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.
The paper discusses the issue of the legitimacy of power as one of the key factors to ensure the stability of government and the entire socio-political system of state. The starting point for the analysis is provided by the "neofunctional elitist paradigm" (as named by its creator) that has been developed for over thirty years by John Higley and his collaborators. According to this paradigm, an opportunity for efficient communication between the government elite and the most important opposition elite is one of the methods for creating a "consolidated democracy", which, in the opinion of the authors of the paradigm, is the most desirable model of modern system of representative democracy. Further on in the paper, the history of the main issues related to the legitimacy and legitimization of power are presented using selected examples, primarily with reference to the main theoretical concepts of power and its legitimacy. The main part of the analysis concerns Poland and selected countries in this region, and the issue of whether it is justified to classify them as consolidated democracies. The author reminds of J. Higley's opinion that Poland and Hungary witnessed negotiations between the representatives of the former, socialist elite and members of the opposition at the beginning of the process of political transformation. Owing to that, "consensual elites" emerged in both countries. The author also notes that the process of transformation in this part of Europe (and in particular in Poland) is, in a way, 'traditionally' assessed much more positively by political scientists and sociologists from the West than by the academics (let alone journalists and politicians) in Poland. This favorable assessment is exemplified by their including Poland in a group of a few countries with a "consolidated democracy". ; The paper discusses the issue of the legitimacy of power as one of the key factors to ensure the stability of government and the entire socio-political system of state. The starting point for the analysis is provided by the "neofunctional elitist paradigm" (as named by its creator) that has been developed for over thirty years by John Higley and his collaborators. According to this paradigm, an opportunity for efficient communication between the government elite and the most important opposition elite is one of the methods for creating a "consolidated democracy", which, in the opinion of the authors of the paradigm, is the most desirable model of modern system of representative democracy. Further on in the paper, the history of the main issues related to the legitimacy and legitimization of power are presented using selected examples, primarily with reference to the main theoretical concepts of power and its legitimacy. The main part of the analysis concerns Poland and selected countries in this region, and the issue of whether it is justified to classify them as consolidated democracies. The author reminds of J. Higley's opinion that Poland and Hungary witnessed negotiations between the representatives of the former, socialist elite and members of the opposition at the beginning of the process of political transformation. Owing to that, "consensual elites" emerged in both countries. The author also notes that the process of transformation in this part of Europe (and in particular in Poland) is, in a way, 'traditionally' assessed much more positively by political scientists and sociologists from the West than by the academics (let alone journalists and politicians) in Poland. This favorable assessment is exemplified by their including Poland in a group of a few countries with a "consolidated democracy".
The author, utilizing the apparatus of systems and decision analysis, reviews and interprets the results of the research on the link between legitimacy and systemic stability that are included within the source literature. On this basis, the author attempts to construct a model of the dependency between systemic stability and legitimacy of power – such measure allows for presenting conclusions on the nature of political legitimacy (understood as a determinant and as a tool of performing the social functions of political power). ; Autor, wykorzystując kategorie analizy systemowej i analizy decyzyjnej, dokonuje przeglądu i interpretacji wyników badań nad relacjami legitymizacji władzy i stabilności systemowej, zawartych w literaturze przedmiotu. Na tej podstawie podejmuje próbę sporządzenia modelu zależności stabilizacji systemowej od legitymizacji władzy. Pozwala to wnioskować o naturze legitymizacji władzy politycznej – tak uwarunkowania, jak i narzędzia realizacji funkcji społecznych władzy politycznej.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to analyse the relationship between ideas of philosophical anthropology and the problem of intellectual legitimacy of democracy. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: In the article I am trying to answer the question, what is the relationship between views on human nature and attitude to democracy. I analyse this problem by interpreting classic works of political thought. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The starting point is the statement: aversion to democracy arose largely from misanthropy. Democracy was not considered as intellectually legitimate regime, because it was not believed in the rationality of an ordinary person and his ability to participate responsibly in public life. This situation changes during the Enlightenment, when anthropological pessimism was undermined, and the theories underlying the idea of the intellectual legitimacy of democracy were formulated. The later course of events largely questioned these theories, but nevertheless democracy in the West is considered as the only legitimate form of government. RESEARCH RESULTS: This leads me to a view on the paradoxical nature of modern democracy. On the one hand, there is a consensus regarding the intellectual legitimacy of democracy. On the other hand, in theory and practice, the ability of ordinary people to participate reasonably in public life is commonly questioned. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The results of the analysis should prompt the political scientist to change the way of understanding the nature of modern democracy. This system is called democracy, but it seems to have less and less to do with the hopes of those authors who formulated its intellectual assumptions. ; CEL NAUKOWY: Celem tego artykułu jest analiza związku między wy‑ obrażeniami z zakresu antropologii filozoficznej a problemem intelektualnej prawomocności demokracji. PROBLEM I METODY BADAWCZE: W artykule próbuję odpowiedzieć na pytanie, jaki jest związek między poglądami na temat natury ludzkiej a sto‑ sunkiem do demokracji. Analizuję ten problem interpretując klasyczne dzieła z zakresu myśli politycznej. PROCES WYWODU: Punktem wyjścia jest konstatacja: niechęć wobec demo‑ kracji wyrastała w dużej mierze z mizantropii. Demokracja nie była uznawana za ustrój godny poparcia, ponieważ nie wierzono w racjonalność zwykłego czło‑ wieka i jego zdolność do odpowiedzialnego uczestnictwa w życiu publicznym. Ta sytuacja zmienia się w epoce Oświecenia, kiedy to podważono pesymizm antropologiczny i sformułowane zostały teorie stanowiące podstawę dla idei intelektualnej prawomocności demokracji. Późniejszy bieg wypadków w du‑ żym stopniu te teorie zakwestionował, ale mimo to demokracja na Zachodzie uznawana jest za jedyną prawomocną formę rządu. WYNIKI ANALIZY NAUKOWEJ: Analiza prowadzi do sformułowania poglądu o paradoksalnym charakterze współczesnej demokracji. Z jednej stro‑ ny, istnieje konsensus co do intelektualnej prawomocności demokracji, z dru‑ giej – w teorii i praktyce powszechnie kwestionowana jest zdolność zwykłego człowieka do rozumnego uczestnictwa w życiu publicznym. WNIOSKI, INNOWACJE, REKOMENDACJE: Wyniki analizy powinny skłonić politologa do zmiany sposobu rozumienia charakteru współczesnej demo‑ kracji. Ustrój ten nosi nazwę demokracja, ale wydaje się mieć coraz mniej wspól‑ nego z nadziejami tych autorów, którzy sformułowali jej intelektualne założenia.
W niniejszym artykule zajmuję się analizą argumentacji zawartej we wniosku grupy posłów do Trybunału Konstytucyjnego o stwierdzenie niezgodności z Konstytucją przepisów dopuszczających aborcję w przypadku ciężkiego i nieodwracalnego upośledzenia płodu. Przedmiotem rozważań nie są jednak dywagacje natury prawnej, ale kwestia legitymacji moralnej działania podjętego przez posłów. Szukam więc odpowiedzi na pytanie, czy ich inicjatywa broni się w świetle zasad moralności publicznej. Podstawę tej oceny stanowi najważniejsza współczesna koncepcja legitymacji działań politycznych, tj. teoria rozumu publicznego Johna Rawlsa. W pierwszej kolejności przybliżono więc, na czym polega teoria rozumu publicznego Rawlsa (skupiając się przede wszystkim na wskazaniu warunków, które na gruncie tej koncepcji decydują o legitymacji działań politycznych). Następnie omówiono pokrótce najważniejsze argumenty, jakie wysuwa grupa posłów na rzecz wysuwanego żądania. W głównej części tekstu dokonano oceny tego działania w świetle wyłożonych wcześniej warunków legitymacji. ; In the paper, I analyse the argumentation which supports the motion put forward by a group of Polish MPs challenging the constitutionality of the provision which allows abortion in the event of grave and irreversible fetal defects or an incurable illness that threatens the foetus life. My considerations do not concern the legality of this action. Instead, I am interested in the issue of moral legitimacy of the MPs' action. I search for the answer whether their initiative is defensible in terms of public morality. The evaluation is conducted according to the principles of the most important contemporary conception of political legitimacy, which is John Rawls's theory of public reason. Therefore, firstly, I give an account of the Rawlsian theory of public reason. I focus mainlyon the conditions that settle the criteria of the legitimacy of political actions. Then I summarise the arguments which support the demand of the MPs concerned. Finally, in the main part of the paper, I evaluate their action in the light of the theory of public reason.
Constitutional review of legislation is the power to examine statutes for their conformity with the constitution. This competence is performed by the judiciary. The origins of this institution date back to XIX century and since that time constitutional review of legislation has became an important institution in most democratic states. In the paper, the author answers the most important charge raised against constitutional review – that it lacks democratic legitimacy. According to Jeremy Waldron, there is always a loss to democracy when a majoritian decision is overruled by a politically unaccountable court. As an answer to Waldron's objection, the author introduces three arguments for the democratic status of constitutional review. These arguments point to three different sources of legitimacy for constitutional review: democratic will of the people, the principle of respect for the democratic reason, and substantial democratic values. ; Constitutional review of legislation is the power to examine statutes for their conformity with the constitution. This competence is performed by the judiciary. The origins of this institution date back to XIX century and since that time constitutional review of legislation has became an important institution in most democratic states. In the paper, the author answers the most important charge raised against constitutional review – that it lacks democratic legitimacy. According to Jeremy Waldron, there is always a loss to democracy when a majoritian decision is overruled by a politically unaccountable court. As an answer to Waldron's objection, the author introduces three arguments for the democratic status of constitutional review. These arguments point to three different sources of legitimacy for constitutional review: democratic will of the people, the principle of respect for the democratic reason, and substantial democratic values.
Constitutional review of legislation is the power to examine statutes for their conformity with the constitution. This competence is performed by the judiciary. The origins of this institution date back to XIX century and since that time constitutional review of legislation has became an important institution in most democratic states. In the paper, the author answers the most important charge raised against constitutional review – that it lacks democratic legitimacy. According to Jeremy Waldron, there is always a loss to democracy when a majoritian decision is overruled by a politically unaccountable court. As an answer to Waldron's objection, the author introduces three arguments for the democratic status of constitutional review. These arguments point to three different sources of legitimacy for constitutional review: democratic will of the people, the principle of respect for the democratic reason, and substantial democratic values. ; 5 ; 1 ; 170 ; 186 ; 9 ; Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna
The analysis presented in this article concerns the impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) jurisprudence on the legal situation of Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court judges in Poland. The main assumption of the presented considerations is that the CJEU, in providing answers to preliminary questions submitted to it by Polish courts adjudicating cases related to judicial appointments and retirements, strengthens the independence of the courts and the independence of the judiciary, assuming that these are systemic elements of a functioning judiciary subject to EU law. For this reason, the CJEU considers itself competent to shape these systemic values under Polish law. At the same time, this body does not notice the problem of jurisdiction of Polish courts posing legal questions, which becomes an important theoretical and practical issue, because it may affect the legality and effectiveness of judgements passed on the basis of answers given by the CJEU. Detailed considerations focus on two types of judgements of the CJEU, which were made in connection with the retirement of judges, as a result of questions submitted to the Court by the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court. The subject of the questions related to the compatibility with EU law of the scope of legal protection granted in Polish law to a judge against resolutions adopted in such cases by the National Council of the Judiciary. The considerations presented conclude that in the case of a CJEU judgement issued as a result of a question posed by the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the authority posing the question was infringed, and this should have consequences for the scope of binding the court adjudicating on the answer provided by the CJEU. ; Przedstawiona analiza odnosi się do wpływu orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej (TSUE) na kształtowanie w Polsce sytuacji prawnej sędziów Sądu Najwyższego (SN) i Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego (NSA). Głównym założeniem przedstawionych rozważań jest stwierdzenie, że TSUE w ramach udzielanych odpowiedzi na pytania prejudycjalne, kierowane do niego przez polskie sądy, rozpoznające sprawy związane z powołaniami na stanowisko sędziowskie oraz z przejściem w stan spoczynku, wzmacnia niezależność sądów i niezawisłość sędziowską, przyjmując, że są to elementy ustrojowe funkcjonującego wymiaru sprawiedliwości podlegające prawu Unii Europejskiej. Z tego powodu TSUE uznaje się za właściwy do kształtowania tych wartości ustrojowych na gruncie prawa polskiego. Jednocześnie organ ten nie zauważa problemu właściwości polskich sądów występujących z pytaniami prawnymi, co staje się ważnym zagadnieniem teoretycznym i praktycznym, gdyż może rzutować na legalność i skuteczność orzeczeń zapadających na podstawie udzielonych przez TSUE odpowiedzi. Szczegółowe rozważania koncentrują się na dwóch rodzajach orzeczeń TSUE, które zapadły w związku z sędziowskim stanem spoczynku, na skutek wystąpienia do TSUE z pytaniami przez SN i NSA. Przedmiot pytań odnosił się do zgodności z prawem unijnym zakresu ochrony prawnej przyznanej w prawie polskim sędziemu od uchwał podejmowanych w tych sprawach przez Krajową Radę Sądownictwa. Konkluzją przedstawionych rozważań jest stwierdzenie, że w przypadku wyroku TSUE wydanego na skutek pytania SN doszło do naruszenia właściwości organu występującego z pytaniem, a to powinno mieć konsekwencje dla zakresu związania sądu orzekającego odpowiedzią udzieloną przez TSUE.
The author analyses the factors that weaken the influence of the principles of meritocracy on the institutions and public policy. He indicates that a meritocratic approach to governance in the programming of public actions has become a resource for obtaining legitimacy of power in Poland to a limited extent. The advantages of meritocracy (the "efficiency" and "justice") have not been exploited on a significant scale. As a result, there is a significant illegitimacy of the democratic system, as well as the weakening of the society identification with the state. This phenomenon is characterized by low prestige of politicians and a poor voter turnout. The author draws attention to the fact that meritocratic management mechanisms of public institutions in Poland are significantly reduced due to numerous factors – the appropriation of the state by political parties, institutional nomadism of the elite, the rules of political capitalism, a soft state and theinstitutionalization of non-responsibility or activities of various interest groups andbackstage actors of politics. ; Autor analizuje czynniki, które osłabiają oddziaływanie zasad merytokracji na instytucje i politykę państwa. Wskazuje, że merytokratyczne podejście do rządzenia, w tym programowania działań publicznych, jedynie w ograniczonym zakresie stało się zasobem służącym do uzyskiwania prawomocności władzy w Polsce. Atuty merytokracji (jak "wydajność" i "sprawiedliwość") nie zostały w tym celu uruchomione w znaczącej skali. W konsekwencji doszło do znaczącego delegitymizowania prawomocności ustroju demokratycznego, a także osłabienia identyfikacji społeczeństwa z państwem. Miarą tego zjawiska jest m.in. niski prestiż polityków i duża absencja wyborcza. Autor zwraca uwagę na to, że mechanizmy zarządzania merytokratycznego w instytucjach publicznych w Polscesą znacząco zredukowane z uwagi na oddziaływanie wielu czynników – zawłaszczaniepaństwa przez partie polityczne, instytucjonalny nomadyzm elit, reguły kapitalizmupolitycznego, miękkie państwo i instytucjonalizację nieodpowiedzialności lub działańrozmaitych grup interesu i zakulisowych podmiotów polityki.
Autorka wskazuje, iż pełnią wybory wiele funkcji. Tą, na której skupia ona swą uwagę w artykule jest funkcja legitymizacyjna. W pierwszej części charakteryzuje krótko pojęcie legitymizacji, odnosząc się do klasycznej koncepcji Maxa Webera i nawiązuje do ustaleń Davida Eastona i Davida Beethama. W drugiej koncentruje się na problemie legitymizacji demokratycznej, w której istotnym elementem jest legitymizacja wyborcza. W ostatniej wykazuje, że frekwencja wyborcza jest jednym z najistotniejszych czynników legitymizujących władzę i to niezależnie od tego czy mamy do czynienia z systemem demokratycznym, czy niedemokratycznym. According to the author of the paper, elections perform many functions. The paper focuses on the legitimacy function. In the first part of the paper the concept of legitimacy is briefly characterized, with reference to the classic concept of Max Weber and the distinctions developed by David Easton and David Beethem. The second part focuses on the problem of democratic legitimacy for which electoral legitimacy is essential.In the last part of the paper, is also pointed out that no matter what the political system is – democratic or undemocratic – voting turnout is one of the most important legitimizing factors.
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 author analyses the factors that weaken the influence of the principles of meritocracy on the institutions and public policy. He indicates that a meritocratic approach to governance in the programming of public actions has become a resource for obtaining legitimacy of power in Poland to a limited extent. The advantages of meritocracy (the "efficiency" and "justice") have not been exploited on a significant scale. As a result, there is a significant illegitimacy of the democratic system, as well as the weakening of the society identification with the state. This phenomenon is characterized by low prestige of politicians and a poor voter turnout. The author draws attention to the fact that meritocratic management mechanisms of public institutions in Poland are significantly reduced due to numerous factors - the appropriation of the state by political parties, institutional nomadism of the elite, the rules of political capitalism, a soft state and the institutionalization of non-responsibility or activities of various interest groups and backstage actors of politics.
