A lawyer known for his public stance against judicial reform shares in a popular daily publication his reflections on the legal changes that are often described as necessary to restore the rule of law. He presents a nuanced view of what that restoration might entail and why the path forward matters not just for institutions but for citizens who depend on fair and predictable governance.
The discussion highlights two possible trajectories. One is a brisk, controversial shortcut that would require bending or bypassing established legal procedures, a route some commentators have suggested, for instance, through a resolution by the Sejm aimed at limiting or restructuring the Constitutional Tribunal. The speaker cautions that such a move could contravene fundamental legal principles and provoke broader constitutional questions, emphasizing that shortcuts may undermine the very rule of law they claim to defend.
He describes this approach as a faster route that, in his view, risks grave legal missteps. The other path is slower and more deliberate, and it has been explored in collaboration with institutions like the Batory Foundation. This option prioritizes strict adherence to the law while acknowledging the emotional and political realities on the ground. It aims to build durable legitimacy through lawful measures, even if the process tests patience and can invite public frustration or resistance. The speaker stresses that patience is essential to avoid reckless moves that could deepen divisions rather than heal them.
In reflecting on the recent elections, the speaker points to the maturity shown by citizens who stood for long hours, donated time, and stayed engaged to effect change. He stresses that a similar level of patience is required to reform the rule of law in a manner that does not worsen the current situation. The analogy is clear: curing a deep-seated problem with a simple, harmful remedy would be misguided. In other words, the rule of law should not be defended by trampling on the law itself.
The statement also signals a cautious stance toward plans proposed by opponents that involve dramatic changes as a means of retaliation. It calls for scrutiny of proposals from think tanks associated with the reform debate, noting legitimate concerns about any measures that could undermine judicial independence or reduce the legitimacy of the constitutional order. The discussion emphasizes the importance of weighing long-term consequences over short-term gains, and it invites a broad, principled debate about how best to strengthen the judiciary without eroding the rule of law itself.
As the dialogue continues, observers are reminded to examine the proposals with a commitment to constitutional norms and a careful consideration of how changes would affect citizens, institutions, and the overall legal framework. The focus remains on ensuring that reforms advance fairness, transparency, and accountability while avoiding steps that could be perceived as revenge or coercion under the banner of legal reform. This reflects a broader consensus among many commentators that any meaningful improvement must be grounded in lawful procedures and a respect for the constitutional order.
tkwl/se.pl
READ ALSO: Foundation projects related to the judiciary have sparked lively debate about the balance between reform and constitutional discipline. Prof. Pawłowicz comments on the potential implications for the rule of law and constitutional integrity.
Source: wPolityce