Direct Democracy – Questions and Answers

1. Will politicians agree to "hand over power to society"? Politicians don't have to agree to "hand over power to society," because power belongs to the sovereign, the Nation. Politicians must merely accept a change in the form of government, incorporating grassroots democratic elements. Besides, the term "politicians" means many things and nothing at the same time. Is this the so-called "top" attempting to control the fate of nearly 40 million Poles? The introduction of instruments of grassroots democracy in Poland doesn't turn the entire system upside down; it complements it, refines it, and makes it more "humane."

2. Has society in Poland “grown up” to this type of democracy?

   Polish society doesn't have to adapt to any one type of democracy. Throughout history, Poles have experienced a wide variety of political systems. A society that lacks the opportunity to participate in government cannot develop into a civil society. But vice versa – true democracy has no chance of success without citizen participation.

3. Isn't grassroots democracy too long a process?

   The decision-making process in a direct democracy is longer than in a parliamentary democracy. We see this in Switzerland, where a slower decision-making process has its advantages: there are no ill-considered decisions, as they are filtered through society as a whole, rather than made by a narrow circle of political elites or a partisan parliament.

4. Won't the functioning of grassroots democracy in Poland be too expensive?

   When we ask about costs, we usually think of the administrative costs of grassroots democracy. This includes organizing the initiative, veto, and referendum. However, these costs are insignificant compared to the costs associated with making bad, flawed decisions within parliamentary democracy. Consider, for example, the sale of Polish national assets in the early 1990s. If a referendum had been held on this issue, Poland today would belong to Poles, not foreign corporations.

5. Does “giving power” to society mean squandering national wealth?

   This is a simplified explanation. It may seem that grassroots/direct democracy allows citizens to propose the most unrealistic initiatives and veto any bill. First, collecting signatures for an initiative or veto is not at all easy. Second, decisions are decided by referendum, by the votes of the electorate, following a pre-referendum campaign in which all the major social and political forces in the country participate. It should also be remembered that a society conscious of participating in the political and decision-making process automatically assumes full responsibility for the fate of the state.

   One could also answer this question ironically: is a nation capable of squandering national wealth more than “its chosen ones” have done over the last 35 years?

6. How to reconcile the superiority of EU law over national law in a direct-democratic system?

   Poland is a member of the European Union, and therefore EU law prevails over national law. All citizens' initiatives must be formulated in accordance with this law. The government's chancellery should verify the compliance of the initiative and veto with EU law. This applies not only to EU law but also to all international law that Poland has committed to respecting by signing international conventions (e.g., human and civil rights).

7. Isn't it too early to introduce elements of direct democracy in Poland?

   Certainly not too soon. Let's look at the Polish semi-democracy that has developed over the past 35 years. Where has it led us? Elements of direct democracy offer a chance to heal the Polish socio-political and economic system. The sooner this process begins, the better.

8. Will the role of state institutions and political parties be weakened by the introduction of a complementary system?

   It's difficult to speak of a weakening of political parties and state institutions. These institutions will become more democratic and will have to take society into account. It's the dominance of political elites that will be weakened, not state institutions. The understanding of the role of political parties will undergo a significant shift – society will no longer perceive them as an opportunity to improve the socio-political and economic situation in the country.

9. Does a no-threshold referendum reflect the views of all citizens or a majority of them?

   The idea of a threshold referendum is an unjustified invention of the Polish establishment and does not align with the tenets of democracy. If someone doesn't vote, they still vote, albeit passively. Furthermore, various substantive referendums will result in a mix of voters, who are sometimes interested in the issue being voted on, and sometimes indifferent. Referendum turnout is irrelevant. Furthermore, even a 20% share of Poles in the national vote means that significantly more people vote than there are members of parliament. Besides, true democracy effectively defends itself. And the future belongs to it.

10. Can an individual citizen initiate the legislative process?

    An individual citizen can certainly initiate the legislative process. They can, for example, establish an initiative committee and launch a new citizens' initiative or veto. To do so, they must, of course, collect the appropriate number of signatures.

    
    

11. Why is the possibility of grassroots democracy in Poland only now beginning to be discussed?

    
    

    There are several reasons for this. First, there is no tradition of grassroots governance in Poland's recent history. Polish society has been, and continues to be, governed authoritarian and selfishly for decades. Only the methods and style of governance have changed. Citizens find it difficult to imagine any situation other than one in which "one is governed." Second, forms of grassroots democracy limit the possibilities of "gaining power," the formation of elites, and the emergence of celebrities. "Work from the bottom up" is the order of the day, not pathos, invocations of tradition, distorted visions, and, above all, exploitation of numerous opportunities for corruption. Power, and therefore the process of domination by individuals over the masses, is reduced—and this, of course, does not suit everyone.