The article presents the participation of Polish scholars in the research on Russia and on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic after World War II, which was conducted in scientific centers of Europe and the United States. Describing the participation of Poles and of people of Polish descent, the author comes to the conclusion that the scholarly interest in Russia both in Poland and among Polish emigrants dates at least for several generations and concerns many fields of scientific endeavor. In particular, the article pinpoints and describes the conceptions of such scholars as Jan Kucharzewski and Richard Pipes (historiography), Adam Ulam, Leopold Łabędź and Zbigniew Brzeziński (political science, with special emphasis placed upon a theory of international relations), Father Innocenty Bocheński, Leszek Kołakowski and Andrzej Walicki (history of ideas and philosophy), and even economic science (Stanislaw Swianiewicz). As the author contends, both disciplinarily and substantively, their efforts mark a very important contribution, constituting significant achievements of Polish science, notwithstanding the fact that many scholars have declared and still declare only possessing Polish origins, often considering themselves to be Americans. The subject of the article is also a field for further scholarly research which is worth exploring and which the author intends to undertake.
The article presents an analysis of selected considerations of Polish political discussions about the shortcomings of the parliamentary system and their antidote in the form of an authoritarian system. The point of departure is an analysis of the idea of a legal state (Rechtsstaat), well known in Congress Kingdom even before Poland regained its independence in 1918. It is also worthwhile to research the attempt of the integration the head of state into the parliamentary system, which was successfully applied between 1918 and 1922 when the Head of State institution was personalized by Józef Pilsudski. The analysis of the authoritarian thinking of Piłsudskis movement between 1926–1939 did not turn out as it had been declared, the sanation of state, and ideologically — also experienced — numerous social failures. Piłsudski’s legacy is present to some extent in contemporary Poland, with few exceptions (e.g. the concept of the common good), but one cannot speak of the legacy of authoritarianism. The idea of authoritarianism, however, remains less or more attractive as the solution to the social pains of the Third Republic. As between 1918–1922 in Poland, it has now been possible to incorporate the president’s powers into the parliamentary system, where the head of state is not a purely decorative body (to a certain extent as a moderator of the empire). The list of constitutional values is also important. The underserved party system (before the war and now) is undoubtedly a negative political tendency, although such a system is not a developed state legal system. Paradoxically, however, it fosters anti-authoritarian tendencies.
The paper presents basic assumptions of the constitutions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, adopted during the existence of this state in the years 1917–1991. On the basis of fundamental ideas of the constitutions the author draws a picture of the so-called Soviet constitutionalism under volatile conditions arising from the pure revolutionary declared state to more classical form of political and legal system presented in the constitutional shape. The article concerns specific features of the Soviet constitutionalism, distinguishing it from regular constitutional models. To a lesser extent the paper concerns the difference between theory and practice of the “first state of workers and peasants” and the first “utopia in power”, as the Soviet state was described by the scholars of the field. In particular, the author emphasized evolution of legal nihilism, utopism, or a rule of exclusion of rights of certain citizens’ cathegories, imposed in the first Soviet constitution, and abolished, de iure, in 1936. On the other hand, however, the paper stressed the continuity of such issues as specific structure of the power of state, the common necessity of labour, or the legal possibility of dismissing the „parliamentary” representatives at any time. Also, the author underlines the question that, apart from the needs and the concept of the totality of power, the so-called Soviet constitutionalism was not able to create a new system of performance the power, and after collapse of the USSR, from the constitutional perspective it was rejected by enacting the new constitution, what happened in the former Soviet Union and in the countries of a similar political order.
The article is an attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the political thought of Józef Piłsudski (1867–1935), regarded without reservation as the highest political authority of the Second Polish Republic and the most important figure in the regaining of independence by Poland after 1918. Paradoxically, an analysis of his views as a whole is yet to be carried out, with scholars focus ing mainly on facts or fragments of views or criticism of various phenomena in inter-war Poland in Piłsudski’s thought. The author of the article analyses Piłsudski’s well-known socialist leanings, the concept of the primacy of the state over other public institutions, Piłsudski’s attitude to the most important phenomena after taking over power and his responsibility for the various distortions of Poland’s political system after 1926. He points not only to the concept of systemic reforms but also to the political doctrine (conservatism) of this figure, the concept of social solidarity and social equ-ilibrium, constitutional propositions formulated a posteriori in line with Piłsudski’s views as well as Piłsudski’s legacy. This legacy is also one of the most important aspects of his political doctrine, even despite the numerous negative phenomena affecting the political and legal philosophy of the post-May camp of inter-war Poland.
The paper presents the basic principles of the constitutions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics adopted during the existence of this state in the years 1917–1991. On the basis of fundamental ideas of the constitutions, the author depicts an image of the so-called Soviet constitutionalism under volatile conditions ranging from the pure revolutionary state to the more classical form of political and legal system presented in the constitutional form. The article concerns specific features of the Soviet constitutionalism, distinguishing it from the classical constitutional models. To a limited extent, the paper also concerns the difference between the theory and practice of the first state of workers and peasants and the first utopia in power, as the Soviet state was described by the scholars of the subject. In the last sphere, the author underlined, in particular, the evolution of legal nihilism, the utopianism, or a rule of exclusion of rights of a certain category of citizens, introduced in the first Soviet constitution, and abolished, de iure, in 1936. On the other hand, however, the paper focuses on the continuity of such principles as specific structure of the power of state, common work obligation, or a legal possibility of dismissing certain „parliamentary” representatives at any time. The author also emphasises the fact, that, despite the will and the concept of the totality of power, the so-called Soviet constitutionalism failed to create a new system of the performance of power, and after the collapse of the USSR, from the constitutional perspective it was rejected by the enactment of a new constitution, which happened in the former Soviet Union as well as in the countries of a similar political order.
The article presents a reminder and an analysis of the phenomenon of Polish classical liberalism, which is a reception of thoughts of Benjamin Constant de Rebecque. In the so-called Kingdomof Poland, a specific quasi-state organism, founded from the piece of the Russian partition of Polandand created after the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Russian Tsar Alexander I gave the Kingdom the constitution, which newly nominated members of parliament demanded to bind. The opposition was mainly headed by the representatives from the provinceof Kalisz(the Kalisians) under the leadership of Wincenty and Bonaventura Niemojowski. After deposition under house arrest in 1825, Wincenty Niemojowski translated in one volume the basic works of Benjamin Constant, significant from the point of view of the parliamentary struggle, and later armed during the Polish November Uprising 1830-1831. The work contains extensive principle of separation of powers, a very mature concept of freedom, as well as a warranty catalog to public authorities, such as freedom of the press, or the independence of the courts, which Wincenty Niemojowski highlighted in his translation. Paradoxically, it was the widest reception of classical liberalism inPoland, where to this day, trends of modern political thought represented by political parties have not yet developed.
PL
Artykuł prezentuje przypomnienie i analizę zjawiska polskiego klasycznego liberalizmu będącego recepcją myśli Benjamina Constanta de Rebecque’a. W latach tzw. Królestwa Kongresowego, okrojonego z ziem zaboru rosyjskiego, specyficznego organizmu quasi-państwowego, utworzonego po Kongresie Wiedeńskim w 1815 r., car Rosji Aleksander I nadał Królestwu konstytucję, której przestrzegania domagali się głównie posłowie z województwa kaliskiego (kaliszanie) pod przewodnictwem Wincentego i Bonawentury Niemojowskich. Po osadzeniu w areszcie domowym Wincenty Niemojowski przetłumaczył w jednym woluminie podstawowe dzieła Constanta, istotne z punktu widzenia walki parlamentarnej, a później zbrojnej w czasie Powstania Listopadowego 1830–1831. Znalazła się w nim rozbudowana zasada podziału władzy, bardzo dojrzała koncepcja wolności oraz katalog rękojmi władz publicznych, takich jak wolność prasy czy niezawisłość sądów, które Niemojowski uwypuklił w swym tłumaczeniu. Paradoksalnie była to najszersza recepcja klasycznego liberalizmu na ziemiach polskich, gdzie do dziś kierunki współczesnej myśli politycznej, reprezentowane przez partie polityczne, jeszcze się nie wykształciły.