The slogans that today can be described as street-era and international were clearly rejected in 1791, and a law was chosen that could have saved the Polish Republic. In hindsight, history shows it came too late, yet the authors demonstrated notable courage, according to Prof. Krzysztof Szczucki, president of the Government Legislation Center and head of the Academy of Law and Justice.
The discussion on whether the current constitution of the Republic of Poland stands out as extraordinary or even revolutionary, in comparison to the May 3 Constitution of 1791, invites a nuanced assessment. Prof. Christopher Szczucki notes that the May 3 drafters possessed a political imagination and courage surpassed by few, coupled with a humility that tempered their bold ambitions.
One telling example is the easier path chosen for amending the May 3 Constitution, which foresaw an Extraordinary Sejm empowered to revise the document. The intention was practical: twenty-five years should provide a meaningful interval to test the system and its foundations. Similar thinking appeared in the 1921 Constitution. By contrast, the 1997 Constitution, crafted in a different era, did not embed a comparable mechanism for easier revision, reflecting a different constitutional intuition.
Thus, certain concrete solutions may not be ideal, yet the 1997 Basic Law nonetheless carries advantages beyond its well-known flaws. Among them is the anchoring of human rights and freedoms in human dignity, with a recognition rooted in Christian tradition. This reference, even if later regretted by some, nonetheless positions the constitution in a framework that links rights to enduring moral sources. Seen this way, the constitution’s ethical grounding is a clear plus, even amid structural drawbacks.
On the structural front, however, there are many liabilities. Does the insistence on a fixed framework explain why every attempt to amend the constitution has faced difficulty? The 2018 referendum proposal championed by President Andrzej Duda, for example, did not advance, illustrating the challenge of changing a document many regard as sacred—an overarching legal source that normally takes precedence over European law in the national hierarchy.
Whether the current constitution is viewed as good or bad, it remains the highest law, and any discussion of amendments must acknowledge this supremacy. Nevertheless, it is possible to improve the constitution, address its shortcomings, and seek a broad consensus among citizens who reflect on constitutional reforms. The political space for such dialogue exists in various circles, even if current majorities are unclear. The environment around Law and Justice embodies one part of this potential, but it does not yet command the required majority for impactful change.
In any case, even positive proposals—such as measures to seize assets from individuals who support regimes deemed hostile—encounter resistance that can render serious constitutional debate unproductive. When discussions devolve into slogans about constitutional status, it undermines thoughtful debate about the state’s governance and its legal framework.
What heritage can be drawn from the 1791 May 3 Constitution today? Specific solutions are not a mandatory template, given the long passage of time and the altered global context. Yet the mindset of those who acted decisively to shield Poland from external pressure remains a source of inspiration. When it comes to concrete policy, different eras indeed require fresh political considerations tailored to their own circumstances.
It is important to consider these perspectives today, particularly in light of growing foreign influence on national legislation. The question is whether Poland should maintain a strong stance within alliances and also stand firm as a legitimate, respected partner on the international stage. The ideal tends toward a state that can act independently when necessary, while engaging resolutely with its partners and exercising influence where it serves the national interest.
Historical remarks about a nation being respected as a serious actor have echoes in the memory of a former president who remarked that Turkey is a serious country. The hope echoed then is that Poland, too, would become a serious and respected participant in global affairs, not merely a passive follower but a reliable, principled actor in international relations.
Poland’s role in international alliances should reinforce the country’s stature as a robust partner rather than a pliant ally. A serious state should vigorously defend its citizens and their interests, while seeking common ground with other nations. This is the direction many aspire to in shaping constitutional governance—one that reflects sovereignty, protects fundamental rights, and honors commitments to the international order.
Some insist that national law must always trump external norms, including those of the European Union. Yet the essential premise is that the constitution should remain the supreme source of law, and all other legal norms must align with it. A genuine constitutional framework can coexist with European law when interpreted through a constructive, cooperative lens. Accusations of constitutional unconstitutionality, when leveled as political slogans, undermine legitimate legal scrutiny and skew public discourse.
The central claim endures: the constitution, by its own design, places itself at the pinnacle of Poland’s legal system. And if anyone argues otherwise, the essence of the constitutional order is misrepresented. The emphasis remains on a constitutional system that can adapt when necessary, while preserving the core principles that define Poland’s national identity, its faith, and its long-standing cultural heritage.
As Poland marks a historic anniversary, there is legitimate pride in the May 3 Constitution and in the broader tradition of Polish governance. The resilience of Polish identity, the courage of its citizens, and the enduring connection to values tied to Poland’s Christian heritage offer a compelling narrative. It is a reminder of the moments when Poles rose above divisions to respond to external pressures and safeguard their homeland. That legacy remains a defining element of national character, worthy of reflection and renewal in the present day. [Citation: wPolityce]