The European Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Poland, known as "Lex Tusk," just 11 days after it was signed into law. This marks the first time the Commission has invoked the principle of democracy in Article 10 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in an infringement action. While this shift towards enforcing the principle of democracy is seen as positive, there are challenges in maintaining a balance between preserving democratic regime change and avoiding institutional conservatism.
Lex Tusk is a law aimed at investigating potential Russian influence on Polish officials and public figures, possibly banning individuals under such influence from managing public funds for ten years. Concerns have been raised that this provision could weaken or exclude Donald Tusk and his party, Civic Platform, ahead of the parliamentary elections in Poland. The Commission argues that this committee unduly interferes with the democratic process and violates the principle of democracy.
The Commission's enforcement of the principle of democracy is seen as a significant step in acknowledging the threat to democratic principles in certain EU Member States, particularly Poland. Previous actions by the Commission primarily focused on the rule of law, which did not fully capture the undermining of the EU's founding principles in Poland. The latest infringement action indicates a more holistic approach to defending the EU's legal rights and principles.
However, the enforcement of militant democracy poses legal and normative challenges. Determining the threshold for when militant democracy is justified, based on the principle of reversibility or democratic self-correction, is complex. Concrete legal criteria to assess democratic reversibility in Member States are difficult to establish. Moreover, institutional conservatism is risky when equating democracy with the present institutional status quo, potentially hindering democratic experimentalism and openness to different forms of democracy.
The future of EU militant democracy requires careful navigation of these challenges. While defending the principle of democracy is crucial, it should not impede democratic change or context-specific solutions at the national level. Striking a balance involves setting legal and temporal thresholds for intervention while allowing radical changes to the institutional status quo that align with democratic principles. The Court of Justice may play a role in interpreting the principle of democracy within the EU's multi-level and pluralist democratic polity.
Thanks for reading. You can support and reward my writing via:
Pay Pal – [email protected]
Algo - NCG6LBALQHENQUSR77KOR6SS42FGK54BZ5L2HFDSBGQVLGYIOVWYDXFDI4
ADA – addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz
Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2
ETH - 0x8982cdb97bd23f092f78a16a4fc93c5c4607a285
Seeds – vladlausevic
Skycoin – ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8
Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM
