Constidtutional considerations

On Tuesday The Warsaw Voice published this:

Government and Opposition Parties Argue Over Constitution Changes, January 19, 2010
Poland's leading party PO refuses to consider constitution changes suggested by the main opposition party PiS, which includes strengthening the position of the President, the daily Rzeczpospolita writes.

PiS proposal is being criticized by PO as "a return to a state system where the constitution confirms the centralized and ideological character of the state with the President in the role of the First Secretary", PO parliamentary club spokesperson Andrzej Halicki said.
PiS in turn blames PO for lack of constructive collaboration for the common good and failure to present own project.

Well as if in answer to the lack of a PO proposal, on the following day The Warsaw Voice published this:

Polish PM Proposes Weakening of Presidential Veto, January 20, 2010PM Donald Tusk proposes dampening of presidential veto, according to theses send by the PM's chancellery to the parliamentary Speaker, the daily Dziennik Gazeta Prawna writes.

Tusk wants the presidential veto to be rejected with an absolute majority and not with three-fifth majority, as it is the case at present.
The PM also wants to make an unambiguous provision that it is the PM who is responsible for foreign policy.

Personally I would go with a simple majority rather than an absolute, as the difference between 3/5 (60%) and absolute (51%) is hardly worth the trouble of changing. An absolute majority takes in to account all parliamentarians; even those not present. Whereas the simple just takes into account the ones who can be bothered to turn up and vote (var more sensible).

These two articles illustrate well the chasm that exists between the two sides. They have fundamentally opposing views, which does not bode well for cooperation.

I am of course in favour of the PO option. Being British I am not used to a division of powers between a PM and President. In theory the Queen can veto (refuse to enact) any law in the UK. She can also simply sack the PM and rule directly. For that matter she could install her butler as PM. Luckily she doesn't do any of these things and we seem to get along quite happily. The last occasion she used such powers was appointment of Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in February 1974; following political chaos. The last monarch to veto legislation was Queen Anne, who withheld assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.

Therefore, please could the President simply open Supermarkets and Hospitals, Present hours and medals and have dinner with distinguished visitors?

Constitutional Crisis?

I have been very lazy in my upkeep of this blog. Sorry!!! I looked at the date of my last entry and was shocked to see that it was November 08. A lot has undoubtedly happened since then and i am not going to even try and fill you in on the details. Surfice to say that spring is on its way and my mind is awakening from its slumber.

Politically speaking, Poland has had an interesting couple of weeks. The most notable thing being the squable over the Nato summit between the Prime Minister and President. The President apparently ignored the PM's official advice on Poland's stance in relation to the appointment of a new Secretary General for Nato. The ins and out are perhaps not important. More that the most recent episode is just another in a long line of debacles that the two are having. The main problem lies in the over lap of juristiction that the Polish constitution allows for. Strictly speaking the President has tyhe right to initiate and nogotiate foriegn policy. However, any sensible person could see that this must be done in close conjunction with domestic policy as the two are inseperable. The fact that the PM and President can;t work together is perhaps more indicative of them rather than the consitutution. However, that said the constitution allows for this situation to happen and so perhaps does need to be changed.

In my mind, i would serverly curtail the powers and responsibilities of the President as to have two oppposing heads of the country is just asking for trouble. I understand that the constitution was written in such a way as to create a system of checks and balances, however the PM is unswerable to Parliment, whereas at present the President is not answerable to anyone.