Democracy in PolandRepresentation, participation, competition and accountability since 1989

Anna GwiazdaKing’s College London

Outline

Evaluating the quality of democracy The case of Poland, 1989-2011 The role of formal and informal

institutions Conclusions

The literature

Democracy as a ‘contested concept’ (Gallie 1964) Democratization (e.g. Huntington 1991; Inglehart et

al 2009; Linz and Stepan 1996; Przeworski et al 2000)

The quality of democracy (Diamond and Morlino 2005; Lijphart 1993; Morlino 2011; Przeworski 2010; Putnam 1993)

I propose: An in-depth analysis of the case of Poland A procedural approach to evaluating democracies

Procedural evaluation

Representation (Pitkin 1967; Mansbridge 2003) Women and minorities

Participation (Pateman 1970; Dahl 1971) Turnout, membership in civil society organisations and

direct legislation

Competition (Dahl 1971; Gwiazda 2009) Party and party system institutionalisation

Accountability (Schedler 1999) Votes of no confidence, investigative committees and

parliamentary questions

The case of Poland

RepresentationWomen’s representation in the Sejm, 1991-2011

Women’s representation in the Senate, 1989-2011

German minority representation in the parliament, 1991-2011

Electoral partcipation

Turnout in referendums

Turnout in presidential elections, 1990-2010

Turnout in parliamentary elections, 1989-2011

Non-electoral participation

Total participation in civil society organizations

Citizen’s legislative initiatives, 1999-2011

Competition

Party system institutionalisation

AccountabilityVotes of no confidence Investigative committees

Parliamentary questions, 1991-2011

The role of institutions

Formal institutions: electoral laws including gender quotas, the Constitution, law on political parties, etc. Changes of formal institutions have contributed to

the consolidation of a good quality democracy in Poland

Informal institutions: political culture Political culture based on low levels of inter-

personal and political trust, strong anti-party sentiments and general disengagement can explain low electoral and non-electoral participation in Poland.

Assessment

A diachronic comparison shows progress in improving democracy in Poland. Poland is now a good quality democracy.

Yet, a synchronic comparison with other democracies shows that there is still work to be done. The most notable democratic deficit in Poland is clearly in the dimension of participation.

Further institutional reforms are needed: deliberative democracy, use of ICT, and education reform.

Nevertheless, the Polish case provides a model for a successful democratization and developing a stable democracy.

What lessons can be learnt from the Polish case?

Effective accountability provides a democratic means of monitoring and controlling government conduct and prevents an increase in the concentration of executive power. The agents of accountability such as the opposition and the

constitutional court have ensured that limited executive power has been a cornerstone of Polish democracy.

A good degree of representation of gender and minorities is vital for a good quality democracy.

Stable political competition strengthens the role of institutional accountability and provides for clear policy choices and more effective governing.

Yet, contrary to expectations, higher levels of social capital were not necessary for sucessful democratization.

Conclusions

The book’s main finding is that effective accountability, good representation and stable competition are vital for democracies.

This book shows that democratic quality stems from good democratic institutions.

Moreover, the Polish case shows useful lessons that can be learnt by democratic reformers in countries that are undergoing the transition to democracy or are aiming to consolidate their democratic systems.