The article is devoted to the right of legislative initiative deriving from the principle of popular sovereignty. The right of legislative initiative is one of the forms of participatory democracy. The popular initiative is regulated by the Art. 118 par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and by the act on exercising rights of legislative initiative by citizens of 24 June, 1999. The right of legislative initiative is exercised by collection of 100 000 signatures with regard to the bill. Once the required number of signatures have been collected, the bill in the form of the right of legislative initiative is filed to the Speaker of the Sejm. The Speaker then processes such a case.
Today the notion of popular sovereignty is seen as the standard of political legitimation. However, there is an important theoretical discussion to be had about the helpfulness of this notion since it is not clear who constitutes the ‘people’ or whether ‘the people’ possess the necessary agency in order to enact sovereignty. This discussion takes on practical interest in light of recent popular struggles for democracy, as evidenced by the Arab Spring of 2010-12 as well as the uprisings in Syria. This paper seeks to discover how far these popular revolutions of the early 21st century can be understood as conforming to or diverging from the liberal notion of popular sovereignty derived from the dominant social contract model.
The purpose of the article is to indicate the possible directions for clarifying the modern model of a state both democratic and ruled by law. To seriously take those two qualities, they must be regarded as mutually related. This is possible, when the democratic-political and legal-constitutional dimensions of the state can be related to an external dimension determining both the boundaries of the content of law and the decisions made by the Nation-sovereign (also in the Constitution) or specified by the will of the current majority of its representatives. Such perspective can be obtained primarily via considering the natural law in the disputes on a democratic state ruled by law. Taking into account transformations of the state and the law typical for the period of late modernity, as well as various traditions of neo-Positivist approach to law, four models of a democratic state ruled by law as a modern political form may be distinguished: constitutional democratic state ruled by law (in liberal-political and discursive versions), agonistic democratic state ruled by law, neorepublican democratic state ruled by law, personalistic democratic state ruled by law.
The article describes the ideas of people's sovereignty and division of powers, which are the foundation of world constitutionalism as a historical phenomenon. The author analyzes the evolution of the notions of popular sovereignty and distribution of powers, as well as the factors that determine their relevance with regard to modern social practices in different countries, primarily in Ukraine. In the context of the concept of popular sovereignty, the article explores interpretations of the people, including legal, as well as the content and nature of the people's right to uprising even against formally legitimate rulers who usurped power and abuses it. In line with the concept of the division of powers, the main forms of government are considered. It is emphasized that the form of government, which was adopted in Ukraine in the early 90's, is merely a simulation of the corresponding forms. The article examines the reception of the ideas of national sovereignty and distribution of powers by the authors of the program documents of Ukrainian political parties at the beginning of the XX century, as well as constitutional projects and acts of constitutional significance, promulgated and approved during the national liberation movement of 1917-1921. The author notes that explicit authoritarianism in the organization and implementation of power and some formal features of parliamentary government or the intention to implement it for objective reasons often combined in this period
All the works, dealing with the nationality problem fundamentally, need a kind of generally applicable basis in the form of a consensus in connection with the usage of theoretical concepts like people and nation. In the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy primarily the complexity of factors and the lack of unity meant a problem that also characterised the particular Austrian nationality question. So, in the contemporary Austria, three radically different elements were against each other. Various ethnic groups, as well as the historical units of kingdoms and provinces were opposing the central power whilst the demands of the ethnic groups in comparison with the demands of the other two groups became more and more significant and radical. Nation and nationality are the products of social development, thus cannot be defined without the consideration of the geographical and chronological scope in question; in other words, in the Habsburg Monarchy of the 19th century, one way to define nation and nationality led through the contemporary theories of these concepts.
Discussion around the concept of post-democracy in political science partially overlaps with a long-term narrative about the crisis of democracy. While there seems to be a general consensus on the concept of post-democracy, this notion is rather controversial. The current paper analyzes the treatment of the concept of post-democracy in the works of Jacques Rancière, Jürgen Habermas, Colin Crouch and others. The paper seeks to problematize temporal and spatial reductionism present in some conceptualisations of post-democracy, pointing to the contingency, temporality and contextuality of the forms of representative democracy as a possible way out of the melancholy nostalgia for a “golden age” of democracy and a way to seek a modus vivendi of democracy and representation in new conditions.
This paper explores a normative layer of Habermas’s public sphere in its relation to human rights. His public sphere came into being as a result of a spontaneous nonconformity manifested by the early bourgeoisie’s reaction to an absolutist regimen making inroads in the realm of basic human liberties; it managed to survive the changeable conditions of society and state thanks to its participants’ capability of cultivating collective self-determination, fed from the outset by the intellectual claims of modernity. Thereafter, the link between Habermas’s public sphere and human rights bifurcates, leading concurrently to liberal individual rights (Menschenrechte) and to the republican freedom of popular sovereignty (Volkssouveränität). Further revisions and corrections transpose that simple dualism from the clear-cut bourgeois world of universal morality into the realm of legalism and the protocols de rigueur in the world of systems. Habermas integrates individual human rights and popular sovereignty in the procedures of a democratic state, overcoming this ostensibly irreconcilable duality in his genuine claim about the co-originality of civil autonomy. this thesis institutionally unifies universal pre-constitutional morality, with legalism regulating the democratic world of legal subjects (citizens) and their constitutionally guaranteed entitlement.
The Spanish conquest of the New World (the Americas) became the subject of serious academic study, analysis, debates and polemics in the 16th to 17th century, their protagonists are generally referred to as theologians – jurists. The paper focuses on the analysis of conquest, conducted by one of the foremost theologians – jurists, Francisco de Vitoria. The text systematically presents, explains and discusses Vitoria’s complex thinking related to the conquest, which rests on the distinction between seven illegitimate and eight legitimate titles of the conquest (justos títulos). The paper also points to Vitoria’s more or less innovative concepts of popular sovereignty, the right of each member of the international community to interact with its other members or ius communicationis, the international law or ius inter gentes and the international community or totus orbis.
SK
Španielska conquista (dobytie) Nového sveta (amerického kontinentu) sa v Španielsku v 16. Až 17. storočí stala predmetom serióznych akademických skúmaní, analýz, diskusií a polemík, ktorých protagonisti sa všeobecne označujú ako teológovia – juristi. Štúdia sa zameriava na analýzu conquisty, ktorú uskutočnil jeden z najpoprednejších teológov – juristov, Francisco de Vitoria.V texte sa systematicky približuje, vysvetľuje a rozoberá Vitoriovo komplexné myslenie spojené s conquistou, spočívajúce na rozlíšení a rozbore siedmich nelegitímnych a ôsmich legitímnych titulov (dôvodov) conquisty (justos títulos).V texte sa tiež poukazuje na určité, vo väčšej alebo menšej miere inovatívne prvky Vitoriovho myslenia spojeného s conquistou, ktorými boli koncept suverenity ľudu, právo každého člena medzinárodného společenstva komunikovať s ostatnými členmi (ius communicationis), koncept medzinárodného práva (ius inter gentes) a koncept medzinárodného spoločenstva (totus orbis).
In 1791 two former political allies reached opposite conclusions on the constitutionality of chartering a national bank to serve the Federal government of the United States. Alexander Hamilton, who was then Secretary of the Treasury, argued that the U.S. Constitution conferred limited, but essentially bottomless, powers to Congress in pursuit of the public good. James Madison, at that time an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives, argued that powers conferred on Congress were limited in number, and reach, by conventions that ratified the Constitution in 1787–1788. Hamilton won the battle on the bank, but lost the war, as Madison’s strict construction of the Constitution in terms of the understanding of those who ratify, and amend, it prevailed in the long run. The broad construction favored by Hamilton has rarely carried the day in American jurisprudence.
Prawo natury, uprawnienia naturalne i teoria zgody tworzyły język suwerenności ludu, do którego odwoływali się obrońcy Parlamentu, wśród nich także lewellerzy, podczas angielskiej wojny domowej w pierwszej poł. XVII w. Celem artykułu jest pokazanie, w czym lewellerzy odróżniali się, jeśli chodzi o ideę suwerenności ludu, od teoretyków obrońców Parlamentu? Różnice te dotyczyły przede wszystkim rozumienia pojęcia ludu oraz uprawnień naturalnych, co miało związek z celami politycznymi lewellerów. W ostrym sporze politycznym, jakim był konflikt pomiędzy królem a Parlamentem, zwolennicy tego ostatniego odwoływali się do idei suwerenności ludu, by uzasadnić racje Parlamentu, lewellerzy natomiast czynili to, by obronić lud przed Parlamentem. W tym celu stworzyli indywidualistyczno-kontraktualistyczną koncepcję suwerenności ludu. Artykuł przybliża tę koncepcję.
EN
Natural law, natural rights, and consent theory formed the language of popular sovereignty, to which appealed Parliament’s defenders and the Levellers during the English Civil War in the first half of the 17th century. The aim of the article is to reveal how the Levellers differed from the Parliament’s theorists in terms of the idea of popular sovereignty. These differences concerned primarily the understanding of the people and natural rights concepts, which was related to the political goals of the Levellers. In the political dispute that was the conflict between the king and Parliament, supporters of the latter appealed to the idea of popular sovereignty to justify Parliament’s activities, while the Levellers did so to defend the people from Parliament. To this end, they created an individualistic and contractualistic concept of popular sovereignty. The article presents this concept.
Celem opracowania jest dokonanie pełnej i spójnej klasyfikacji wskazanych w Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 2 kwietnia 1997 r. form aktywności zbiorowego podmiotu władzy suwerennej – narodu w procesie sprawowania władzy publicznej. Zaproponowana typologia tych form opiera się na jednolitym kryterium – mocy prawnej formułowanej woli społecznej. Zastosowanie tego kryterium prowadzi do wyodrębnienia dwóch głównych płaszczyzn wspomnianej aktywności narodu. W pierwszej z nich występuje w roli rzeczywistego suwerena i – co się z tym łączy – jego akty woli mają absolutnie władczy charakter. Ma to miejsce wówczas, gdy w myśl art. 4 ust. 2 konstytucji naród „sprawuje władzę przez swoich przedstawicieli”, a więc w ramach tzw. demokracji przedstawicielskiej (a konkretnie rzecz biorąc: wybierając przedstawicieli i rozliczając w wyborach dotychczasowych mandatariuszy z dokonań w czasie trwania upływającej kadencji, a w przypadku organów samorządu terytorialnego – również instytucji odwołalności) lub „bezpośrednio” (referendum stanowiące). Wszystkie pozostałe przejawy aktywności społecznej przewidziane w Konstytucji RP i poza nią mają postać współdziałania obywateli i ich grup w sprawowaniu władzy przez organy władzy publicznej, zarówno przedstawicielskie, jak i nieposiadające tego statusu. Ze względu na swą opiniodawczą moc lub jedynie inspirujący charakter można je objąć wspólną nazwą – jako „wyrażanie opinii i inspirowanie w przedmiocie sprawowania władzy publicznej”.
EN
Constitutional forms of the nation’s activity in the process of executing public authority The aim of the paper is to present a complete and consistent classification of forms of activity of the nation as the collective subject of sovereign authority in the process of exercising public authority stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2nd April 1997. The proposed typology of these forms is based on the uniform criterion – the legal effect of the formulated will of the community. Using this criterion leads to isolating two main dimensions of the above-mentioned activity of the nation. In the first of them, the nation acts as the actual sovereign and consequently, their acts of will have an absolutely decisive character. This occurs when – in accordance with Article 4 section 2 of the Constitution – the nation „exercises such power directly or through their representatives”, which means within the framework of so-called representative democracy (particularly electing their representatives and calling the previous mandataries to account for their achievements in the finishing term of office by means of the next election, and in the case of territorial selfgovernment bodies, also by means of the institution of revocability), or „directly” (by way of a referendum). All the other forms of social activity provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and otherwise involve the cooperation of citizens and groups of citizens in executing power by public authority bodies, both representative and non-representative ones. Due to their consultative power or merely inspirational character, they can be collectively referred to as „expressing opinions and providing inspiration in the matter of exercising public authority”.
The article proposes a discussion with Philip Pettit’s theses developed in his book On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy and his article “Two Republican Traditions.” Focusing on the so called Italian-Atlantic tradition, Pettit emphasises the linkeage of the ethos of contestatory citizenry and that of mixed constitution as crucial for republicanism. It is no coincidence that understing the tradition of republicanism in such a way, Pettit does not include Jean-Jacques Rousseau, seen rather as a forerunner of communitarism. Yet, one can hardly agree with Pettit’s classification of the republican tradition and - especially - with his reading of Rousseau. In the first place, it is precisely Rousseau’s thought that helps understand that republicanism, after all embodying the idea of citizens’ government, could absorb the values of mixed government only temporarly and conditionally-only until the latter could serve limitate non-civic (non-elective) elements of power. Pettit’s suggestion that the theory of popular sovereignty initiated by Rousseau must undermine the ideals of civic vigilance is also difficult to accept.
PL
W artykule proponuje się dyskusję z tezami Philipa Pettita zawartymi w książce On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy i artykule „Two Republican Traditions”. Skupiając się na tzw. tradycji włosko-atlantyckiej, Pettit wskazywał na kluczowe dla republikanizmu powiązania etosów sprzeciwu obywatelskiego (contestatory citizenry) i ustroju mieszanego (mixed constitution). Nie jest przypadkiem, że do tak pojętej tradycji republikańskiej Pettit nie zaliczył Jeana-Jacques’a Rousseau, uznanego raczej za prekursora komunitaryzmu. Trudno się jednak zgodzić z prezentowaną przez Pettita klasyfikacją tradycji republikańskiej i - zwłaszcza - jego odczytaniem myśli Rousseau. Przede wszystkim to właśnie ta myśl ukazuje najlepiej, że republikanizm, uosabiający wszak ideę rządów obywatelskich, mógł przyswoić wartości ustroju mieszanego jedynie w sposób doraźny i warunkowy - jedynie dopóty, dopóki sprzyjały one ograniczeniu nieobywatelskich (niewybieralnych) czynników władzy. Trudno też przyjąć tezę Pettita, że zapoczątkowana przez Rousseau teoria zwierzchnictwa ludu musi podważać ideały kultury czujności obywatelskiej.
Research objective: The article is an attempt to highlight inherent tensions and mutual contradictions that popular sovereignty perceived as a category of modern political thought is marked by. The research problem and methods: Through the analyses of crucial passages of Rousseau’s political writings I show that different interpretations of popular sovereignty should be analyzed in the context of Robert Spaemann’s reading of rousseauian thesis of the irreversible disintegration of political unity and separation of public and private. The process of argumentation: I argue that the thought of Jan Jakub Rousseau may be a basis for deriving different meanings of popular sovereignty according to different and sometimes mutually exclusive interpretations typical of neorepublicanism, civic humanism, communitarianism and political liberalism. Rousseau’s idea of popular sovereignty may be perceived as combining classical and nominalist traditions (an actual consensus of the majority as a representation of the general will). Research results: The main conclusion of the article is that the tension implicit in the idea of popular sovereignty is inherently linked with a dual condition of modern man incapable of both political and private existence. Conclusions, innovations and recommendations: The idea of well-ordered society as described in The Social Contract and Considerations on the Government of Poland shows the tensions and ambiguities in modern idea of popular sovereignty, which could be taken into consideration while analyzing it as one of the main constitutional principles.
PL
Cel naukowy: Celem artykułu jest rozjaśnienie wewnętrznych napięć, jakimi naznaczone są nowożytne kategorie suwerenności i zwierzchnictwa ludowego. Służy temu próba odczytania różnych znaczeń sprawowania zwierzchnictwa ludowego, jakie wywieść można z twórczości Jana Jakuba Rousseau interpretowanej z perspektyw neorepublikańskiej, humanizmu obywatelskiego, komunitarystycznej i liberalnopolitycznej. Problem i metody badawcze: Analiza głównych tekstów politycznych Jana Jakuba Rousseau z uwzględnieniem współczesnych kierunków interpretacyjnych pokazuje, że te – rozbieżne nieraz interpretacje – należy odczytywać w świetle przedstawionej przez Roberta Spaemanna tezy o nieodwracalnym rozbiciu politycznej całości i rozdwojeniu egzystencji prywatnej i egzystencji politycznej u Rousseau. Proces wywodu: Realizacji celu naukowego artykułu służy próba odczytania różnych znaczeń sprawowania zwierzchnictwa ludowego, jakie wywieść można z twórczości Jana Jakuba Rousseau interpretowanej z perspektyw neorepublikańskiej, humanizmu obywatelskiego, komunitarystycznej i liberalnopolitycznej. Problematyczna relacja między rozumną wolą powszechną i faktycznym konsensem większości jako jej reprezentacją wynika z prób połączenia dwóch tradycji określanych przez Spaemanna jako klasyczna i nominalistyczna. Wyniki analizy naukowej: Pozwala to ukazać we wnioskach końcowych ideę zwierzchnictwa ludowego jako instytucję naznaczoną napięciami wiążącymi się z mieszaną prywatno-polityczną egzystencją człowieka nowożytnego. Wnioski, innowacje, rekomendacje: Projekt dobrze urządzonego społeczeństwa, którego opis odnaleźć można w Umowie społecznej i Uwagach o rządzie polskim ujawnia dwuznaczności nowożytnej idei suwerenności ludu, która może być uwzględniona przy jej analizie jako naczelnej zasadzie ustrojowej państwa współczesnego.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.