When the law is the violence you fear

Share

A trainee advocate at the Warsaw Bar Association and a lawyer for the Civil Development Forum

More

In accordance with Art. 2 of the Constitution, the Republic of Poland is a democratic state ruled by law. This is linked to the separation and balance of powers, the rule of law, the supremacy of the Constitution, and respect for international law – in short, everything that is currently under attack. Therefore, if a de facto change to the constitutional system of the state is taking place in front of the public’s eyes, can we speak of a coup d’etat?



Any attempt at holding elections that remain in conflict with the current Constitution and the standards that elections should meet in democratic countries, and which essentially excludes the Electoral Code, can and should be considered as an attack on the democratic system of the state.

 

It should also be emphasised that in recent years, in a manner contrary to the principles of a democratic state ruled by law, these changes have been made as part of ‘reforms’ to the prosecutor’s office or courts.

 

This in turn has significantly affected the effectiveness of the law enforcement authorities, as well as numerous discontinuations and refusals to initiate proceedings in so-called politically inconvenient cases.

 

The Constitutional Tribunal has been politicised as a result of the constitutional crisis which has been ongoing since 2015. Meanwhile, the validity of any future elections will be pronounced on by the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of a Supreme Court completely packed with nominees of the new KRS, a body which also fails to meet the criterion of independence.

 

It is worth recalling that, according to the historical interpretation of a coup d’état, a successful act of general treason (as coups are also called) gives power in the state, that is, all the tools of the state, into the hands of the perpetrators, thus removing any possibility of prosecution and punishment. In short, the coup leads to a kind of stalemate – legal, constitutional and systemic. The government is breaking the law, but there is nobody to whom it can be held accountable.

 

However, the concept of a coup d’état is understood differently in the contemporary criminal code. According to Article 127, § 1, anyone, who with the aim of depriving the country of its independence, detaching part of an area of the country or violently changing the constitutional system of the Republic of Poland, or who undertakes activities aimed directly at achieving this goal in consultation with other persons, shall be punished by imprisonment for no less than 10 years, a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment, or imprisonment for life.

 

However, violence is a key feature of this crime. Until now, violence was understood as the actual incapacitation of the forces counteracting change, by physical force destroying resistance, by putting them in a state of vulnerability or inability to resist, or as the use of force exceeding someone’s strength, the use of physical advantage for unlawful acts, imposing power, control, something with the use of physical coercion or rape.

 

Thus, a de facto ‘physical breaking of resistance’ had to occur. This understanding of violence, if applied in the analysis of Art. 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code, leaves the citizens defenceless in the face of the legislative violence that we face today. 

 

The Penal Code was not prepared for an attempt to change the constitutional system of the Republic of Poland in any way other than a classic, bloody revolution.

 

However, should the lack of free elections meeting the standards of democracy be classified as another type of violence – this time an act of legislative violence?

 

In criminal law, violence occurs as a type of behaviour that is a means to induce surrender. According to the criteria specified in Art. 127 § 1 of the Constitution, presidential elections must be universal, fair, direct and secret. They must also take place in accordance with the electoral calendar, which is initiated by a decree of the Marshal of the Sejm fixing the date of the first round. All other cut-off dates, such as the deadline for submitting candidates for election, depend on the above mentioned date.

 

Any changes in this matter which have not been dictated by the imposition of a state of emergency or the vacation of office by the current president should be considered unlawful. For example, they affect at least the passive voting rights of potential candidates, who would have more time to gather the required 100,000 signatures of support under their application.

 

Violence is a concept that is constantly evolving. Changes in its meaning have occurred over the years due to social and political changes. The same is true regarding the understanding of the idea of domestic violence.

 

At first, only physical violence deserved the attention of law enforcement. Then the catalogue was expanded to include psychological violence. A person who is a victim of violence by a spouse, for example, may not show a single bruise, but in connection with bullying and psychological abuse, he or she will follow the perpetrator’s instructions. The spouse imposes his or her authority not by dealing with resistance through a fist fight, but by denying access to alternative forms of support (e.g. help from third parties or specialised institutions) and the possibility of escape.

 

As citizens, we are dealing with a similar situation today. There is nowhere to run from the authorities – especially in the state of epidemic and a period of closed borders. There is also no access to justice, according to the current restrictions, or even a chance to receive public information in the normal way. Assemblies are prohibited. In such conditions, the electoral regulations will be changed, and attempts to hold the presidential elections in an unconstitutional manner are being continued.

 

Any potential resistance has been eliminated – this means that it has been dealt with bloodlessly. And if it has been dealt with, then – we have witnessed an act of violence by the state.

 

Does extending the concept of violence to include legislative violence contradict the principle of not expanding the interpretation of criminal law? As in the case of ‘violation of bodily integrity’, it is impossible to predict whether the perpetrator will hit or push us. The same goes for contemporary cases of coups d’etat.

 

It remains impossible to predict whether it will happen with the help of tanks or a majority in the parliament. What’s more, at present it is the latter version which remains the most likely. The coup of today is not an artillery bombing: it’s a signature on a piece of paper.

 

The article was published in Polish in Gazeta Wyborcza.



Author


A trainee advocate at the Warsaw Bar Association and a lawyer for the Civil Development Forum


More

Published

May 21, 2020

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