A Polish MP and former head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paweł Jabłoński, quoted eloquent lines from a text by Prof. Wojciech Sadurski on the X platform. Sadurski, associated with Gazeta Wyborcza, argued that the core idea of a genuine democrat cannot be a strict, literal reading of the law. He warned that an overemphasis on formal rules can hinder steps meant to restore the rule of law. Jabłoński urged that these statements deserve careful recording and it is time to remember them. He noted how some people accused the constitution of being written to entrap democrats. The remark came with a measured irony from Radosław Fogiel of PiS about the 1997 constitution.
Bold (and cynical) statements from Prof. Sadurski!
The law professor contends in a piece titled: “PiS uses the constitution as a trap for democrats” that after democracy returns, damaged political systems cannot be repaired by standard legal moves alone. Rebuilding would imply democracy on terms set by a fallen regime. The claim invites reflection on what that could actually mean in practice.
Sadurski begins by citing a line from a December Sejm resolution that later became a flashpoint in critiques of the government under Donald Tusk and the then-public media leadership. The resolution spoke of “corrective measures … in line with the norms of the rule of law in the transition period.”
What exactly is meant by transition period and the standards it implies? The resolution notes it will last until new legislative solutions are adopted and enacted. That process can be lengthy, especially as vetoes are exercised and new bodies emerge with ambitious agendas. The transition period concerns not only public media but also bodies like the public prosecutor’s office, civil service, the Supreme Court, and the court administration. The term frames a broader project of rebuilding the rule of law in a state where past authorities relied on legalized lawlessness.
Sadurski is not shy about sharp commentary. Any reform in these areas is likely to face accusations of breaking the rule of law, even as reformers seek to restore it and comply with the constitution. Critics from the opposing side often brandish slogans that frame reforms as abrupt or unlawful. The tension between reformers and opponents foreshadows disputes that could accompany any corrective step during the transition.
Sadurski outlines a three-phase view of democracy and rule of law restoration in Poland. He was among the first to note what happened on October 15 with an election victory that shifted political power. The third phase envisions functioning democratic institutions: independent public media, fair competition between the majority and the opposition, a neutral public service, an autonomous prosecutor’s office, and independent courts. The second phase represents the path from the first to the third. Can this journey proceed in a smooth, certain, and law-abiding way?
The legal theorist, cited here through the authority of András Sajó, a former vice president of the European Court of Human Rights, weighs in on the meaning of transition. Sajó argues that in the transition after an authoritarian period, strict adherence to the letter of laws crafted by former regimes can lead to a rule by law rather than true rule of law. Such a path can be self-defeating, and respect for the rule of law may, paradoxically, impede the very measures needed to restore it.
Sadurski contends that Poland is currently grappling with this exact tension. The piece under discussion is framed as a critique of how law and politics intersect during this transition.
“It is worth writing down these statements.”
The former deputy head of the Foreign Ministry is cited as capturing Sadurski’s Machiavellian arguments. The central message is that the rule of law should not be reduced to a strict reading of the law, and excessive formalism can hamper efforts to restore lawful governance. Jabłoński urged that these statements deserve recording and reflection, and he called for memory of the ideas expressed.
These quotes are likely to resurface in debates about Sadurski’s positions, possibly in unexpected ways, even if it seems today that the government will not change course.
Ironically, Sadurski’s piece in Gazeta Wyborcza drew a pointed response from PiS MP Radosław Fogiel. The commentary suggested that the constitution of 1997 was crafted in part to ensnare opponents, a claim echoed by others in the discussion.
Minister Bodnar, who is looking for “some legal basis”
Sadurski’s bold statements are not isolated from the new government’s camp. There has also been discourse around remarks attributed to the justice minister in the Tusk government. The dialogue centers on restoring constitutional order and seeking a legal basis to proceed with reforms.
The situation features discussions about how to reestablish constitutional norms and the legal framework guiding state action in media and public life.
“Tusk’s decision-making … is pure murderousness and a mockery of the law.”
Commentators, including Stanisław Janecki, have cited statements by Donald Tusk that all actions would be in line with the law as understood by his camp, alongside remarks from Marek Safjan, former president of the Constitutional Court and a judge at the CJEU, about escaping the trap of legal formalism. Critics describe late 2023 and early 2024 as moments where decision-making involved actions seen as a violation of law and the Constitution, provoking strong reactions from commentators.
These discussions point to the broader claim that reforms made under PiS were judged by some as undermining the rule of law and democracy, while the current approach could be viewed as controversial, with opponents arguing that constitutional integrity is at stake. The conversation underscores the striking tension between reform ambitions and constitutional constraints in a volatile political landscape.
The dialogue surrounding these issues remains highly charged as analysts and public figures weigh the implications for Poland’s legal and democratic trajectory. This debate continues to shape how the rule of law is understood during a period of transition and political realignment.
— The pieces referenced reflect ongoing discussions about the balance between lawful procedure and democratic survival in contemporary Poland.