We all know that things are getting worse in Poland. But we don't all know why. The reason for evil is that Poles make incorrect choices. It's thought that's why it is due to the fact that we choose ICH, not NAS. For the past 30 years, they've been in charge. The differences were, but cosmetic. Both ONI and WE, winning elections, were rich at the expense of Poland, taking care of our own interests more than of the interests of the country. If anyone feels offended by that message due to the fact that they will, and we have not ruled yet, I will answer you this. If you always manage to rule, it will be the same.
Why?
Because under the existing Constitution of April 2, 1997, it is impossible to regulation otherwise. This constitution allows the power-holders to embrace themselves, and even if there are any idealists among the rulers, they will be dominated by those who see themselves as the goal of being in politics. Among us, there are more people who value material goods more than the noblest ideas.
All evil begins with a constitutional way of establishing the Council of Ministers. The effective appointment of the Council of Ministers requires a vote of assurance of the Sejm. Thus the Constitution forces the establishment of a ruling majority in the Sejm, and thus besides opposition to that majority. What's incorrect with that? After all, in order to effectively regulation the country of the Sejm must be able to pass laws, and to do so a majority is necessary.
The problem is that this majority can pass any bill, not necessarily beneficial for the improvement of Poland. Especially erstwhile the president elected in the general election is from the same political camp as parties forming the majority of the parliament.
Nobody cares about the farm. prof. Mirosław Matyja wrote in 1 of his statements on Facebook: “The only visible strategy for economical activity in Poland is to fill inflationary cash of possible voters. So we are dealing with a phenomenon of what is called an ad hoc strategy, from election to election. What happens after the election? A naive question... After the election, there will be another election. This is how the Polish economical and financial ellipse takes place.”
Why and why do political groups do that? They want to buy an extension, or get electoral support that's susceptible to voter bribery. due to the fact that they want to be stuck in power, or gain power to subdue the country's economy to the interests of their families and supporters. Opposition parties, fearing the failure of voters, support populist solutions of the ruling party. For each organization to the political dispute, power is the most important.
The constitution is so written that most Sejm can do anything. It can even remove a part of the square from the submission to the local government of the Capital of Poland under government management to put a Smolensk monument on it. The majority of the parliament is besides the head of this majority acting as the uncoroned King of Poland, or the informal head of the state who is allowed, even without any mode.
Both the parliamentary opposition and the Nation have no influence on the content of the laws, even erstwhile the state authorities decide:
· war and peace,
· sending Polish Armed Forces to our war,
· disarming and arming the Polish Armed Forces, spending tremendous money for this purpose,
· the management of natural resources located in the Polish soil,
· utilizing empty underground spaces to store hazardous waste gases,
· the kind and amount of taxes charged to Polish citizens,
· creating out-of-budget funds spent outside Parliament’s control,
· to start investments with billions of costs without public consultation and consent,
· policy towards Polish neighbours,
· permanent stationing of allied troops on Polish soil,
· construction of atomic power plants,
· country debt,
· and in many another matters.
If Poland is the property of the Nation, why can't this Nation participate in the decision-making of these matters? He wants to or does not want to, he must abide by laws he has not consented to. Why does the Constitution, speaking in Article 4, about the sovereignty of the Nation not contain a single article on the rights of this Nation to express effective civilised disagreement over adverse, according to citizens, legal solutions offered by the authorities. Why is the Nation deprived of its rights as owner of the state? Why it happens that public authorities, as the property manager, tell us, to the owners of this property how to live, and having at their disposal the military, the police and a twelve armed peculiar services, force on the owners the behaviour they define.
The nation, and so any citizen who is simply a part of the Nation, this Constitution is incapacitated. His dignity is trampled on. We practically have an authoritarian strategy in Poland, and the leaders of political parties fight in election campaigns for the office of an unconstitutional dictator.
I just said that all evil begins with a constitutional way of establishing the Council of Ministers, due to the fact that the effective appointment of the Council of Ministers requires it to get a vote of assurance of the Sejm. This forces the creation of the ruling majority in the parliament and results in the emergence of the opposition. 2 non-partisan political camps, 1 of which can do anything and the another can't do anything. Citizens are besides drawn to this war upstairs. We are frequently divided even in families. Andrew Lepper spoke very well on this subject: “This venom of hatred is poured into us, and those of the left, and those of the law, only to feed 1 another, to call each another names, and to fight 1 another. What about them? They will always get along, steal, get rich and do whatever they want with us and say that it is all in the name of democracy.”
After the electoral act, we put our country at the disposal of a winning political camp, which does what it wants, and no 1 can prevent it, even if it leads us to the abyss.
It doesn't gotta be.
It is essential to replace the existing Constitution with a fresh One, which will become the property of the full Nation, by laying down laws guaranteeing the Polish Nation the subjectivity it deserves. To begin with, it is adequate to abandon the mistaken explanation that the majority essential to pass a vote of assurance for the appointed Council of Ministers must arise in the Sejm.
After all, all Members were elected to the Sejm due to the fact that their programmes were supported by large groups of citizens. Each of the Sejm groups received at least 5% of voters. So let them get along with each another and pass laws by compromise. The wider the coalition, the more hard it is to regulation and the more hard it is to make material usage of the fact of exercising power to enrich the rulers. Currently, Poland is usually managed by a political organization which has achieved the best election consequence and possibly any tiny organization ensuring the majority in the Sejm. The second organization in the election ranking usually passes to the opposition, and after all, respective or even respective twelve percent of the voters voted for it. Why are the program requests of specified large opposition parties not implemented? We must change that in the fresh Constitution. Government will be more hard due to the fact that you can't pass a bill in 1 day. It'll take months, possibly years. Legislative adoption will gotta reconcile the party's programs forming part of a broad government coalition. Nothing can be pushed through with a “legislating knee”.
Polish political parties are not accustomed to cooperation and surely do not imagine any another state management than through the majority of the Sejm. Then they should be forced to. The laws contained in the fresh Constitution must be enforced. First, the fresh Constitution should specify the numerical composition of the Council of Ministers and establish a collegiate method of decision-making. This will prevent this institution from increasing to larger than common sense. The Council of Ministers should be composed of 7 members. This is an optimal number erstwhile decisions are made collegiately. The more ministers, the harder it is for consensus. In addition, the 7 is an unusual number, which will defend the Council of Ministers from stale voting in the case of the same number of votes ZA and v.
The Council of Ministers should elect the National Assembly from the candidates of the 4 political groups which received the highest support in the Sejm elections. 3 political parties with the top support should present 2 candidates for ministers to the National Assembly, and a organization with the 4th place in election support – 1 candidate.
Why the thought of a Council of Ministers from political competitors?
This is the way the government functions in Switzerland. But there is simply a difference between how it works in Switzerland and my text. With respect to the quantitative composition of the individual political groups in the future government, the Swiss parties agreed among themselves, calling this agreement a "magical form" taking into account public support as well as language and regional minorities. The magic expression is not a constitutional or statutory record. It is simply an agreement between political parties. In Switzerland, before the elections, we know which parties and how many ministers will bring into the government. Therefore, the process of establishing the Swiss government is not accompanied by the political rivalry that we presently have on the Polish political stage. In practice, it is frequently the case that the same persons execute the functions of ministers in subsequent terms.
The magic expression functioned smoothly until 2003. The disturbance introduced the fact of a advanced electoral triumph by 1 of the smallest political parties, which made it essential to delegate its privilege to bring its representatives to the government. Since 2003, the magic expression has been upgraded respective times. The Swiss tried 3 times to change the strategy of appointment of the government, but 3 times the citizens in the referendum did not agree to the proposed solutions, due to the fact that the appointment of the government by a magic expression guarantees the pursuit of compromise solutions and prevents the country's strongest political organization from taking power itself or in a coalition with a smaller party.
I do not think that Polish political parties will enter into an agreement with each another like Swiss. Therefore, as I have already said, they should be forced by the provisions of the fresh constitution. The number of ministers designated by individual political groups would not be the consequence of inter-party negotiations. It would come straight from constitutional regulations, without long political fairs.
No organization would have a majority in the Council of Ministers. Thus there would besides be no ruling majority in the Sejm, and if there were no majority, there would besides be no opposition. Nor would there be the warden of the state, on which you are actually based all power. Parliamentary language would return to the parliament's deliberations, due to the fact that it will not be possible to call a political competitor a thief, a scumbag or another traitor, due to the fact that we must cooperate with him, to compromise.
The parties would have an impact on the selection of candidates for ministers, but who the minister would be decided by the National Assembly, voting separately by each candidate for minister. I draw attention to the fact that there is no majority and no opposition in the Sejm and the Senate, so decisions to appoint individual ministers would be substantive alternatively than party. So not all candidate nominated by the organization would become a minister. In place of a candidate rejected by the National Assembly, the organization would designate as minister of another candidate. The party, erstwhile appointing a candidate as minister, could not propose the kind of duties that its candidate performs in government.
The kind of tasks and duties to be carried out would be determined by ministers among themselves after the full government was established. This is simply a very crucial decision. usually erstwhile appointing a government trade fair between coalitions, it is about what coalition ministries will come. Fear is usually about the Minister of Home Affairs, abroad Affairs, National Defence, Finance and Economy.. Where ministers are appointed according to the proposed procedure of specified trade fairs, taking time and nerves so that there is no.
The appointed government, in which no organization has the advantage to share its duties in the privacy of the cabinets, without giving publicity to the interior disputes. To 1 of the ministers, the National Assembly would entrust the additional function of the president of Poland for a one-year word with the task of directing the work of the Council of Ministers, its ministry, and representing Poland outside.
I think that much controversy will be triggered by the constitutional rule of the election of the president by the National Assembly and this for a one-year term. A year would besides be elected Vice President, who would most frequently replace the president after the end of his yearly term. As I pointed out earlier, the president is chairing the Council of Ministers' deliberations, carrying out the tasks of 1 of the ministers, representing the country outside and holding typical functions by participating in crucial ceremonies, accepting credentials from representatives of abroad countries, delivering the fresh Year's message.
It is the president's stronger power to issue urgent decisions requiring swift decisions that cannot wait for the Council of Ministers. This order is presented by the president for approval by the Council of Ministers at the next meeting.
We won't request the president to sign or not sign the passed laws. In signing the bill, the marshals of both chambers of parliament will do his job. We will replace the presidential veto with a stronger, effective civilian veto. The president elected by the National Assembly is adequate to give a general nomination. Polish citizenship will send the voivodship at the request of the gmina, the right of grace will be taken over by the National Assembly, the military will be taken over by the minister and generals, the election will be ordered by the National Assembly, setting the permanent day of elections after the end of the word of office. We won't gotta wait until the president graciously announces the next election. The future electoral calendar will be known immediately after the election of the current parliamentary term, We should answer the question – whether Poland truly needs symbols of domination of power over the nation in the form of palaces for the Prime Minister and President, the Council of Ministers and the Chancellery of the President. We do not request presidential ministers to double government ministers. We're fighting for a inexpensive country. The request for a president elected in the general election was clearly defined by Andrzej Lepper, saying: The president is industrious... playing tennis, swimming in the pool, driving abroad, patting himself on the back, but what benefits does Poland have?
THE HEAD OF STATE will be THE SEVENTH MINISTER COUNCIL.
The fresh Constitution, which we are talking about here, will not let anyone to make decisions on crucial matters for Poland.
State and local government executives cannot be exercised alone and decisions should be taken collegiately. The management of the executive squad should be amended annually. The fresh Constitution will supply for an yearly change in the positions of the president of the country, Speakers of the Sejm and the Senate. Self-government constitutions similarly.
The article in the fresh Constitution, concerning the appointment of a government, will read as follows:
The Council of Ministers elects the National Assembly from the candidates of the 4 political parties, which received the highest support in the Sejm elections. The 3 political parties with the top support present 2 candidates for ministers to the National Assembly, and the organization taking 4th place in election support – 1 candidate.
What composition of the government would Poland have after the 2019 elections?
Suppose the Constitution establishes a seven-member composition of the Council of Ministers.
In 2019, voters gave the following support to individual political groups:
• PiS 43,59%,
• KO 27.40%,
• SLD 12.56%,
• PSL 8,55%,
• Confederation 6.81%
• MN 0.17%
• another 0.92%
The composition of the 7-member Council of Ministers would be as follows:
• the PiS 2 ministers,
• KO 2 ministers,
• SLD 2 Minister,
• PSL 1 Minister.
In relation to specified a elected government and individual ministers, the vote of assurance would not be voted, due to the fact that who in specified government would request a vote of assurance if the major political parties, according to the Constitution, represented this government. Any legal consequences would be borne by individual ministers after the end of their word of office.
It would be a strong coalition government of the largest political parties for the full term, forced constitutionally to cooperate and make many compromises in drafting laws and making another collegiate decisions.
Members of specified a government would search to keep the most far-reaching consensus on a circumstantial matter, but by making a collegiate decision by voting, in the absence of a consensus, they would have a work to defend the voted decision whether they agree with it or not.
Conflicting views during discussions in specified a Council of Ministers would be confidential erstwhile drawing up decisions. No dispute or argument between ministers could see the light of day. Ministers in public statements could not criticise decisions taken or another ministers.
Can you imagine that specified a Council of Ministers would draw up a bill to subjugate the judiciary of any political party? Can you imagine that specified a government would make a Lex Tusk bill? Could the ministers of this government allocate funds to organisations supporting a political party's programme?
I am aware that the method of appointment of the Council of Ministers presented above will meet with full criticism of political parties. This is not why they promise voters pears on the willow to share power with those who could not sale these pears properly. If the United Right (Written) in 2019 reached 43,59% of support, then with the aid of the d`Hondt method it reached a majority allowing for self-government, and the SLD only 12,56% and both parties are aligned in the number of ministers? That's not fair!
Well, ladies and gentlemen. The Council of Ministers according to the fresh Constitution will be formed from representatives of the most popular political parties not to delight 1 or another political group. It is created so that the draft laws drawn up by it take into account human dignity and service the Homeland. Under the regulation of the fresh Constitution, a advanced level of electoral support gives the political organization a greater chance to influence the shaping of the view and will of the Nation, due to the fact that in the end it is the Nation who decides which laws it wishes to comply with.
The proposed participation of the largest political parties in the formed Council of Ministers ensures that no 1 will exercise authority in Poland.
Will specified a Council of Ministers always pass laws beneficial to citizens?
She should, but she's not sleeping. There may be laws that are unacceptable to citizens. What do I do about it?
In the fresh constitution, we should be an institutionalised nation, at national and local level. Equipped with legal instruments allowing permanent control of state and self-government managers.
Give yourself the right of initiative on a partial and complete revision of the Constitution. Completed by a referendum on this issue, at the request of a set group of citizens (e.g. 300,000) . We should besides decide on another legal acts, besides through a referendum announced at the request of a set group of citizens (e.g. 200,000). specified a referendum is called an optional referendum or a civilian veto. Optional due to the fact that it does not request to be published on each act. We will announce them within 100 days of the authoritative publication of a given legislative act, which we do not want to agree to. This may include government specified as:
1) the Republic of Poland Act
2. the Act of the Republic considered urgent, whose duration exceeds 1 year;
3. the resolution of the Republic of Poland, provided that the Constitution or the Act so provides;
4) global agreements which:
5. are unlimited and do not supply for notice;
6. supply for accession to global organisations;
7. contain crucial legal provisions whose implementation requires the amendment of the government of the Republic of Poland.
The fresh constitution should besides supply for a compulsory referendum, which is mandatory for the authorities to resolve crucial matters listed in the Constitution. Among another things:
· complete or partial amendment of the Constitution regardless of who the author is,
· Poland's accession to a collective safety organisation or to transnational communities,
· grant the Polish entity with abroad capital and abroad entity a concession to extract natural resources located in Polish soil,
· granting consent to permanent stationing of allied troops on Polish soil,
· one-off expenditure from the state budget exceeding PLN 50 billion,
· and others.
The referendums referred to above should be binding according to the will of the citizens voting. They should not contain attendance thresholds. Everyone has the right to vote. Those not taking part in the referendum agree to the result set by the voters.
Important issue regarding the adoption of fresh laws.
In public discourse in Poland, among the supporters of direct democracy, it is widely believed that the optional referendum or citizens' initiative will service to pass fresh laws. any debaters are so driven that they begin to claim that, after the introduction of the instruments of direct democracy (citizen initiative Veto and Referendum) into the constitution, we will not request the Sejm and the Senate. We'll pass our own laws.
That's not gonna happen.
In accordance with the fresh Constitution of the Republic of Poland with the legislative initiative, all associate and all senator, parliamentary committee, parliamentary faction, voivodship and Council of Ministers will be able to perform. There's no Johnny under the beer booth. The Council of Ministers will practically most frequently submit draft fresh laws.
Otherwise, this case will be presented at the level of the voivodship. The provincial constitution will supply for the announcement of an optional referendum, including on the adoption, amendment or repeal of any provincial law, at the request of a group of citizens entitled to vote, a fixed number of municipalities, or a fixed number of members of the Provincial Council. Established for a given voivodship due to the fact that in each voivodship there may be a different number of citizens, municipalities, members of the Provincial Council.
The Council of Ministers, consisting of political opponents and the empowerment of voters, is simply a essential condition for the management of the state for the benefit of citizens. It will besides warrant the dignity of the Polish Nation, which in fact, and not verbally, will exercise superior power in the Republic.
Many people who are active and realize the request to change the way the country is managed believe that the inclusion in the constitution only of instruments of direct democracy in the form of a referendum on the revision of the constitution and the optional referendum will solve the problems of Poles. There is no need, according to them, to amend the full constitution, including the way in which the government was established. I think they're wrong.
Why?
Because if we leave the way the Council of Ministers has been established to date, there will be a majority in the Sejm that allows the vote of assurance for the government to be passed and that allows the laws to be passed by force of the majority of the Sejm. There will besides be an opposition which, in the current system, is incapacitated, and erstwhile straight democratic instruments are entered into the Constitution, it will be able to appeal to the people's opinion by collecting signatures on the Constitution and the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that only the instruments of direct democracy do nothing to be included in the Constitution. It gives a lot, and the rulers must number on the opinion of the opposition and citizens.
However, the country's governance is very, very many decisions by the government, not necessarily through laws passed in parliament. specified as filling government positions, supervisory boards and boards of state-owned companies, administrations and central institutions. These are the functions that are mastered in the current strategy by the people of most seismic. And they'll inactive be like that. The staff of any after the election and the change of the majority of the parliament is exchanged from the president to the cleaning lady. Do you think that after the Constitution only the instruments of direct democracy are entered, the majority of the Sejm will give up? I don't think so. The bill will pursuit the bill, the amendment of the passed bill will pursuit the change. The opposition will lose importance in the deliberations of the parliament, due to the fact that the ruling majority will take distant its speaking time and vote on any bill it wishes.
If we want to collect signatures and declare a referendum on all single matter, we will not keep up with the vote and we will desecrate the thought of a referendum. The procedure for appointing the Council of Ministers as political opponents is besides needed to guarantee that it is subject to the first agreement of the main political forces at the time of the adoption of the law. The Judiciary Act subjugating the judiciary of the ruling organization would be eliminated at the task stage. No signatures would be needed, no referendum would be needed. This government will take decisions collegiately and will not let intra-national positions in state-owned companies, administrations, central institutions to be changed after each parliamentary election, or subordinate to any single political organization that achieved the highest support in the election.
I would like us to realize that the constitutional appointment of the Council of Ministers from political opponents is as crucial for the appropriate functioning of the state as the instruments of direct democracy. Ministers from different political options will guarantee each another against any political organization taking over the state. This Council of Ministers, consisting of political competitors, will control and subdue itself.
This, of course, is not all the changes that should be made to the fresh Constitution, but I think that, for the purposes of the discussion between us on 16 and 17 September, a change in the way the government is established and the empowerment of citizens is enough.
Marian Waskielevich
The author is simply a associate in the discussion at the Polish thought Club – Katowice.
