New constitution In Poland?

The ruling Civic Platform (PO) is proposing a new constituion which would weaken the president's veto powerr and effectively reduce him to the role of a figurehead. The PM would becone a chancellor-like figure after the German model.

The opposition Law and Justice (PiS) is proposing a stronger presidency, similar to the French model with elements of the Polish 1935 Constitution.
Which solution do you feel is best for the Polish people?

you know, i don't get it why we need two dudes getting their panties in a wad.. i like the amrican model but i do like the 6y term limit..

Then there should be monarchy.


why French model? What;s wrong with American model?

To be honest the most important are details rather then stronger or weaker president.

The American model has problems in that the President can't effectively represent America properly - as anything he agrees has to go through Congress. If I'm right, the French system allows their President to agree what he damn well pleases.

Maybe the more sensible system would be to force the President to be re-elected along with the Sejm and Senat? Get rid of the 2nd round, bring in STV for voting for President and voila.

Then again, I don't think there's much wrong with the Polish system - the seperation of powers needs to be more clearly defined, but there's nothing wrong with having a President with a veto - Klaus in the Czech Republic certainly did his job properly.

I think that the issue of the powerful president or president with less power, is secondary to the issue of the political system and the way this system works.

The case got outdated.


Free election again?

Having closely observed the Polish political stage since the collapse of communism, my own prescription for reform would be:
-- Cut back the Sejm to 150 deputies (huge savingns of time and money)
-- Limit the Senate to 50 members for (huge savings of time and money)
-- Slightly incresase the powers of the president, more legislative initiative, slightly mroe than now but far less than France or US
-- Synchronise state and local elections and have identical terms of office for all -- 4 or 5 years (huge savings of time and money).
-- Eliminate the second round of voting - the top vote-getter wins. An exception might be when 2 candidates are only 2 points apart, then a playoff is scheduled a fortnight later (huge savings of time and money).

BTW, I am amongst those who feel the indirect US Electoral College system sucks! And I oppose widespread gun ownership. Even the 'land of the free and home of the brave' can make mistakes!

Perhaps, but the electoral districts would be huge and would cause the disenfranchisement of smaller towns/villages as they would be incorporated into a large area.


PO suggested getting rid of the Senate alltogether - it doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose and acts pretty much as a rubber stamp - so removing it would make sense.


They already have the right to propose legislation, so it's hard to see what else they could do without interfering with the Sejm.


There is a good argument against this - it would result in the domination of all State infrastructures if the elections were all synchronised. The current system means that parties cannot dominate.


No argument there, though it would be better to introduce proportional representation in a one-round vote to make sure that the winning candidate enjoys the most support. I would certainly abolish the 2nd round in mayoral elections!

The head of state should be above politics. States need a person who can always think on a higher level than the political one and be relied on to do what is best for the state.


That would balance the fact that the electoral system is tilted in favour of people who live in smaller towns/villages (as they are far more likely to be registered to vote than people who live in cities).

Klaus in the Czech Republic was probably the best example - he held off with Lisbon until the last possible moment, but yielded to the democratic will of the people and signed the treaty. He managed to negotiate a couple of opt-outs, so he did what was best for the country.

Kaczynski was a great example of a President who did what was best for him and not the people.


True, the hassle in Poland of voting outside your 'home' address does favour those in small towns/villages.

The Senate has legislative intiative but should use it mroe often.. It should not rubber stamp Sejm laws (that's becuase the Senate is PO dominated) but serve as a correcting instituion and a check on too powerful a Sejm. It is needed to avoid what Piłsduski called Sejmokracja -- parliamentary domination of public affairs. Anyone know the details of the 1935 Constitution?

Maybe that model with the additon of a popularly elected president might be the answer for today's Poland?

Merged: President of Poland wants to change constitution?

So what's all this about?


thenews/1/9/Artykul/217490,Speaker-rejects-presidents-call-for-new-constitution

The article doesn't say what changes he wants to make, so can someone here fill me in.
Should we be worried, will we all be pledging allegiance bowing towards a crowned eagle in a few weeks' time???

I joke of course, but what changes does he want to make?

Also, this is nonsense:


thenews/1/10/Artykul/217506,President-Duda-Higher-NATO-presence-in-Poland-necessary

NATO have done f!ck all good ever and having them here would only add fuel to the fire.

Generally speaking, PiS want to have a Presidential system like the French system. It's because they struggle to put together a parliamentary majority, so their only hope of wielding power is through the Presidency which is easier for them to win in a one-off election.

There's a good chance that less than 50% will vote in the referendum. Voters in general and Poles in particular are none too fond of being herded to the polls -- this year on 3 separate occasions. In the US elections are combined - national nad local, including local millage votes (re raising schcool taxes) and referenda. BTW sheriffs, bailiffs, comptrollers and many judges are elected by the people. Surely worthy of emulation!

Nope. None of that is worthy of emulation. As for trying to synchronise elections, this would bring a lack of continuity at local authority level. As for electing judges, prosecutors etc, this is a horrific idea and the drawbacks are well enough known. Let workers in the public sector be chosen using normal recruitment methods for their competence at their job, not their ability electioneering every 5 years.

I would however like to see less central government appointments in Poland.

From what I recall, the experience in Wales and Scotland showed that it's a very bad idea, although much cheaper to administrate.


Yes, it is true that voter fatigue sets in. It's why internet voting (as popularised in Estonia - something like 30% of the population vote online) should be introduced, as it makes life significantly easier.


Are they subject to re-election, or is it a matter of staying in the job until retirement once elected?

It seems to me that a judge that has to be re-elected would be influenced by the political environment around him, leading to hardline sentencing in some places and rehabilitation-based sentencing in others.


Yes, likewise.

Don't be ridiculous.
You write some dumb f!ckin sh!t on this forum.
Hahahah, you seriously think the American justice system of electing judges, who are all members of political parties to the bench is smart!!!
Yea, mate, you're about as Polish a Mom's apple pie.

Judicial appointments everywhere are political appointments, end of statement! A candidate has to be already politically connected before he or she can even consider reaching within spitting distance of the position:-) Smarts are fine and good, but they matter barely a scintilla in the grand scheme of things.

An old proverb: "It's not what you know, it's who(m) you know. If you don't know anybody, nobody knows you either. And if they don't know ya, they don't owe ya!"

LOL

As for the constitution if less power would be given to the church and the church finally got to pay the taxes I'm all for it.

Oh no. The constitution would rather protect the right of the Church to take as much money as possible from the State.

Before dismssing a presidential-type constitution, one should first ask oneself is the American and French system of government undemocratic?
The Great Piłsudski soon realised Poles were not suited for a parliamentocracy (he called it sejmokracja) which involves loads of sterile squabbling, bickering, backbiting for the love of one's own grandstanding "eloquence" rather than getting things done. The post-1989 period has amply illustrated the reversion to that "diarrhoea-of-the-mouth" rabble-rousing.

Well, the current system exists solely because of Walesa's incompetent handling of the Presidency between 1990 and 1995.

I don't think we should forget that Piłsudski was a dictator in the modern sense of the word.

Cannot vouch for the US system. As far as the French one is concerned, while I would not go so far as to label it "undemocratic", the French themselves recognize that what is in theory a republic is in fact a disguised monarchy. The difference is that pre 1789 the French king was " de droit divin" (his power came from God), today he (there hasn't been a she yet) is elected.

An authoritarian figure to be sure or at worst a benevolent dictator -- certainly not a Stalin or Hitler.
He gave parlaimentatocracy a chance and it ended in constantly squabbling, mud-slinging and fist fights, police had to be called in at times to restore order. The country was unfortuanteky plagued by hostile diversity: Ukrainian nationalists one of whom assassinated a Polish cabinet member and stirred up unrest, Hitler's Fifth Column Volksdeutsche, Stalin's Jewish KPP subversives... Was he to just sit back and observe all the niceties of polite parliamentary decorum? Instead, he lauunched his Sanacja (sanitation or clean-up) campaign which protected the country up till the outbreak of WW2.

I am reminded of something a Czech guy once told me. His grandmother said she was sick of listening to politicians squabbling all the time. "It was so much better in the old days, when everybody agreed," she lamented. The whole point of parliamentary democracy is to squabble, mudsling and plot, as well as to shift in philosophy, to do deals, and to compromise. The alternative is autocracy, with its manufactured hero-worship and secret police.

He was supported by lefties, communists and minorities.

He had them all fooled. Since he was viewed by many as a socialist (a label he gladly shed early on - "I exited the red tram at Independence street" - he used to say), radicla leftists thouhgt he's be their man nad lead to reovution. Minorities found him more palatable than the endeks.

Benevolent dictator, I'd certainly agree with.


I'd argue that it protected everyone provided they didn't get involved with politics. Sanacja went very badly wrong after his death, but when you consider the general European environment at the time, Sanacja and Pilsudski were probably about as good as it was going to get.


Well, after all, he was one of the few that believed in the idea of a strong Polish nation made up of many ethnically different Polish citizens.

Plus Pilsudski, Europe's only liberal dictator had to deal with a nationalist loony murdering the first elected leader on a spurious pretext, plus an attempted coup d'état by similar pond life. And constant trouble stirring from supporters of the ghastly Dmowski, a tendency that stil lingers in the darker corners of Polish politics.

Those days however, as Pilsudski said, is not the time for authoritarian governments. Poland is a liberal democracy and will stay that way.

Narutowicz could have been an excellent President - his organisational skills were second to none, and I think he would've done a fantastic job in building up the ex-Russian partition. Perhaps if he had been allowed to do the job, we wouldn't be speaking of Polska A and Polska B today.