеними виявилися: жорстоке побиття демонстрантів на Майдані у ніч на 30 листопада, репресії, відмова Віктора Януковича від підписання Угоди про асоціацію з Євросоюзом та прагнення змінити життя в Україні. Достатньо вираженими виявилися також прагнення змінити владу в Україні. Здійснено аналіз збройної агресії Російської Федерації проти України, яка стала довгостроковим чинником впливу на українську політичну, економічну, військову та соціальну реальність. Зазначено, що внаслідок дій РФ впродовж 2014–2015 рр. було деформовано систему глобальної та регіональної безпеки, а також чинну систему міжнародного права. Майже всі міжнародні гарантії безпеки для України (зокрема в межах Будапештського меморандуму) виявилися недієздатними в умовах, коли агресором виступив один із гарантів — Російська Федерація. Доведено, що російське вторгнення Ціна свободи: конфлікт в Україні та його геополітичні наслідки 99 та захоплення частини Східноукраїнського регіону, Криму, стало безпосереднім викликом і європейській системі безпеки, і українській державі.

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.