On 30 May, a legislature of Lawyers for the Law of Law was held in the Constitutional Court in Warsaw. He gave his speech, among others. Professor István Stumpf. “Professor István Stumpf is simply a erstwhile constitutional judge, peculiar advisor to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and erstwhile President of the Hungarian Friends Foundation, publishers Hungary TodayIt’s okay. ” The thesis of the fact that "the EU is trying to change the principles of political competition". The title of his lecture was: "The intersection of the protection of sovereignty and disputes over the regulation of law: lessons for Europe and the world".
Key pillars of democracy
The prof. points to what democracy is based on. Its 2 pillars are national sovereignty and the regulation of law. Sovereignty so means that citizens can make decisions through their elected representatives. But erstwhile there is simply a regulation of law, “these decisions are made, applied and enforced honestly and equally—not on the basis of the will of the powerful, but in accordance with clear and established rules.” The prof. points to the main problem of 1 rule attacking the another principle. This creates a situation "when the regulation of law becomes a political tool or erstwhile sovereignty is utilized to avoid responsibility". This is the essence of the crisis of Europe's current democratic systems becoming either a denial or a simulator.
How does political competition change?
That's what legal tools are for. Punishments are being ruled and voices questioning their political line of actors utilizing the institutions of the European Union. This is evident not only from the example of Romania as a associate of the European Union, but besides from Georgia or Moldova. However, the results of the elections in Belarus or Ukraine have been repeatedly interfered with, due to the fact that there was no want to adopt the de facto western model of liberal democracy. The Hungarian prof. points to hypocrisy that accompanies specified practices. She points out that “those politicians and media figures who powerfully criticize others for breaking the regulation of law frequently neglect to follow the same standards erstwhile they are in power. They talk about independent courts – but then they effort to influence judges erstwhile they are elected to you. They talk about freedom of speech – and then take steps to weaken independent media or silence political opponents in their own countries." And there is besides what he calls "a combat democracy" which can be found in Poland as an analogy of "a fighting democracy". Its essence is that democracy must defend itself, "limiting or excluding groups considered dangerous or anti-democratic".
Monopoly for Democracy
So, how do we learn from the lecture of intolerance towards those who want to "destroy democracy" are combated by those who are "threat", although the author of the lecture asks how 1 can in general "Who decides which opinions are acceptable?" Who has the power to exclude others in the name of strategy protection?’ And then what prof. Stumpf says happens. "When combat democracy is applied without restrictions, it ceases to defend pluralism and begins to undermine it." So, in fact, the regulation of totalitarian democracy begins to run, if not forcefully, but with the aid of manual control from the outside interferes with elections and cancels their results if they do not correspond to forces that can influence what to do with specified a case. And then specified a democracy that fights “changes the state from a neutral arbitrator into an active player. alternatively of open debate, we receive selective exclusion. Over time, this can turn democracy into a closed space – where only any voices can be heard and others are pushed out by legal or procedural means.” Germany and France are besides mentioned here. As the prof. states, "Legal procedures are not utilized to guarantee equal participation in political life, but to control which views can participate at all". He warns of the situation that “when governments start deciding who people can vote for and courts are utilized to settle political battles, the boundary between law and state power begins to fade. It's not just political friction. This is simply a increasing constitutional crisis – 1 that threatens the balance of institutions, the integrity of the legal strategy and the trust of society to democracy itself." This is what the “monopoly for democracy” of incumbent elites look like, possibly even believing in their propaganda regarding the regulation of law, democracy or the regulation of law, ignoring the deep state of denial.
Rule of law and "rules of law"
And that's why the lecture distinguishes the real definition from the empty phrase. The regulation of law actually means the superiority of the law over politics. In contrast, erstwhile alternatively of the actual regulation of law only a phrase appears like a flower to a goat, then legal systems are utilized to accomplish political goals. As a result, it appears that "the usage of investigations, judicial cases and regulations is being made to weaken rivals, while claiming that they are acting in the name of democracy and justice. It's not just unfair – it's dangerous. It destroys trust. It creates divisions. And slow undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions, even in countries where democracy erstwhile seemed strong and secure."
Against Demonizing Sovereignty
Attacks on supporters of the sovereign course could besides be observed in Poland erstwhile he got into the parliament Andrzej Lepper with his group. It was already referred to as "a threat to democracy." Today, possibly besides if we were given a triumph in any election he could be attacked by “democracyists fighting.” The Hungarian prof. so puts forward a final conclusion saying that "First, we must realize that national sovereignty is not a threat to democracy – it is 1 of its basic requirements. Without the nation's ability to regulation itself, democracy becomes an empty promise, managed from the outside by bureaucratic elites. Secondly, we must defend the regulation of law against political abuse. Courts must stay neutral. They are to be judges – not players in the game. erstwhile they take sides, the full strategy falls apart. Thirdly, Europe must halt treating political disagreements as a legal problem. Not all political difference is simply a crisis. Indeed, the diversity of opinions is essential for healthy democracy." To do so, he feels that honesty is needed, otherwise divisions are formed, which he seemingly uses according to the old regulation of power. It is precisely to exposure this mechanism, to make a diagnosis and a proposal for the future, utilizing the various sovereign forces to reverse this trend as an chance to implement these demands.
Bartłomiej Doborzyński (Polish Barometer)
