Suchergebnisse

Celem niniejszego artykułu było ujęcie referendum niepodległościowego w ramach obecnych w nauce definicji i typologii oraz ukazanie głównych wątpliwości dotyczących politologicznych uwarunkowań oraz funkcji referendum niepodległościowego. Referendum niepodległościowe w większości przypadków uchodzi za szczególny instrument demokracji bezpośredniej i kluczowy etap procesu uzyskiwania własnej państwowości przez ruchy etnoregionalistyczne. Należy je zdefiniować jako głosowanie o charakterze powszechnym, w którym obywatele danego terytorium posiadający czynne prawo wyborcze mogą zadeklarować wolę utworzenia nowego państwa poprzez secesję. Referendum niepodległościowe jest pojęciem, w odniesieniu do którego widoczna jest istotna dysproporcja między liczbą badań empirycznych w formie studium przypadku a liczbą studiów o bardziej generalnym charakterze i teoretycznych ambicjach. Kluczowe problemy dotyczące analizy tej kategorii referendów to: określenie procedury referendum – sposobu inicjacji, warunków wstępnych, osób uprawnionych, treści pytania czy interpretacji wyników. Pamiętać należy o możliwości ustrojowego umocowania instytucji referendum, choć jej realizacja podlega wpływowi czynników bieżących oraz taktycznych decyzji politycznych aktorów, tak jak zwykłe głosowania powszechne. ; The aim of this article was to present the referendum on independence within the framework of the current definitions and typologies of referendum, and to present the main doubts concerning the political conditions and the function of the independence referendum. The referendum on independence in most cases is considered to be a particular instrument of direct democracy and a key step in the process of gaining statehood by the ethno-regional movements. Such a type of referendum should be defined as popular vote in which citizens (with voting rights) of a certain territory may declare their will to establish a new state through secession. The independence referendum is a concept in relation to which there is a significant disproportion between the number of empirical studies in the form of a case study and the number of studies of more general character and theoretical ambitions. The key issues concerning the analysis of this category of referenda are: the referendum procedure - the way of referendum initiative, the preconditions, the persons entitled, the content of the question or the interpretation of the results. It is important to remember about the possibility of a constitutional regulations of referendum, although its implementation is influenced by current factors and tactical political decisions by actors, just like ordinary public votes.

Celem niniejszego artykułu było ujęcie referendum niepodległościowego w ramach obecnych w nauce definicji i typologii oraz ukazanie głównych wątpliwości dotyczących politologicznych uwarunkowań oraz funkcji referendum niepodległościowego. Referendum niepodległościowe w większości przypadków uchodzi za szczególny instrument demokracji bezpośredniej i kluczowy etap procesu uzyskiwania własnej państwowości przez ruchy etnoregionalistyczne. Należy je zdefiniować jako głosowanie o charakterze powszechnym, w którym obywatele danego terytorium posiadający czynne prawo wyborcze mogą zadeklarować wolę utworzenia nowego państwa poprzez secesję. Referendum niepodległościowe jest pojęciem, w odniesieniu do którego widoczna jest istotna dysproporcja między liczbą badań empirycznych w formie studium przypadku a liczbą studiów o bardziej generalnym charakterze i teoretycznych ambicjach. Kluczowe problemy dotyczące analizy tej kategorii referendów to: określenie procedury referendum – sposobu inicjacji, warunków wstępnych, osób uprawnionych, treści pytania czy interpretacji wyników. Pamiętać należy o możliwości ustrojowego umocowania instytucji referendum, choć jej realizacja podlega wpływowi czynników bieżących oraz taktycznych decyzji politycznych aktorów, tak jak zwykłe głosowania powszechne. ; The aim of this article was to present the referendum on independence within the framework of the current definitions and typologies of referendum, and to present the main doubts concerning the political conditions and the function of the independence referendum. The referendum on independence in most cases is considered to be a particular instrument of direct democracy and a key step in the process of gaining statehood by the ethno-regional movements. Such a type of referendum should be defined as popular vote in which citizens (with voting rights) of a certain territory may declare their will to establish a new state through secession. The independence referendum is a concept in relation to which there is a significant disproportion between the number of empirical studies in the form of a case study and the number of studies of more general character and theoretical ambitions. The key issues concerning the analysis of this category of referenda are: the referendum procedure - the way of referendum initiative, the preconditions, the persons entitled, the content of the question or the interpretation of the results. It is important to remember about the possibility of a constitutional regulations of referendum, although its implementation is influenced by current factors and tactical political decisions by actors, just like ordinary public votes.

Over the centuries, Switzerland has developed a unique and inimitable statehood that functions in peculiar geographical, social and political conditions, shaped by the tradition of exercising direct forms of power. It appears, however, that these tools of direct democracy can sometimes obstruct the changes of utmost significance for the development of modern statehood and democracy. This was the case of granting voting rights to women. Although many European and other states granted the rights to vote and stand for election to women in the 1920s and 1930s, Switzerland needed much longer to introduce this change: on the federal level, women's suffrage was granted as late as in 1971, and the last to enjoy the right to partake in the political life of their canton were the women of Appenzell Innerrhoden, granted the right in 1990. The objective of this paper is to analyze the influence of the mechanisms of direct democracy on the introduction of voting rights for Swiss women. ; Over the centuries, Switzerland has developed a unique and inimitable statehood that functions in peculiar geographical, social and political conditions, shaped by the tradition of exercising direct forms of power. It appears, however, that these tools of direct democracy can sometimes obstruct the changes of utmost significance for the development of modern statehood and democracy. This was the case of granting voting rights to women. Although many European and other states granted the rights to vote and stand for election to women in the 1920s and 1930s, Switzerland needed much longer to introduce this change: on the federal level, women's suffrage was granted as late as in 1971, and the last to enjoy the right to partake in the political life of their canton were the women of Appenzell Innerrhoden, granted the right in 1990. The objective of this paper is to analyze the influence of the mechanisms of direct democracy on the introduction of voting rights for Swiss women.

Although nowadays the idea of direct democracy has been dominated by the system of representative government, in modern countries a tendency to trust some power to the hands of citizens still can be observed. This solution guarantees each of the interest groups active involvement in political life and thanks to that they are able to have real impact on producing legal solutions in their country. On the other hand, decisions resulting from using participatory democracy institutions may generate several negative effects, both on the political and social levels. The paramount goal of the article is to present the impact of using tools of direct democracy on national security. Accordingly, the practices of using referendum in Switzerland, Great Britain, Catalonia, as well as legislative initiative in Poland were analyzsed, with special attention given to their impact on safety. ; Chociaż idea demokracji bezpośredniej została zdominowana przez system rządów przedstawicielskich, to współczesne państwa zapewniają stosunkowo szeroki wachlarz instytucji, które w swoim założeniu mają aktywizować obywateli i dawać im realne szanse na formułowanie nowych rozwiązań prawnych. Z drugiej strony przeprowadzona w artykule analiza wykazuje, że stosowanie takich narzędzi jak referendum czy inicjatywa obywatelska może generować szereg negatywnych skutków, które w konsekwencji będą stanowić poważne zagrożenie dla sytuacji politycznej oraz społecznej w państwie. Nadrzędnym celem artykułu stała się zatem analiza wybranych głosowań referendalnych (przykład Szwajcarii, Wielkiej Brytanii oraz Katalonii), a także inicjatywy ustawodawczej (kazus Polski), w wyniku której ukazany zostanie pejoratywny wpływ wyżej wymienionych instytucji na szeroko pojęte bezpieczeństwo w państwie.

The idea of civic participation in national decision-making processes is an important part of European history. By means of implementing the principle of the sovereignty of nations, those eligible to vote are able to express their will through the institutions of direct democracy and representative democracy. The instruments of direct democracy are an extremely interesting research subject – not only due to the fact that the number of votes on European integration has been very high (especially in the last decade), but also because EU Member States, being aware of the importance of citizen involvement in the process of integration in Europe, established the institution of the European citizens' initiative. Using this instrument, European citizens can impact the politics of the EU. The purpose of this text is to answer the question of the role of direct democracy and its tools in the process of European integration, as well as of the prospects for the use of direct forms of governance in the process of deepening and widening integration in Europe. ; The idea of civic participation in national decision-making processes is an important part of European history. By means of implementing the principle of the sovereignty of nations, those eligible to vote are able to express their will through the institutions of direct democracy and representative democracy. The instruments of direct democracy are an extremely interesting research subject – not only due to the fact that the number of votes on European integration has been very high (especially in the last decade), but also because EU Member States, being aware of the importance of citizen involvement in the process of integration in Europe, established the institution of the European citizens' initiative. Using this instrument, European citizens can impact the politics of the EU. The purpose of this text is to answer the question of the role of direct democracy and its tools in the process of European integration, as well as of the prospects for the use of direct forms of governance in the process of deepening and widening integration in Europe.

Research objective: The aim of the paper is the analysis of the impact of political participation on democratic system. The reference plane of the analysis is direct democracy (including its forms comprised in Polish constitution), in that its limits and drawbacks.The research problem and methods: The research problem is considering the issue: Is any type of participation strengthening democratic system? The overall impact of participation on democracy according to contemporary theories of democracy is also taken into account in the analysis.The process of argumentation: Majority of theories of democracy assume that intensive participation results in better performance of political system. The practice of direct democracy proves however that citizens' decisions are very often based on erroneous premises. The competence of citizens who participate in democratic procedures is thus not less important than the level of participation. According to research results, both characteristics (quantity and quality of participation) are however divergent.Research results: Contemporary democracy faces the difficult choice. We can opt for lower level of participation, thus securing more competent political decisions but at the same time accepting the absence of many social groups in the process of interests' articulation. The other choice is the stimulation of high participation level, which implies the acceptance for the growing susceptibility for populism as well as the danger that irrational political options gain legitimacy. This dilemma seems to a great extent unresolvable.Conclusions, Innovations and Recommendations: The Stimulation of participation should be preceded by previous activity aimed at the increase of political knowledge of citizens as well as the forming of civic attitudes. ; CEL NAUKOWY: Celem tekstu jest analiza wpływu partycypacji politycznej na funkcjonowanie systemu demokratycznego. Istotnym punktem odniesienia są instrumenty demokracji bezpośredniej wykorzystywane we współczesnej demokracji (w tym te zawarte w Konstytucji RP z roku 1997), a zwłaszcza ich słabości i ograniczenia.PROBLEM I METODY BADAWCZE: Problemem badawczym jest odpowiedź na pytanie, czy każdy rodzaj partycypacji wzmacnia system demokratyczny. Zasadniczą kwestią jest też wskazanie, jak do kwestii wpływu partycypacji politycznej na demokrację odnosi się współczesna teoria demokracji, a zwłaszcza podejście pluralistyczne i elitystyczne.PROCES WYWODU: Większość koncepcji demokracji uznaje wysoki poziom partycypacji za element podnoszący jakość funkcjonowania systemu politycznego. Tymczasem doświadczenia związane ze stosowaniem demokracji bezpośredniej wskazują, że decyzje są często podejmowane przez obywateli na podstawie fałszywych przesłanek. Nie mniej istotna od poziomu partycypacji jest więc jej jakość (stopień kompetencji obywateli uczestniczących w procedurach demokratycznych). Badania dowodzą, że obydwie charakterystyki mają charakter rozbieżny – wyższe uczestnictwo polityczne wiąże się z niższym poziomem kompetencji osób uczestniczących w polityce.WYNIKI ANALIZY NAUKOWEJ: Alternatywa, która stoi przed współczesną demokracją, to z jednej strony akceptacja niskiego poziomu – bardziej kompetentnej – partycypacji, przy jednoczesnym osłabieniu skuteczności artykulacji interesów dużych grup politycznych; z drugiej zaś stymulowanie wysokiego poziomu partycypacji politycznej, przy świadomości, że zwiększa to podatność na populizm i niebezpieczeństwo silnej społecznej legitymizacji dla nieracjonalnych rozwiązań politycznych. Dylemat ten jest w istocie nierozwiązywalny.WNIOSKI, INNOWACJE, REKOMENDACJE: Stymulowanie partycypacji politycznej powinno być poprzedzone działaniami zwiększającymi poziom wiedzy politycznej i kształtującymi postawy obywatelskie.

Political parties are the key element of the representative formula of democratic system. The aim of the paper is to show parties' attitudes towards the citizen legislative initiative, being an institution of direct democracy. The analysis was carried out with the inclusion of the following three levels of party activity: conceptional, programme-related and functional. Both on the conceptional and programme-related levels there is a lack of reflexion and – in consequence – hardly any debate held on the essence of the institution of citizen legislative initiative, its significance and consequences with regard to the socio-political system. This results in an almost mechanical acceptance of concrete legal solutions, which – at the next stage, i.e., that of realization of these records – ends in an escape from the problem (here: prolonging works of Parliament or an instrumental making use of citizens' activity).Both ruling parties and those in the Opposition – despite obvious differences in the approach towards institutions of direct democracy – are joined by an axiologically justified dislike of strengthening these forms of citizens' engagement, which diminish the area of representative democracy.

Political parties are the key element of the representative formula of democratic system. The aim of the paper is to show parties' attitudes towards the citizen legislative initiative, being an institution of direct democracy. The analysis was carried out with the inclusion of the following three levels of party activity: conceptional, programme-related and functional. Both on the conceptional and programme-related levels there is a lack of reflexion and – in consequence – hardly any debate held on the essence of the institution of citizen legislative initiative, its significance and consequences with regard to the socio-political system. This results in an almost mechanical acceptance of concrete legal solutions, which – at the next stage, i.e., that of realization of these records – ends in an escape from the problem (here: prolonging works of Parliament or an instrumental making use of citizens' activity).Both ruling parties and those in the Opposition – despite obvious differences in the approach towards institutions of direct democracy – are joined by an axiologically justified dislike of strengthening these forms of citizens' engagement, which diminish the area of representative democracy.

Stawiając pytanie o naturę rozwiązań instytucjonalnych przyjętych w Unii Europejskiej, oczywistą odpowiedzią jest ta, iż fundamentem funkcjonowania systemu politycznego samej Unii – podobnie zresztą jak wszystkich jej państw członkowskich – jest demokracja przedstawicielska. Pośrednie instrumenty rządzenia często uzupełniane są formami demokracji bezpośredniej, za pomocą których uprawnieni do głosowania mają możliwość bezpośredniego wpływu na kształt agendy politycznej. Przedmiotem niniejszych rozważań jest zagadnienie roli bezpośrednich mechanizmów decydowania politycznego w procesie integracji europejskiej, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem funkcjonującej od 2012 r. europejskiej inicjatywy obywatelskiej. Celem niniejszego tekstu jest udzielenie odpowiedzi na pytanie o rolę i perspektywy rozwoju europejskiej inicjatywy obywatelskiej jako instrumentu wpływu obywateli na decyzje związane z procesami integracji w UE. ; When thinking about the character of the institutional solutions adopted in the European Union, it is clear that the political system of both the EU and all its member states is founded on representative democracy. Direct forms of governance are frequently complemented by instruments of direct democracy, which allow voters to exercise a direct influence on the political agenda. The subject of the considerations in this paper concerns the role of direct mechanisms of political decision-making in the process of European integration, with particular emphasis given to the European Citizens' Initiative, operating since 2012. This paper aims to answer the question of the role and prospects for future development of the European Citizens' Initiative as a tool of the influence of citizens on decisions concerning EU integration processes. ; 8 ; 81 ; 91 ; 6 ; Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej

Views on the institution of direct democracy have changed during the period of democratic transition. The various advantages and positive effects of direct democracy have been confirmed by the practice of some democratic countries. Its educational and political activation value for society was also noted, without which civil society cannot form. The referendum is especially treated as the purest form of correlation between the views of society and the decisions of its representatives. In a situation where two representative bodies are present – the parliament and the president – a referendum is considered a means of resolving disputes between them in important state affairs. The referendum is nowadays becoming more than just a binding or consultative opinion on a legislative act, especially a constitution. First and foremost, it is important to see the extension of the type and scope of issues that are subject to direct voting. Apart from the traditional, i.e., constitutional changes, polarising issues that raise considerable emotion have become the subject of referenda. Problems of this type include, in particular, moral issues, membership in international organisations, and so-called 'New Policy'. This article presents the role and importance of the referendum as an institution shaping the democratic systems of the Black Sea Region.

The aim of this paper is a comparative analysis of legislative solutions and practical application of the direct democracy in Hungary and Albania after 1989. The legal changes that occurred during this period have guaranteed the citizens of both countries the tools to direct exercising the political power. Unfortunately, these tools have been almost immediately limited. The long-term political conflict, which effectively discouraged the public opinion to such activity, was responsible for this limitation in the case of Albania. Hungarians, on the other hand, have lost these rights as a result of unfortunate decisions of rulers, who were repeatedly changing the electoral law. The object of our attention will be especially institutional and legal differences determining the development (or regression) of the direct democracy in those countries. Main thesis of the article is the opinion that Hungary and Albania, regardless of their common experiences, represent two different models for adaptation of direct democracy solutions. ; Celem niniejszego artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytanie o miejsce instytucji referendum ogólnokrajowego w systemach politycznych Węgier i Albanii po transformacji ustrojowej 1989, zarówno w wymiarze legislacyjnym, jak i praktycznym. Zmiany prawne, które nastąpiły w tym okresie, zagwarantowały obywatelom obydwu państw narzędzia do bezpośredniego sprawowania władzy. Jednakże niemal natychmiast zmiany te były ograniczane. W przypadku Albanii zadecydował o tym wieloletni zamęt polityczny, który skutecznie zniechęcił społeczeństwo do aktywności referendalnej. Węgrom uprawnienia te stopniowo odbierały natomiast decyzje poszczególnych rządów zmieniających wielokrotnie ordynację wyborczą. Przedmiotem naszego zainteresowania będą różnice instytucjonalne i prawne determinujące stan demokracji bezpośredniej w obydwu państwach. Główna teza artykułu opiera się na opinii, że Węgry i Albania, niezależnie od ich wspólnych doświadczeń, reprezentują dwa różne modele adaptacji rozwiązań demokracji bezpośredniej.

System polityczny Konfederacji Szwajcarskiej jest systemem, który stanowi przykład dla współczesnych rozwiązań demokratycznych. Specyfika oddolnej organizacji państwa szwajcarskiego sugeruje, by specyfiki jego funkcjonowania poszukiwać od poziomu gminy poprzez kanton ku całej federacji. Należy wskazać, że filarem szwajcarskiego federalizmu jest silna samodzielność kantonów wobec władzy federalnej. Warto podkreślić, że specyficzny charakter systemu rządów oparty jest o zasadę dominacji parlamentu, układ zależności pomiędzy poszczególnymi instytucjami władzy państwowej przyczyniają się do instytucjonalnego zdominowania procesów politycznych, przy tym ograniczony do minimum stopień politycznej rywalizacji sprzyja z jednej strony realizacji merytorycznych działań politycznych, z drugiej stabilności. Należy również wskazać na rozbudowaną instytucję demokracji bezpośredniej, która pozostawia ostateczny głos obywatelowi. ; The political system of the Swiss Confederation is a system that is an example for modern democratic solutions. The specificity of grass-roots organization of the Swiss State suggests that the specificity of its operation should be sought for from the level of the community through canton to the whole federation. It should be noted that the pillar of the Swiss federalism is strong independence of the cantons towards the federal government. It is worth noting that the specific nature of the system of government is based on the principle of domination of parliament; arrangement relationships between the various institutions of state power contribute to the institutional domination of the political processes, while limited to the minimum degree of political competition favors on the one hand the implementation of substantive policy action, and on the other - stability. It should also be pointed out to the extensive institution of direct democracy which leaves the final say to the citizen.

It is virtually impossible for a modern democracy to properly function without civic society. Direct democracy involves citizens in public life, thus facilitating the emergence of civic society. Voting in referenda and taking advantage of other forms of direct execution of power provides an opportunity to create a society that cooperates with the authorities in solving numerous public issues. A question can be asked in this context: How are the opportunities generated by exercising direct democracy being utilized in Poland? The research has corroborated the sad pattern that all authorities, which are the nation's representation after all, are not inclined to vest decision-making directly with this nation. The mechanisms of direct democracy in Poland, in practice, do not give the people (the sovereign in Poland) an opportunity to actually exercise their power. Legal provisions concerning referenda and people's initiative at a national level allow the political elite to completely control the application of these mechanisms.

Taking into consideration the etymology of the concept, it seems obvious that democracy stands for the power of the people. It needs to be borne in mind, however, that the concept of democracy was coined in Antiquity and served to describe the political reality at the time. The premises and practice of modern democratic states have considerably diverted from the ancient model. It therefore seems justifiable to ask whether democracy continues to stand for the power of the people. From the point of view of Ch. W. Mills, for instance, the power of the people is an idealistic intention and a noble postulate rather than a realistically achievable political phenomenon. He is not alone in this opinion. Therefore, the question arises of how to define modern democracy. Bearing in mind the considerable variety of current democratic states, it can be assumed that modern democracy is a system where the authorities are publicly accountable to the citizens, who act by means of elected representatives that compete and cooperate with one another. In other words, democracy is the power of a political elite controlled by the people via cyclical, competitive elections. Direct democracy needs to be highlighted here, as it is considerably closer to the etymology of the word 'democracy' and its Greek roots. Apart from Switzerland, however, the instruments of direct democracy are tools construed not for the citizens but rather for an opposition that can use them in order to build their position. In this manner the institutions that, by definition, should belong to the citizens have become instruments used by the political elite. ; Taking into consideration the etymology of the concept, it seems obvious that democracy stands for the power of the people. It needs to be borne in mind, however, that the concept of democracy was coined in Antiquity and served to describe the political reality at the time. The premises and practice of modern democratic states have considerably diverted from the ancient model. It therefore seems justifiable to ask whether democracy continues to stand for the power of the people. From the point of view of Ch. W. Mills, for instance, the power of the people is an idealistic intention and a noble postulate rather than a realistically achievable political phenomenon. He is not alone in this opinion. Therefore, the question arises of how to define modern democracy. Bearing in mind the considerable variety of current democratic states, it can be assumed that modern democracy is a system where the authorities are publicly accountable to the citizens, who act by means of elected representatives that compete and cooperate with one another. In other words, democracy is the power of a political elite controlled by the people via cyclical, competitive elections. Direct democracy needs to be highlighted here, as it is considerably closer to the etymology of the word 'democracy' and its Greek roots. Apart from Switzerland, however, the instruments of direct democracy are tools construed not for the citizens but rather for an opposition that can use them in order to build their position. In this manner the institutions that, by definition, should belong to the citizens have become instruments used by the political elite.