The Autocratic Party-Structure of PiS
Institutional Reasons for the Polish Constitutional Crisis from a Comparative Perspective
Political parties are the heart of every parliamentary democracy. Despite that, they may also be its greatest enemy. This is the case when they are autocratically structured. This post aims to explore what categorises political party-structure as autocratic to explain the institutional reasons behind the Polish constitutional crisis as of 2015. Moreover, it postulates a reform of a party-structure introducing new rules as partially inspired by German legal solutions. Namely, the main executive body of the party must consist of at least three members elected no less frequently than every two years. Furthermore, all party members must be allowed to propose electoral candidates. Finally, decisions on party offices and electoral nominations must be carried out by a secret ballot.
The role of political parties
In parliamentary democracies, political parties are central institutions. Ideally, the party’s members are intermediaries between the people and the state institutions. A career in a democratic party is dependent on broad internal party support.
Moreover, the parties enable efficient cooperation in the parliament and the formation of the government. For a political party, the nationwide elections are the most relevant. They permit the party members to access state institutions and allow them to implement their political program. A critical characteristic of a democratic party is a regular change of leadership.
An autocratic party operates in quite a different way. Its primary purpose is to centralise political power in the hands of one person, as the original Greek word “autokrator” suggests (αὐτοκράτωρ, “one who rules by himself”). The members of the party serve the head of a party by spreading his/her political influence among other members of the party and the people. Moreover, the political career of the party members depends solely on the party leader’s support.
In summary, a democratic party acts to unite the political will of the masses, whereas an autocratic one is used to put one person’s will upon the masses. To an autocratic party, the principle of checks and balances is just an obstacle. Finally, an autocratic party uses democratic elections as a weapon against the democracy itself.
What makes a party an autocratic organisation?
The main problem is to distinguish between autocratic and democratic parties. The internal rules of a political party can serve as a starting point to examine the scope of the democratic nature of a party. A party is democratic if all major decisions are the subject of a general and free vote, e.g. in a representative internal democracy by delegates. It is entirely autocratic when the autocrat holds all the powers and cannot be removed. However, the lines between these extremes are blurred.
Additionally, the theory of social capital in its individual form offers a further aspect to differentiate between an autocratic and democratic political party. The party structure is rather autocratic if the formal powers are sufficient for the autocrat to get enough social capital to establish his/her sole rule and keep it permanently stable. The social capital consists of social networks, information, respect, trust, and informal obligations.
The nature of PiS-party-structure
Given Polish contemporary political development and the erosion of democratic institutions under the rule of PiS (Law and Justice) from 2015 to 2023, one may ask whether there is any evidence that PiS qualifies as an autocratic party. The analysis here focuses on the Statute of the Party (of July 3, 2021) in the version as it has substantially existed since 2009.
Under Article 15(1) of the Statute, the Main Executive Office is the head of the party (Prezes PiS), currently Mr. Kaczynski. The fact that the Main Executive Office is not organised as a collegial body, but instead comprised in one person, is already an indication of the party’s autocratic structure. It is normal that a party has a Head of the Party for representative purposes, but this office should not replace the main executive body; This is because a collegial body can unite several internal party factions.
The crucial role of the head of the party is stated in Article 15(2)(9) of the Statute – he/she alone proposes the candidates for the national and European elections, including the presidential candidate. These proposals must be accepted by the Political Committee of PiS (Komitet Polityczny), consisting of only 40 members (18.04.2024). The relatively small number of Political Committee members allows the head of the party to control the votes in exchange for the party offices and high candidate lists positions of the Committee members. Accordingly, the head of the party effectively controls the political decisions of the Committee members, thereby influencing and controlling the individual behaviours of all party members who act in hope of becoming/remaining an electoral candidate. Head of the party is also leading the meetings of the Political Council (Article 16(5)) and the Political Committee (Article 15(2)(3)(c)). That additionally strengthens his/her influence on decision-making.
Additionally, according to Article 17(2) of the Statute, only the head of the party has the right to propose, e.g. the Vice-heads of the Party, the General Secretary, the Council Secretary, and the members of the Political Committee. These bodies are elected by the Political Council, consisting mostly of the members of the parliament (see Article 16(2)(4) of the Statutes), who are themselves dependent upon a nomination for the next election. Moreover, the head of the party has the right to propose the heads of Small Regional Units (Prezes Zarządu Okręgowego, see Article 26(5)(a) of the Statutes). In other words, every important party functionary is in the head of the party’s debt and needs his/her future support to remain in office.
Furthermore, the head of the party may suspend any member of the party if there is reasonable suspicion of an act harming the party or risk of damage to its reputation (Article 7(2) of the Statute). There is no institutional guarantee of a non-arbitrary use of this power, so every member may be afraid to be a victim of the suspension.
The only act that can weaken the influence of the head of the party is his/her election by the Congress. Still, the term of the office lasts four years (Article 11(2)(1)), meaning his/her position is not frequently challenged.
On paper, everyone in PiS is elected democratically. Yet, in reality, almost every important decision depends on the head of the party’s proposal and cannot be executed without it. The bodies are elected one by another, so the layers of dependence flow like a cascade from one party body to another. Due to the high complexity of the interconnectedness of the bodies, the party structure seems like a spider’s web with the Prezes of PiS in the centre. Its powers are sufficient to ensure a constant inflow of social capital so that resistance is futile. Theoretically, the support of democracy may be an official purpose of PiS under Article 4(3), but the organisational frame suggests a different aim: The party fully serves Kaczynski, and it provides him with institutional protection while he is dominating the party. PiS does not even try to hide its autocratic nature, as party members like to resort to the autocratic vocabulary of the interwar period by referring to Kaczynski as naczelnik (chief). In other words, PiS is an autocratic organisation (see another account here).
The democratic character of the parties from the perspective of the Polish Constitution
The role of political parties in democracy has been fully recognised by the Polish Constitution of 1997. According to Article 11(1) cl. 2, “political parties bring together Polish citizens on a voluntary and equal basis in order to influence state policy-making by democratic means.” Does PiS realise these criteria?
The principle of voluntariness is fulfilled: The Statute of PiS does not prevent anyone from leaving the party or becoming a member. The problem of equality is controversial since it can be interpreted both formally and substantively. Formally, everyone in the party is equal. Substantively, anyone can be suspended at will, depending on the head of the party, if they want to make a career in the party. Moreover, the condition of acting by democratic means under the Polish Constitution seemingly refers to a party’s external rather than internal activity. Hence, one cannot conclusively argue that the Statute of PiS contradicts the Polish Constitution, given the lack of clear constitutional rules as to parties’ internal organisational structure.
Article 8 of Party Law demands a democratic structure of political parties. Nevertheless, the Party Law does not provide any sanction for non-compliance. Under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Party Law, the parties can be de-registered only if they violate the Constitution.
Therefore, the existence of Polish democracy solely depends on the condition that no autocratic party receives a parliamentary majority. Additionally, the Polish legal system confers considerable powers to the President. While a President may enable autocratic party to rule, as has happened with the President Mr. Duda, who actively supported PiS, a President can also prevent an autocratic party from challenging democracy and thus help sustain the constitutional order (for example, the President’s power to initiate a judicial review of the new laws by the Constitutional Court under Article 122 (3) of the Constitution).
Comparative perspective – German law
The lack of explicit constitutional requirements for intra-party democracy is surprising in light of Poland’s authoritarian past before 1989. From the comparative perspective of the Polish neighbouring country Germany, Article 21(1) cl. 3 of the German Constitution demands that the internal organisation of the party must be based on democratic principles. This is further concretised by § 11(1) of the Political Parties Act, which requires the main executive office (Vorstand) to consist of at least three persons and to be elected at least every second calendar year “to prevent the emergence of purely dictatorial parties”; the party may appoint a Head of the Party (Vorsitzende(r), see § 9(4)) but the Head of the Party is not allowed to acquire the powers of the Main Executive Office. The monopolisation of the proposal right, like in PiS, is legally forbidden (§ 15(3)), so that the democratic process is not undermined. Both of these rules date back to 1959. The nominations of the candidates for German parliament are decided by a secret ballot (§ 21 (3) cl. 1 of the Federal Election Act); thus, no party member needs to be afraid of any kind of repercussion.
In summary, the German legal system recognises the dangers of autocratic structures within political parties and provides for precautionary measures to protect democracy.
Does Poland need a reform of political parties?
In my opinion, the only way to guarantee the stability of Polish democracy is to put strict legal requirements upon the organisation of political parties. The parties should be organised in a democratic way, and the legal system should provide public and private remedies to enforce these rules. In other words, Poland needs to reform the political parties’ internal organisation.
Following the example from Germany, the reform should eliminate the exclusive right to candidate proposals by the executive office. Moreover, it should provide a secret ballot for political offices and electoral nominations. Finally, the main executive body should not be concentrated in one person elected for an extended period. The democratisation of these structural aspects would diminish the power of one person to reward and punish the party members. While this proposal alone surely cannot prevent democratic backsliding, it could add an additional layer to strengthen Polish democracy in the future.
