“These slogans, which today we can describe as “street and abroad”, were unequivocally rejected in 1791, and it was decided to pass a law that had a chance to save the Republic of Poland. Today, of course, we know from history that it was too late, but despite everything, the creators showed great courage,” says Prof. Krzysztof Szczucki, President of the Government Legislation Center, Head of the Academy of Law and Justice.
wPolityce.pl: Is the current constitution of the Republic of Poland at least as extraordinary, “revolutionary” as the one of May 3, 1791?
Prof. Christopher Szczucki: I would say that the founding fathers of the May 3 constitution had a much greater political imagination, more courage and at the same time more humility than the founding fathers of the 1997 constitution.
An example that proves this is that the Constitution of May 3 adopted an easier way to change and revise after 25 years of its validity. It provided for the convening of the Extraordinary Sejm, which would have the power to amend this constitution. It was assumed – and rightly so – that 25 years is a good period to check whether the system was well invented or not. Similar solutions were included in the Constitution of March of 1921. The creators of the current Constitution showed quite a bit of hubris in this regard – they did not establish such a period that would entitle the Constitution to easier revision or amendment.
So we can say that solutions have been concretized in a way that are not necessarily good. However, it should be emphasized that this Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997, despite numerous shortcomings, has some advantages in addition to many shortcomings.
For example, the advantage is that it anchors the system of human rights and freedoms in human dignity, ie there is clear reference to Christian sources. It is good that this has happened, although some drafters of this constitution later regretted that they had decided on such a solution. However you look at it, the constitution enshrines the system of rights and freedoms in Christianity. This is her plus.
But when it comes to structural solutions, there are certainly many drawbacks.
Is it because of this “concreting” that every time the idea of amending the constitution came up, it always ended in failure? For example, the idea of President Andrzej Duda, who proposed a referendum on the constitution in 2018, failed.
It also failed in part because the constitution is considered sacred by some circles. The point is that it is, in fact, the highest source of law and there is no doubt that in relations with European law, the Constitution has priority. It should be emphasized that regardless of whether we judge the current Constitution as good or bad, it is the Basic Law that is the highest source of law.
On the other hand, this does not mean that this source of law cannot be changed, corrected or improved. Undoubtedly, the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 needs to be improved in many respects, and it would be good if the community of people who think so would finally unite. Law and Justice is such an environment, but does not currently have the necessary majority.
In any case, even attempts to change the constitution in a positive way – such as the proposal to seize the assets of people who support the regime in Russia and Putin’s brutal actions – are met with reactions such as “With PiS, we will constitution.” It is certainly impossible to have a serious discussion of the state system in this way.
To what extent can we today draw heritage, patron, from the constitution adopted on May 3, 1791?
Of course, models of specific solutions are not necessary, because many years have passed and circumstances and context have changed, but I would certainly draw inspiration from the attitude of people who decided to save Poland from many strong influence groups and influences from abroad.
These slogans, which today we can describe as “street and abroad”, were unequivocally rejected in 1791, and it was decided to pass a law that had a chance to save the Republic of Poland. Today, of course, we know from history that it was too late, but still the creators showed great courage.
Polish raison d’état, Polish public interest – that was the guiding principle for their actions. And in this area I would look for inspiration. And when it comes to specific solutions, it is clear that each era requires a separate reconsideration of political issues.
It is indeed important that we can think this way today. All the more so that foreign interference in our legislation, national law, is likely to go further and further?
Yes. We are in different circumstances because at that time, of course, there were no organizations and alliances like the European Union, and today they are and play a very important role.
And indeed, these issues must be settled in such a way that Poland is strong both with these alliances and in these alliances. “Standing on your own two feet”, that is, being a serious and strong partner.
late President Lech Kaczyński once said he heard people say that Turkey is a serious country. The president then expressed the wish, nowadays you can say a kind of testament, that his Poland would also be a serious country and would be treated as such.
It is therefore important that Poland functions in these alliances, but also that it is seen as a serious partner and a country to be reckoned with.
And a state to be reckoned with is certainly not a state that goes along with everything and accepts every solution, sometimes against its national interests. A serious state and at the same time a serious partner and ally is one that also, or perhaps especially, fights for the fate of its citizens and its interests, and also seeks common ground with other international partners. And this is what we want to be, and the constitution should shape the state this way.
You said that in relation to European law, the Polish Constitution takes precedence over EU law for us. But why is it that every time someone from the Polish government utters these words, it is almost treated as an introduction to “Polexit”?
This is indeed absurd because, as I said, the 1997 Constitution is flawed, but I have no doubt that it is the highest source of law. In Poland we can of course discuss the amendment, but it is important that all other sources of law, including European law, are in line with the Polish Constitution, whatever it may be.
The moment the constitution declares itself the supreme source of law, it settles the matter unequivocally. All those who try to argue the contrary and elevate European law above the Polish constitution are simply mistaken. And so in their mouths these slogans that this or that action of the government or the parliamentary majority is unconstitutional become absurd, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
Because how can you, on the one hand, undermine the constitution, elevate other norms above it, contrary to this constitution, and, on the other hand, claim that someone’s actions are contrary to the basic law? This is an incomprehensible absurdity.
The Constitution clearly and rightly puts itself first. Moreover, a constitution would not be a constitution if it were not the supreme source of law. The immanent characteristic of the constitution is precisely that it is the supreme source of law. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying.
And finally, I would like to return to today’s historic anniversary – I understand that today as Poland we have every reason to be proud of the constitution of May 3, even though we already know how our history went on?
Above all, we have reasons to be proud of our Polishness. From this wonderful legacy and wonderful attitudes that Poles have taken in history, how they acted. Also from the Constitution of May 3, but also beautiful characters who have registered themselves in our history. But also of this close connection between Poland and the values associated with this Polishness, as well as faith and Christianity.
So there are many elements that we can be proud of, and the Constitution of 3 May is undoubtedly one of them. It may make us proud that we, in this part of Europe, have shown such acumen, the ability to react exceptionally to what is happening around us, that we were able to rise above divisions.
It is true that the forces allied with foreign countries were so powerful that we did not stand a chance against them, but as far as we could, we tried to save our homeland, against all obstacles. And this is a wonderful example of this element of our identity, Polishness, that we can be really proud of.
Joanna Jaszczuk spoke.
Source: wPolityce