Is it possible to vent about violations of the constitution after two terms in power by the United Right and still argue that such breaches can be addressed within the law marketplace? The answer hinges on the stance of a certain political faction and the way legal discourse is framed. This is the account of Prof. Wojciech Sadurski, who appeared as a guest on the program Allegro ma non troppo with Jacek Pałasiński. During the discussion, the professor was asked whether it could be feasible to restore constitutional norms after a prolonged period of governance shaped by the party in power.
It was noted that the Constitution was not drafted with the expectation that it would ever be dismantled by ordinary political action and then replaced by a new order. The claim emerged that approaching the task with care and equanimity, while staying strictly within the constraints of the constitutional text, might lead to an outcome that many would deem tragic. Sadurski underscored the risk inherent in relying solely on procedural forms when the actual power dynamics have shifted.
– said Sadurski.
“We Democrats…”
When Pałasiński pressed him on the specific domains where deviation from the letter of the law could be contemplated to reestablish democratic governance, Sadurski responded with a stark assessment. He highlighted several formal bodies that, in his view, had sustained a level of capture or manipulation under the influence of authoritarians. Among these institutions were the Constitutional Tribunal, the National Council for the Judiciary, the National Media Council, and the National Broadcasting Council. He argued that these bodies had become so entangled with an authoritarian project that undoing the situation through ordinary democratic means would be highly challenging if not impossible, at least under the existing legal framework. In his view, this complexity meant that those who describe themselves as defenders of the Constitution could not be expected to capitulate to what he called constitutional thugs who had orchestrated a systemic shift.
The dialogue suggested that the available options for restoring the constitutional order relied on strategies that might stretch the conventional interpretation of the law. It signaled a debate about the limits of reform within a constitution while acknowledging that the practical realities of political power often outpace the letter of the text. The discussion pointed to a broader conviction among proponents of democratic principles that safeguarding constitutional norms may require resilience, vigilance, and strategic thinking beyond standard procedures.
Ultimately, the conversation framed a sobering picture: defending the Constitution could, in some circumstances, be seen as requiring actions that go beyond simply following the exact wording of articles and provisions. The implication was that a disciplined, principled opposition to attempts to erode constitutional order might demand responses that are not purely formal, even if those responses challenge established procedures.
Source material and framing of these remarks can be traced to commentary and coverage from wPolityce, which provided context for the discussion and its implications for the ongoing political landscape. The dialogue underscored an enduring tension between strict constitutionalism and pragmatic democratic defense in times of constitutional stress.