The purpose of this article is to analyze the healthcare policy in the light of securing citizens' interests by bringing the perspective of patients' advocacy organizations. The paper tries to supplement the discussion on the role of this particular group of stakeholders in the decision-making process in the healthcare sector. Referring to empirical examples, the author assumes that the entire Polish healthcare system does not serve patients' interests well because of organizational, financial and personnel shortages, while the constitutional promise of equal access to healthcare services is paradoxically an effective barrier to any changes aimed at improving the way of functioning of the system. Despite the impression of a "patient-centered turn" in the healthcare policy in Poland, the organized interests of patients centered around advocacy organizations still have little impact on the process of formulating and implementing important changes in this sector policy.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the healthcare policy in the light of securing citizens' interests by bringing the perspective of patients' advocacy organizations. The paper tries to supplement the discussion on the role of this particular group of stakeholders in the decision-making process in the healthcare sector. Referring to empirical examples, the author assumes that the entire Polish healthcare system does not serve patients' interests well because of organizational, financial and personnel shortages, while the constitutional promise of equal access to healthcare services is paradoxically an effective barrier to any changes aimed at improving the way of functioning of the system. Despite the impression of a "patient-centered turn" in the healthcare policy in Poland, the organized interests of patients centered around advocacy organizations still have little impact on the process of formulating and implementing important changes in this sector policy. ; Celem niniejszego artykułu jest analiza sektorowej polityki ochrony zdrowia w świetle zabezpieczenia interesu obywateli poprzez przybliżenie perspektywy zorganizowanych interesów organizacji pacjentów. Tekst jest próbą uzupełnienia dyskusji nt. roli tej szczególnej grupy interesariuszy w procesie podejmowania decyzji w sektorze ochrony zdrowia. Odwołując się do przykładów empirycznych, założono, że cały polski system ochrony zdrowia nie służy dobrze interesom pacjentów z powodu niedoborów organizacyjnych, finansowych i personalnych, a konstytucyjna obietnica równego dostępu do świadczeń ochrony zdrowia jest paradoksalnie skuteczną barierą dla wszelkich zmian zmierzających do poprawy sposobu funkcjonowania tego systemu. Pomimo wrażenia "zwrotu pacjento-centrycznego" w ochronie zdrowia w Polsce zorganizowane interesy pacjentów skupione wokół rzeczniczych organizacji pacjentów wciąż mają niewielki udział w procesie formułowania i wdrażania ważnych zmian w tej polityce sektorowej.
The aim of the research is to explore various forms of participation of the EU Member States Parliaments in the political processes of the European Union. The assessment of the intensity of the analyzed participation will be made by applying the concept of classification of the distinguished participation, which includes passive and active participation. This study has a significant impact in the context of participation of citizens, whose direct representatives are elected members of the national Parliaments (NP). The article verifies the hypothesis that the variety of forms of participation of NP in the political processes in the EU strengthens the democratic legitimacy by increasing transparency and accountability of the EU institutions and by improving cross-level communication lines between the EU institutions and national authorities. Active forms of participation increase influence of NP on the EU political processes. However, a wide range of informal participation increases the effectiveness of supranational decision-making processes, in particular, reducing the technocratic nature of the decisions.
The aim of the research is to explore various forms of participation of the EU Member States Parliaments in the political processes of the European Union. The assessment of the intensity of the analyzed participation will be made by applying the concept of classification of the distinguished participation, which includes passive and active participation. This study has a significant impact in the context of participation of citizens, whose direct representatives are elected members of the national Parliaments (NP). The article verifies the hypothesis that the variety of forms of participation of NP in the political processes in the EU strengthens the democratic legitimacy by increasing transparency and accountability of the EU institutions and by improving cross-level communication lines between the EU institutions and national authorities. Active forms of participation increase influence of NP on the EU political processes. However, a wide range of informal participation increases the effectiveness of supranational decision-making processes, in particular, reducing the technocratic nature of the decisions.
Artykuł jest próbą krytycznego socjologicznego spojrzenia na reformę samorządową przeprowadzoną w Polsce w 1990 r. oraz na jej kolejne korekty w 1999 i 2002 r. Krytyka ta odwołuje się do dwóch podstawowych koncepcji samorządu. Po pierwsze, do demokratycznych, obywatelskich, decentralizacyjnych idei Jerzego Regulskiego, głównego autora tej reformy. Po drugie, do rozwijanej w brytyjskim Institute of Local Government Studies koncepcji Michaela Clarka i Johna Stewarta dwóch typów relacji między władzą lokalną a mieszkańcami i co zatem idzie ‒ do dwóch typów zarządzania gminą: zarządzania zorientowanego na mieszkańca-klienta i zarządzania zorientowanego na mieszkańca-obywatela. Opierając się na krytyce tej reformy dokonanej przez samego Regulskiego piętnaście lat po jej wprowadzeniu oraz aktualnych danych zastanych i badaniach własnych, autor próbuje pokazać, że po kolejnych dziesięciu latach krytyka tej reformy jako niedostatecznie upodmiotowiającej mieszkańców jest co najmniej tak samo aktualna. Kanały demokratycznej artykulacji interesów różnych grup mieszkańców gmin są mało funkcjonalne, zwłaszcza w dużych miastach. ; In this paper the self-government reform of 1990 and its subsequent corrections of 1999 and 2002 are analysed from a sociological perspective. The critical analysis focuses on two basic concepts of self-governance: (i) the concept based on decentralisation, democratisation and citizenfocused government as represented by the main author of the reform Jerzy Regulski, and (ii) the concept currently being developed at the British Institute of Local Government Studies authored by Michael Clark and John Stewart, proposing two types of relations between a local authority and local residents, and consequently two types of commune and municipality (gmina) management: one oriented on the inhabitant-client and one oriented on the citizen-client relationship. Based on the criticism of the reform articulated by Regulski fifteen years after its implementation, as well as on the current data and his own analysis, the author proposes that today, after another ten years, the same criticism pointing to the still insufficient treatment of local residents as the main focus, or object of self-government concern, has lost none of its topicality. The channels of the democratic articulation of the interests of different groups of commune and municipality (gmina) inhabitants do not function properly, which is particularly evident in big cities.
The problem of democratic deficit in European institutions did not draw the particular attention of either EU officials or the national leaders of member states over the long period of the European Community's' existence. The political discussion over the issue of EU democratization was revived by a speech delivered by German minister of foreign affairs, Joschka Fisher, at the Humboldt University on May 12, 2000. Presenting his vision of the future of European integration this German politician emphasized that it was necessary to solve the 'problem of democracy' among others. Shortly before this, democratic deficit had become the subject of a comprehensive scientific analysis. The literature of the subject examined sources, formulated the definitions of democratic deficit, and searched for the answers to the question ofwhat the European Union is, what democracy is and whether it is appropriate to talk about a democratic non-state. ; The problem of democratic deficit in European institutions did not draw the particular attention of either EU officials or the national leaders of member states over the long period of the European Community's' existence. The political discussion over the issue of EU democratization was revived by a speech delivered by German minister of foreign affairs, Joschka Fisher, at the Humboldt University on May 12, 2000. Presenting his vision of the future of European integration this German politician emphasized that it was necessary to solve the 'problem of democracy' among others. Shortly before this, democratic deficit had become the subject of a comprehensive scientific analysis. The literature of the subject examined sources, formulated the definitions of democratic deficit, and searched for the answers to the question ofwhat the European Union is, what democracy is and whether it is appropriate to talk about a democratic non-state.
An issue raised more and more frequently in political, as well as scientific discourse in the context of the European Union, is "democratic deficit". At the time, EU is perceived as an institution guaranteeing the preservation of democratic values in Europe and promoting them both on the continent and beyond. This article discusses both points of view, with emphasis placed on the democratic deficit aspect, measures undertaken to eliminate the negative consequences of the process, as well as the history of the concept: starting from the single European Act, through general elections to the European Parliament, and formal solutions leading to the gradual increase of EU powers. It is assumed in the article that the problem of democratic deficit has persisted in the European Union, especially since several changes were introduced to the political system of EU after The Treaty of Lisbon. As result, the key question that must be answered is whether under the provisions of the Treaty the EU will strengthen its democratic legitimacy. This article attempts to provide an answer, analyzing the role of national parliaments in the new institutional and normative reality and in the context of the democratic legitimacy deficit.
One of the instruments introduced into EU law on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon for the first time, aimed at strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the functioning of the EU, is the European citizens' initiative (ECI). The regulation on the ECI was adopted and entered into force in 2011 and started to apply from 1 April 2012. It seems, that almost six years of the functioning of the ECI is a sufficient period of time to try to assess its meaning to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the functioning of the EU. The main aim of the study is to answer the question: whether, taking into account the experiences of the ECI, the European citizens' initiative contributed to reducing the democratic deficit in the EU and thus to strengthening the legitimization of the European Union institutions and the EU as a whole. The article indicates the objectives of the ECI, which would allow to reduce the democratic deficit in the EU and strengthen the legitimacy of this organization. The most important data illustrating the functioning of the EIO were also presented. The next part of the article is the analysis and assessment of the importance of the ECI in reducing the democracy deficit and strengthening the legitimacy of the EU. The conclusions are included in the summary.
The paper is discussing the concept of shared sovereignty, coined by Jürgen Habermas, along with his theory of citizenship of the European Union. In particular, the Author of the paper makes reference to Habermas' model of EU citizenship in the light of the current legislation, policy and practice. The reference is made in an attempt to release whether the current shape, or condition, of European citizenship corresponds to its conceptual content and to clarify the general direction for the change as it could be fully implemented. All those issues are mentioned with a view to answer a very fundamental question, namely how to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the European Union? W swojej koncepcji dzielonej suwerenności ludu J. Habermas, nawiązując niejako do filozofii I. Kanta, próbuje odpowiedzieć na zasadnicze pytanie: jaki kształt musiałoby przybrać obywatelstwo Unii Europejskiej, aby jednostki mogły same siebie postrzegać jako obywateli UE? Niniejszy artykuł stanowi próbę odniesienia przyjętego przez J. Habermasa abstrakcyjnego modelu obywatelstwa UE do obowiązujących uregulowań prawnych oraz praktyki politycznej. Analiza przyjętego przez J. Habermasa modelu obywatelstwa UE posłuży również ukazaniu, na ile obecny kształt obywatelstwa unijnego odpowiada jego konceptualnej treści, a także w jakim kierunku muszą podążać zmiany, aby w pełni ją zrealizować. Wszystkie wymienione powyżej zagadnienia spaja fundamentalne pytanie: jak zapewnić Unii Europejskiej demokratyczną legitymizację?
Unia Europejska dopiero w 2007 r. zaproponowała wobec regionu Azji Centralnej strategię, w której odniesiono się do różnych problemów, w tym deficytu demokracji i łamania praw człowieka. Istotnym ograniczeniem działań UE jest występowanie w cieniu USA oraz brak ambicji by także rozwijać współpracę w innych obszarach jak bezpieczeństwo czy zwiększenie europejskich inwestycji. Kolejnym problemem jest po zakończeniu jedynej strategii brak nakreślenia priorytetów, które umożliwiłoby UE na odgrywanie większej roli w Azji Centralnej. ; European Union after years of relatively small activity, in 2007 offered a strategy to Central Asia. In that strategy were addressed many issues, including democratic deficit or human rights violations. EU in its activity is overshadowed by the US and has small capacity for pursuing its own policy to the Central Asia. Another problem is a fact that after accomplishing EU strategy to Central Asia there are no new initiatives which will contribute for more visible European activity in that region.
Unia Europejska dopiero w 2007 r. zaproponowała wobec regionu Azji Centralnej strategię, w której odniesiono się do różnych problemów, w tym deficytu demokracji i łamania praw człowieka. Istotnym ograniczeniem działań UE jest występowanie w cieniu USA oraz brak ambicji by także rozwijać współpracę w innych obszarach jak bezpieczeństwo czy zwiększenie europejskich inwestycji. Kolejnym problemem jest po zakończeniu jedynej strategii brak nakreślenia priorytetów, które umożliwiłoby UE na odgrywanie większej roli w Azji Centralnej. ; European Union after years of relatively small activity, in 2007 offered a strategy to Central Asia. In that strategy were addressed many issues, including democratic deficit or human rights violations. EU in its activity is overshadowed by the US and has small capacity for pursuing its own policy to the Central Asia. Another problem is a fact that after accomplishing EU strategy to Central Asia there are no new initiatives which will contribute for more visible European activity in that region.
Celem niniejszego tekstu jest spojrzenie na procesy europeizacyjne z aktualnej perspektywy uwzględniającej bardzo istotny kontekst kryzysu w strefie euro. Badania nad europeizacją wydają się sięgać do swoich korzeni – a więc po ponad dekadzie fascynacji transformacyjnym wpływem Unii Europejskiej i Jednolitego Rynku na państwa kandydujące, studia nad europeizacją wracają do analizy wewnętrznych polityk państw członkowskich i pytań o "siłę rażenia" Brukseli w ich realizacji. W końcowej części analizy autor odnosi problematykę europeizacji do kontrowersyjnej debaty nad legitymacją władzy w systemie Unii Europejskiej. Debata ta jest szczególnie istotna w czasach kryzysu, kiedy decyzje w zakresie polityki społeczno-gospodarczej podejmowane są poza konwencjonalnymi metodami znanymi z demokracji przedstawicielskiej na poziomie państwa narodowego, i jednocześnie są to decyzje silnie wpływające na życie obywateli wspólnoty.The objective of the paper is to look at the Europeanisation processes from the perspective of the euro-zone crisis. It seems that after a decade of fascination of transformative impact outside of the European union, the Europeanisation studies agenda comes back to its roots, meaning the domestic changes influenced by the supranational preasures. The crisis context is also delivered in the prism of the controversial debate on the legitimacy of the EU authorities and democratic deficit in general. This debate is crucially important in contemporary Europe since the key economic decissions are taken beyond the standard democratic procedures and at the same time they are highly contested by the public/demos.
Artykuł analizuje koncepcję partycypacji obywatelskiej opartej na ideach demokracji deliberatywnej i komunikacyjnego budowania sfery publicznej. Wokół idei demokracji deliberatywnej koncentrują się obecnie wiodące debaty dotyczące współczesnych teorii demokracji, społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i wielokulturowości. Deliberacja jest postrzegana również jako najlepszy sposób walki z deficytem demokracji w ramach systemu politycznego Unii Europejskiej. W przeciwieństwie do teorii demokracji zorganizowanej wokół instytucji głosowania, zwolennicy deliberacji wskazują, że tylko deliberacja w sferze publicznej może służyć legitymizowanemu stanowieniu prawa. W artykule dokonano zestawienia dwóch paradygmatycznych ujęć deliberacji: dyskursowej koncepcji Jürgena Habermasa i deliberacji wynikłej z Hobbesowskiego sposobu ujmowania języka i mowy. Pozwala to uwidocznić fakt, że ze znaczenia, jakie nadaje się deliberacji, wyniknąć mogą odmienne wizje państwa i sfery publicznej. The article explores the idea of deliberative citizen's participation and the communicative building of public sphere. The idea of deliberative democracy is at the center of current debates on theories of democracy, civil society, multiculturalism. It is seen as the best way to overcome the democratic deficit in the political system of EU. In contrast to the traditional theory of democracy which emphasize voting as a central institution of democracy, the proponents of deliberative democracy argue that legitimate lawmaking can arise only from public deliberation. The article contrasts two ways of understanding deliberations: the discursive conception of Jürgen Habermas and the idea of deliberation based on the Hobbesian theory of language. The aim is to show that the vision of the state and public sphere is closely related to the concept of deliberation.
The problem of the so-called democracy deficit in the European Union (EU) is one of the most important challenges the EU faces at the beginning of the 21st Century. Strengthening democratic legitimacy of the EU and getting its institutions closer to its citizens were amongthe crucial objectives of the Treaty establishing the Constitution for Europe and of the Treaty of Lisbon. The article deals with several new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon the Author finds closely related with the problem of democracy deficitin the EU. The Author points out such amendments of the Treaty ofLisbon as establishment of the post of the President of the European Council and that of High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, new definition of the qualified majority voting inthe Council, strengthening of political power of the European Parliament, new provisions on democratic rules in the EU or bigger role of national parliaments in the process of European integration and analyses the influence of these amendments on the problem of democracy deficit in the EU. The Author considers whether these new regulations reduce or not the democracy deficit in the EU.
The author draws attention to the consideration of the complexity of civil participation in deliberative democracy, indicating that the legislator assumed that dialogue is to be a way of existence, and thus the basis of any social situation in the state. State authorities appointed to serve the people and the common good have to ask citizens about their position in the case, not in order to obtain the desired response, thus emphasizing the departure from the monologue culture in favor of dialogue and communication with the public. The author claims that the normative foundations of the community state are linked by the conviction that public values and purposes are established in the communication process. In this approach, it is important to achieve public purposes and the quality of their achievement, its constructive features are: network, multi-level management, conciliation, participation. The basic mechanisms of action of this type of state are: deliberation, compromise and arrangements are made in the social networks – the dominant type of management of public affairs in this model is co-management. Solicitude of the state as a common good obliges not only a citizen, but means that a citizen has the right to expect that public authority will act so that the Republic of Poland can be considered a common good by citizens. Referring to literature, the author notes that deliberative democracy and its concept put more emphasis on the importance of conversation, discussion and debate on democratic practice than on the importance of voting. Its supporters argue that the debate improves the quality of collective decisions and increases the chances of their acceptance. Varieties of deliberative democracy range from accentuating local representation to reinforcing the debate within representative legislative bodies. The article points out the differences between discourse and deliberation. Moreover, the forms of civic participation and civic participation techniques used in Poland are presented. We have come to live in times when communication, both traditional and with the help of modern media, plays a significant role in shaping societies. It is important to understand the basic laws guiding communication, the ability to properly form interpersonal relationships, cognize the factors affecting the quality of messages transmitted, the technique of freedom of expression, the skill of persuasion and argumentation. The correct perception of the essence of dialogue in a deliberative democracy is its foundation, especially when it concerns institutions aimed at turning natural and legal persons to public decision-making process. Considering the literature, it was found that new participative solutions, primarily the ability to dialogue, could prevent a democratic deficit and also indicated that that civic participation impacts on the creation of deliberative democracy. ; The author draws attention to the consideration of the complexity of civil participation in deliberative democracy, indicating that the legislator assumed that dialogue is to be a way of existence, and thus the basis of any social situation in the state. State authorities appointed to serve the people and the common good have to ask citizens about their position in the case, not in order to obtain the desired response, thus emphasizing the departure from the monologue culture in favor of dialogue and communication with the public. The author claims that the normative foundations of the community state are linked by the conviction that public values and purposes are established in the communication process. In this approach, it is important to achieve public purposes and the quality of their achievement, its constructive features are: network, multi-level management, conciliation, participation. The basic mechanisms of action of this type of state are: deliberation, compromise and arrangements are made in the social networks – the dominant type of management of public affairs in this model is co-management. Solicitude of the state as a common good obliges not only a citizen, but means that a citizen has the right to expect that public authority will act so that the Republic of Poland can be considered a common good by citizens. Referring to literature, the author notes that deliberative democracy and its concept put more emphasis on the importance of conversation, discussion and debate on democratic practice than on the importance of voting. Its supporters argue that the debate improves the quality of collective decisions and increases the chances of their acceptance. Varieties of deliberative democracy range from accentuating local representation to reinforcing the debate within representative legislative bodies. The article points out the differences between discourse and deliberation. Moreover, the forms of civic participation and civic participation techniques used in Poland are presented. We have come to live in times when communication, both traditional and with the help of modern media, plays a significant role in shaping societies. It is important to understand the basic laws guiding communication, the ability to properly form interpersonal relationships, cognize the factors affecting the quality of messages transmitted, the technique of freedom of expression, the skill of persuasion and argumentation. The correct perception of the essence of dialogue in a deliberative democracy is its foundation, especially when it concerns institutions aimed at turning natural and legal persons to public decision-making process. Considering the literature, it was found that new participative solutions, primarily the ability to dialogue, could prevent a democratic deficit and also indicated that that civic participation impacts on the creation of deliberative democracy.
