Prime Minister Donald Tusk raised controversy by announcing the decision to retreat the countersignature under the presidential act concerning the appointment of justice Krzysztof Wesołowski as president of the Assembly of Judges of the civilian Chamber of the ultimate Court. Although many lawyers, including Prof. Andrzej Zoll and Prof. Ryszard Piotrowski, agree that the law does not supply for this possibility, Prof. Jerzy Zajadło decided to defend the Prime Minister. His position, based on “decentness” and moral reasons, sparked a broad debate.
The withdrawal of the countersignature by Prime Minister Donald Tusk met with criticism from many lawyers. Both prof. Andrzej Zoll and prof. Ryszard Piotrowski emphasize that there is no provision in the Polish legal order that would let the signature of the Prime Minister to be revoked under the presidential act. Lawyers indicate that Tusk's decision violates the established legal order, which puts it in question.
Despite the deficiency of legal arguments, prof. Jerzy Zajadło of the University of Gdańsk decided to stand up for the Prime Minister's decision. As he himself admitted, he could not clearly justify his opinion from a legal point of view, but he considers that in this peculiar case "decentness" was decisive.
I'm on Donald Tusk's side. Although legally this is simply a weak argument, I feel it was the right thing to do," Zajadło said.
His words sparked lively discussion, and part of the legal community began to wonder if moral reasons could replace the law.
Fighting Democracy. Ignorance or thoughtful criticism?
One of the themes raised by Prof. Zajadło in the context of the withdrawal of the countersignature was the reaction of the Law and Justice politicians to the concept of "fighting democracy", which was utilized by Prime Minister Tusk, justifying his actions. He noted that the PiS reaction was overly emotional and was due to a deficiency of knowing of the concept.
PiS reacted hysterically, and the origin of this hysteria is ignorance," Zajadło stated. Most politicians commenting on the Prime Minister's decision have no idea, What actually is simply a democracy fighting. This concept, introduced by Karl Loewenstein in the 1930s, was about defending democracy against totalitarianism. In the face of contemporary threats of populism, this concept takes on a fresh meaning," he added.
According to Prof. Zajała, although the concept of fighting democracy may rise doubts, it requires first of all an knowing of its origins and the context in which it was created. He pointed out that this is simply a subject that is extensively discussed in modern political discipline and that its knowing can aid to better measure the Prime Minister's actions.
Morality versus law. Where's the line?
Prime Minister Tusk's decision and his defence by Prof. More discussion on the function of law and morality in political decision-making opens up the ferocious. He stressed that while there is no legal justification for withdrawing the countersignature, ‘decentness’ was a decisive factor. This raises the question whether politicians can follow morals in crisis situations, even if this is not in line with the letter of law.
It is worth noting that many commentators pay attention to the dangers of specified an attitude. They argue that breaking legal principles in the name of morality can lead to destabilisation of the legal strategy and in the long word weaken assurance in state institutions.
On the another hand, defenders of Tusk's decision, including prof. Zajadło, stress that the law is not always flexible adequate to respond to exceptional situations. In their opinion, at specified times politicians must make decisions that may not be within the framework of the law, but are in accordance with the public interest and morality.
Debate on the limits of democracy
The broad debate that Prime Minister Tusk's decision brought about concerns not only the legal aspects of the withdrawal of the countersignature, but besides broader issues relating to the defence of democracy. The concept of “fighting democracy”, to which the Prime Minister refers, raises much controversy.
On the 1 hand, this concept recognises that in order to defend democracy against its enemies, action may be essential which seems at first glance to be contrary to democratic principles. On the another hand, critics stress that the application of undemocratic measures can lead to the erosion of democracy itself, which these measures are intended to protect.
The noble goal of defending democracy can lead to controversial actions," Zajadło notes, adding that although the concept of a fighting democracy raises doubts, it cannot be rejected without knowing its historical roots and contemporary context.
mn
Join our community!
Follow us on our social media and stay up to date!
