The Political Conflict on the example of the dispute over the Constitutional Tribunal

Abstract

The article discusses the problem of procedures and specific features of functioning of a modern democratic state, as well as threats resulting from weaknesses of democracy despite existence of mechanisms protecting it from abuse. This problem is analysed on the example of the ongoing political conflict about the Constitutional Tribunal: an institution of constitutionally guaranteed independence. This conflict reveals that in Poland a need for discussion and perhaps for verification of the current philosophy and practice of democracy, has arisen. Furthermore, it demonstrates that law and the rule of law are neither sufficient guarantors of a democratic system’s stability, nor guardians of civil rights and freedoms. A weakness of the democratic system lies in the fact that in the name of correctly understood democratic principles it is possible to distort the system through enacting wrong laws. Even though the acts of democracy participants, mainly decision-makers, are lege artis, they lead to impairment of democracy. Without doubt, a democratically organized society is an autonomous community and polyarchy which has adopted a democratic system of government as a form of its organization. On the other hand, democracies are highly conflict-prone systems, for example, due to the fact that they are based on the principle that all views and all participants of democracy are equal. As a consequence, such logic leads directly to emergence of disagreements, conflicts and even fights among democracy participants. This feature of democracy has enforced the establishment of appropriate procedures of conflict solving so that to ensure a possibly optimal resolution of crisis situations which could ultimately cause even a collapse of the democratic system. Thus, a simple mathematical rule has been adopted, albeit secondary in relation to any other methods of conflict solving, that is the majority principle. This is a standard of the democratic conduct without which the rule of majority would not be possible. The Constitutional Tribunal has recently become the object of popular interest – one of the many institutions of a democratic state which has not aroused so much factual and political dispute ever before. The conflict over the Tribunal has basically the formal and legal character, this is a technical dispute whose solution should be dictated by binding regulations and developed by experts in law. However, this is not the case. This conflict has turned into an argument of a political character, so it has become a genuine clash of interests, additionally aggravated by values. Moreover, it has stirred up the society and the environment of lawyers. When a political conflict, as one of the conflict types, is analysed, it is defined as a disagreement over power, whose participants are these individuals, groups, institutions and organizations which have a direct impact on politics or influence it through political channels. The practice of democratic states of the Western world does not prescribe a way at the beginning of which there is a sign “the winner takes it all”. This practice is corroborated by philosophy and theory of democracy, as well as by several hundred years of achievements including such principles as Montesquieu’s tripartite system of the separation of powers or the contemporary definition of democracy which describes it as a rule of majority that guarantees rights to minorities.