Instrumental Approach to the Constitution of 2 April 1997 – the “Fight for the Constitution” as Political Camouflage in Axiological Disputes in Poland (2015–2021)

From the perspective of an external observer, the Polish dispute over the 1997 Constitution concerns the question of compliance with the applicable constitutional norms and more generally, the rule of law. However, looking at this dispute through the prism of axiology, it is possible to put forward the thesis that both sides of the political conflict (the government and its opposition) instrumentalised the ‘fight for the constitution’, treating it as one of the tools for achieving political goals. Those taking part in it pursued opposing political values, while the constitution itself, the rule of law and the hierarchy of legal acts were treated instrumentally. The aim of the article is to explain the sources of conflicting attitudes towards the 1997 Basic Law. The applied theoretical basis of the article and the reference point for the analysis of the conflict is the circular model of political values.

The article presents the research results concerning the attitude of Poles towards the presence of the Church in public life. The research was conducted in 2019 on a national sample size (n = 2110) based on stratified quota sampling method. The majority of the surveyed supported the division of the Church and state, at the same time accepting the presence of Christian values in the activities of state institutions. The surveyed definitely disagreed with the statement that the Church may support particular candidates in elections. The declared political preferences of the respondents proved to be significant, as well as wealth and place of residence. The supporters of the division of Church and state were more frequently respondents with leftist preferences rather than rightist, wealthier rather than poorer, and residing in cities rather than in the country.

Characteristics of an authoritarian unit (Erich Fromm), with authoritarian personality (Theodor Adorno), with hard personality (Hans Eysenck) and dogmatic (Milton Romeach) and common features for these theoretical constructs

This article addresses the subject of Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Hans Eysenck and Milton Rokeache theory characterizing personality particularly susceptible to the influence of authoritarianism, personality that combat democracy. In its first part there is the characteristics of these personalities, specifically authoritarian units (Erich Fromm), with authoritarian personality, hard personality (Hans Eysenck) and dogmatic (Milton Rozeach). The second part of this article is trying to find common features for these theoretical constructs. Mostly, however, it is a criticism of erroneous (in my opinion) thinking when creating these theories. I noticed that the creators of the majority of them not only describe personality types particularly susceptible to the influence of authoritarianism, but above all they condemn them. In practice, this comes down to attacking the extreme right. However, attention should be paid to several important issues that negate this attitude. With authoritarianism, only the right can be identified. The division of the right/left is not very sharp. In turn, authoritarianism does not always mean a lack of humanitarianism, intolerance, and persecution. Most of the above theoretical constructs indicate, in my opinion, it is wrong that the political features of a person acquire under the influence of the environment, the environment. However, they are not somehow inherited, genetically conditioned. In addition, I think that only a certain, smaller part of society has specific political views. And only among them there is a group of people with authoritarian tendencies. This part of a society that has unspecified political views can be a business – related political option, even authoritarian, if this option provides its benefits. The assumption that the political actions of society result from the internal features of individuals is another point with which it is difficult to (me) agree. In fact, the effectiveness of the ruling team decides.