Bartosz Lewandowski in the latest edition of “To Things” analyses how the “bondarisation of the law” in Poland is to be achieved, besides calling its article. The name comes naturally from Prof. Adam Bodnar, who late served as Minister of Justice before being replaced by Waldemar Żurek. The article shows the technological career way of the erstwhile minister. The author of the article points out that the doctrinal basis for acting against the rule of legalism resulting from the Constitution did not come from anything. This is the consequence of many years of discussions among lawyers supporting the Donald Tusk government. They were held in publications addressed to a abroad reader and financed by German institutions.
Why was Bodnar chosen?
Bodnar's election as a ministerial position was based on the fact that he participated in these discussions. This was the preparation of the legal and political ground for actions incompatible with Polish government and constitution. The aim was to safeguard the interests of the Tusk Formation and to strangle opposition parties within the doctrine of "a fighting democracy". Bodnar himself had no scruples to deny himself as a lawyer in fresh years. The explanation of his actions is his professional career. He completed his studies by writing a master's thesis on European law, which already points to his interests. He completed postgraduate studies in Budapest at the Soros University, or Central European University. There he met his guardian Andras Sajo, who was popularizing "a fighting democracy". It's a 1937 political and legal construction. It assumed that the government would take any "democratic" action to defend and strangle political or social movements that could usage a democratic institution to take over power and actions "contrary to democracy".
Transformation 2.0
The article besides discusses Bodnar's relationships with his PhD promoters and habilitations, initiatives that caused the TEU, the ECHR, to interfere with the current political struggle. But the most crucial subject is what was published before Adam Bodnar entered the government. It co-edited the publication entitled "Transformation 2.0. Restoring constitutional democracy in the associate States of the European Union". The publication was published by German publishing home Nomos Verlag. The publication reported that after the "transformation 1.0", namely the emergence of countries from post-communist systems and the adoption of liberal democracy, a symbol of the "end of history", the countries ended up joining the European Union. Everything blew up the period of the regulation of conservative governments in any European Union countries, mainly Poland and Hungary.
Do what?
The publication so wondered what should be done to reconstruct constitutional democracy? The dilemma was how to fix its membership of the European Union, while respecting the restrictions previously imposed, which defined what changes were acceptable in constitutional democracy based on the regulation of law. European Union law, which has previously been a origin of restrictions on systemic changes, could, in the opinion of publication, become a tool for full constitutional democracy and for the restoration of membership of the European Union. The author of the article informs that the introduction itself reflects the content of the articles. The question of how to usage European Union law or global law and institutions to combat legal change in countries governed by "populists". The issue is besides raised which shows how to take over institutions cast by people who are "not democrats" or utilizing Karl Popper's language are "enemies of an open society".
Like a master and a student
The article quotes texts from both the promoter of the erstwhile minister's doctorate, prof. Mirosław Wyrzykowski and Adam Bodnar himself. In the text of the Constitution Trap, Prof. Mirosław Wyrzykowski points to the problem of violation of the Constitution if the restoration of the regulation of law is not possible by making legal changes in Poland. It so supports the extraordinary measures required by the emergency situation in the publication. He calls it an emergency state of unconstitutionality. More absurdly, he wrote that "Higher loyalty to the Constitution is an argument legitimizing extraordinary measures, besides erstwhile their legality can be controversial". The question is whether the word "controversial" means simply breaking the law in an "extraordinary" situation. And the goal, as Prof. Wyrzykowski claims, is to make a fresh doctrine which would in rule urge choosing between greater and lesser evil. His disciple Prof. Bodnar, on the another hand, wrote as a preview of his actions not only on the verification of judges but besides on "transitional justice". This is simply a condition for him to reconstruct assurance in justice. It besides announces that people who have committed acts contrary to the constitutional strategy will not be held accountable. Closing his article, Bartosz Lewandowski writes that transitional justice “This is simply a informing of repression and violation of the law!’ Prof. Bodnar, being already Minister of Justice, was to say that they would search a legal provision for their actions. But why does the legal provision seemingly request to be published in a German publishing home that justifies and absolves all illegal activities in the future?
Bartłomiej Doborzyński
