The Clash of Powers in Poland’s Rule of Law Crisis: Tools of Attack and Self-Defense

Abstract

Many people must be wondering how it is possible that Poland, not so long ago hailed for its exemplary transition from a communist dictatorship to a liberal democracy, could have so swiftly descended into authoritarianism via a crisis in the rule of law. The majority of commentators point to the size and ferocity of the attack on those mechanisms meant to safeguard the rule of law, whereas few focus on the weakness of their defence. This article attempts to redress that imbalance. The crucial facts of the Polish crisis are first presented, and the nature of both the attacks on the rule of law in Poland and the measures taken in its defence are then presented. In describing their defence, this article not only draws on Nicholas Barber’s concept of the self-defence of institutions, but attempts to improve upon it in the light of the Polish crisis. Further in the article, I argue that one of the reasons for the success of the assault on the rule of law is the formalistic legal mindset that is prevalent among Polish lawyers. This mindset is characterized by a reductionism of the interpretative premises to be applied when deciding constitutional cases. This reductionism is conspicuous in the application of bright-line rules with no consideration of general constitutional principles. I argue that the development of a robust, non-formalistic methodology of legal decision-making is a prerequisite for a successful defence of the rule of law.