The President did not start the constitutional debate. An open society has on-going debates

Share

Professor at the Faculty of Law and Administration at the University of Warsaw, associated with the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies…

More

The President doesn’t open the constitutional debate, he narrows it. Women who took the Black Protest to the streets, protesters against the assault on courts – that was the debate



It seems that President Andrzej Duda tries to redefine what a constitutional debate is by creating an impression that there is no such debate underway and that he has only started it.

 

Certainly, it is very convenient, because thus it may be said that the society believes in some dogmas not to be touched, that a constitution and its character are a taboo. And out of sudden, there is one intellectually open man who says: stop the silence, we have to discuss this issue.

 

I don’t like this version for several reasons.

 

First of all, it is not true that there is no constitutional debate underway. In an open society – and we are one – any statement about the constitution by a politician, by a scholar, by a judge, by people who take the streets because they believe the constitution has been broken – any such statement is a part of a constitutional debate.

 

For instance, women who protested about abortion laws at the streets in the Black March, people who demonstrated in the streets against the assault on courts – this was the debate. Freedom of assembly is one of the elements of freedom of expression, of manifesting one’s opinions.

 

I share Jürgen Habermas’ perspective on constitutional debates. This sociologist, researcher of communication in society, claims that discussion involves exchanging speech acts. Any behaviour which communicates my opinion about the constitution is a speech act and exchanging such acts is a discussion. The President acts as if before his declaration there was a perfect silence. He redefines the debate, thus monopolising it.

 

It seems like he wants to set themes and issues which must not be discussed.

 

What I find the most striking in this situation is that in the President’s opinion one of the major disappointments with the constitution came with the dispute between President Lech Kaczyński and Prime Minister Donald Tusk in 2008.

 

Why, this is absolutely natural in constitutional practice that there are disputes and the constitution serves as a framework for settling such disputes. And the constitution did provide such a framework, finally there was no stalemate preventing functioning of the Polish state. According to the constitution, responsibilities disputes are settled by the Constitutional Tribunal.

 

So how can one say that the constitution was revealed as flawed by a situation of dispute described by the constitution and settled by a constitutional court? This is exactly a situation when the constitution worked.

 

It should be noted that this minor incident which had been solved was recognised by the President as a grounds for a constitutional debate, while the major constitutional crisis and conflict concerning relations between all three powers lasting for two years now was not mentioned by the President, as if it was not a reason for a discussion.

 

For the President, a one-time incident is reason enough to discuss relations between the powers of president and prime minister, but a two-year crisis is no grounds for a discussion on how to ensure independence of the judiciary.

 

This is what I mean when I say that the very narrow definition and monopolisation of the constitutional debate is hardly an opening. It actually closes the debate for subjects the President doesn’t like to discuss.

 

The President says: “I am the one to set themes of the debate and I do not consider street demonstration as a debate”? And the issues the President approves for the debate shall be discussed not by us, but by people selected by the President.

 

Strikingly, all the participants of the discussion about “Constitution for citizens, not for elites?” were male professors. Who are they, if not an elite?

 

The terms of the debate will be defined by the President and it will end in one year with questions for the constitutional referendum. I’m afraid it won’t be a broad debate, but an intentionally narrowed one. Meanwhile, the basic question concerning our constitution is not whether the president or prime minister should have greater power. The key question is how to enhance independence of the judiciary power.

 

In 2008 nobody took to the streets to support broader competencies of President Kaczyński or Prime Minister Tusk. But in 2017 several hundred thousand people protested to protect judiciary independence.

 

This was a stand in the debate, but it went completely unheard.

 

A constitutional debate must not provide in advance that the constitution must be changed. An opinion that it should not be changed, that it should be enforced, is also an element of the debate. This is another attempt to narrow the debate: an attempt to reduce it to the question: “what should be changed?” without facing the more important one: “should anything be changed?”

 

Translated by Małgorzata Madej



Author


Professor at the Faculty of Law and Administration at the University of Warsaw, associated with the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies…


More

Published

November 14, 2017

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy