Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis T. 32 (2021)

Politics is traditionally dominated by men. In recent years, women’s participation has increased as a result of, among other factors, targeted equality policy actions. Among the many possible ways to attain this result the most familiar is the quota mechanism, sometimes (mistakenly) equated with gender parity. Łukasz Wawrowski’s aim in this article is to examine the implementation of this mechanism in the Polish electoral law using solutions developed in 2011, and to indicate its effectiveness from the perspective of the elections to the Sejm in October 2019. Wawrowski uses a double prism to treat the “antinomies of democracy” referred to in the text. First, he discusses the conditions to be met in order for the quota mechanism to be effective. Secondly, he ponders the extent to which such a “top-down imposition of the number of women involved” agrees with the essence of democracy, often understood as the implementation of the “will of the people”.

The author of this article wants to answer the following questions: Who are modern anti-democrats? What are their intentions and motives? Challenging is also the need to clarify the idea of anti-democratism as a political and social attitude, as well as to resolve the dilemma of whether anti-democratism is a consequence of disillusionment with politics and politicians and thus an expression of public dissatisfaction and as such a basis for the attitude of contesting the political order or perhaps a useful pragmatic strategy that lead to political gain.

This article brings an attempt to answer the question of what fundamental antinomies and problems can be identified in the current functioning of the Polish political system. Krzysztof Łabędź has based his discussion on studies by, among other scholars, Giovanni Sartori, Larry Diamond, Philippe Schmitter, and Juan J. Linz, who identify the basic possible internal contradictions and paradoxes of democratic systems. In response to the above question, Łabędź draws attention, among other things, to the possibility of the existence of autonomous public opinion, to the consent to the implementation of the demo-authoritarian model and to the features of political culture that are conducive to it: the scope of the oligarchization of power, the depth of political divisions and conflicts, and the scope of the autonomy of the rulers and the state’s independence
from the Church (as an institution relatively independent of public opinion).

Antinomies are a feature of any democratic system – including neoliberal ones – due to its genesis and functions. Edward Karolczuk’s aim in this article is to examine whether it is justifiable to use the categories of logical and dialectical contradiction in the study of democracy. In order properly to understand the internal contradictions of neoliberal democracy, it is necessary, in Karolczuk’s opinion, to use dialectics in the sense in which it was understood by G.W.F. Hegel and K. Marx. 

At the starting point of his reflections, Karolczuk summons the concept of dialectics in the context of the analysis of liberal democracy. Other concepts synthetically discussed in the introductory part of the article, are those of contradiction and antinomies
and their types, relevant from the point of view of the topic and purpose of this discussion. They allow him to identify, in the final part of the article, antinomies typical of democracy (e.g., “the power of the people”, equality, freedom, majority, and minority).

At the foundation of European culture lies Socrates’ idea that the rules of social life must be based on “the essence of things”. At the threshold of modernity, this paradigm was replaced by Descartes’ cogito, where the I is the starting point: an individual person undertaking some economic activity (Th. Hobbes, J. Locke). However, the market is not everything (J.J. Rousseau, I. Kant). According to the archetype of Polish culture, things are different. It stresses the need to take into account “values”, which is the imperative of every individual and at the same time of the community. In the words of Lelewel, this is “the Polish dance”;
the “crowd”. This is the archetype of Polish culture. Poland is “perennial tenderness” (Y. Haenel). Whether this may be a convincing position in reflections upon Polish history still remains an open question.

In her article, Sara Burchert is concerned with pluralism and illusory pluralism in democracy. She analyses the mechanisms of the absorption and marginalization of minority groups, their interests, and their participation in public discourse, the ways and possibilities of articulating positions which are close to them in order to identify elements which make possible a pluralistic society and determine its quality. Essential for the functioning of the vision of a pluralistic debate is the bestowing of marks of diversity on what is present. It is also important to analyze the media situation – structural, spatial, and financial restrictions, which make up an argument already naturalized and accepted, one that should not be disputed. In this way, free discussion
is moderated bilaterally, where those who do not have access to it accept that this is the result of objective premises, often without even analyzing the mechanisms of subjugation behind subsequent exclusion processes, or possibly – absorption within the mainstream. These processes deprive an individual person of their “minority” character, their identity, and the possibility of articulating their own interests.

Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis T. 32 (2021)

Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis T. 32 (2021)

Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis T. 32 (2021)