Decisions are sometimes subject to scrutiny, and Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated that he would make them with full awareness of the risk that not every choice would align with a purist view of the rule of law.
During remarks to experts and constitutional specialists gathered in the Senate, he emphasized that the executive branch, operating without a full legal toolkit, must rely on its own resolve to take calculated risks and to make calls that may be questioned even by other states.
He added that he would continue to make such decisions, fully aware that not all of them would satisfy the criteria of a complete constitutional state in the eyes of some purists, understood in a constructive sense.
“Destruction of the system”
The last eight years, he argued, have eroded the justice system and left the public immersed in interpretive laxity. He warned that acts may be taken that, in the eyes of certain legal authorities, run counter to the letter of the law.
He noted that those years, when Law and Justice led the government, left the justice system damaged, not only in black and white terms but across a spectrum of gray areas created by loose interpretations.
In his view, every person retains the right to express their own opinion on what should be done, even as others may dissent. He described this as a personal unease tied to the idea of co-signing matters rather than a wholesale retreat from responsibility.
Tusk then addressed the experts: mistakes are likely to occur more than once, and actions viewed by some legal authorities as inconsistent with the law may surface. Yet the obligation to act remains, he said, because without daily decisions the government could not function effectively.
That was his message during the Senate gathering with legal scholars and constitutionalists.
Tusk threatens himself
He asserted that restoring the rule of law requires acting within what he called a militant democracy, a stance that may downplay certain legal opinions that do not fit the preferred framework.
To reclaim constitutional order and the foundations of liberal democracy, he suggested, measures might be taken that some legal authorities could deem not entirely aligned with the formal letter of the law. Nevertheless, he argued that this does not free leaders from the duty to act.
These remarks were shared in a post on X, where the prime minister contended that a militant democracy framework would guide necessary actions even under scrutiny.
Observers noted that this approach could signal a willingness to accept tighter control or a tougher stance on judicial and constitutional questions, a phase some call an austerity period. Commentary on the matter highlighted the tension between upholding legal norms and pursuing political goals.
Other related discussions have followed: critics have accused the government of creating political chaos through past decisions, while supporters point to the need for decisive leadership in precarious times. The Senate meeting with judges and senior justices continues to shape the conversations about who should lead key judicial bodies and how co-signatures are handled. The broader debate centers on the balance between accountability, legitimacy, and effective governance within a constitutional framework.
The exchange underscores ongoing tensions between political leadership and the judiciary as the country navigates a complex constitutional era. The dialogue reflects concerns about preserving rights while pursuing reform, and about whether bold steps are compatible with the long-standing rule of law.
Note: this summary reflects the discussions reported by observers at the time and includes reflections on the principles guiding executive decisions in a constitutional state. (Source: wPolityce)