Ustąpienie Aleksandra Prystora z funkcji premiera w 1933 r. miało związek z utratą przez niego zaufania Piłsudskiego. Historycy wiązali ten fakt ze starzeniem się Marszałka. Analiza dostępnego materiału źródłowego pozwala jednak rzucić nowe światło na kulisy tej dymisji. Okazuje się, że podjął szereg istotnych decyzji, łącząc poszczególne resorty oraz powołując nowych ministrów, nie konsultując jednak tego wcześniej z Piłsudskim. Doprowadziło to ostatecznie do konfliktu pomiędzy obu politykami. Aleksander Prystor’s resignation from the post of prime minister in 1933 was related to the fact that he lost Marshal Piłsudski’s trust. Historians associated this with the Marshal’s old age. An analysis of available source material, however, sheds new light on the inside story of this resignation. It turns out that Prystor made a number of important decisions, combining various ministries together and appointing new ministers, without consultation with Piłsudski. This led to a conflict between the two politicians.
In seizing almost complete control of Polish political life, Piłsudski did not have a clear-cut programme for rebuilding the foundations of political system. Work on this programme, undertaken long before the May Coup, continued for many years, revealing serious divergences of opinion among the Marshal’s close associates. The most significant conflicts involved the attempts to give a new shape to the upper house of parliament, to determine the mutual relations between the executive and legislative branch of the state, and to elaborate the procedure for the election of the president.It is possible to distinguish two phases in the controversy which divided Piłsudski’s adherents. The first, covering the period 1928–30, is connected with the rivalry between Kazimierz Bartel, five-times prime minister during the Sanacja era, and a group of Piłsudski’s close associates called the ‘Colonels’. As it turns out, Bartel went even further in his attempts to impose limitations on parliamentary democracy than the Colonels. However, his proposals failed to receive approval from Piłsudski, and Bartel himself had to retire from public life. The second phase of the aforementioned controversy came in the years 1931–35 and involved deliberations that culminated in the enactment of the April Constitution. Divergences of opinion revealed in the course of these discussions were a factor that accelerated the decomposition of Pisudski’s camp after his death.