Accountability of political power as an element of strengthening democracy and increasing its quality: example of Poland
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34767/SIIP.2022.02.01Keywords:
democracy, politics, transparency, accountability, political party, electionAbstract
The purpose of this article is to identify appropriate accountability mechanisms necessary to be implemented in the Polish political sphere, which correspond to changes in civilization.The research problem concerned the consideration of the legitimacy of implementing mechanisms and tools of full accountability of the political sphere, based on elements of e-democracy. The primary method was analysis and critical literature review. In the first part selected problems of contemporary democracy are presented. In the second part there are presented proposals of mechanisms and tools which would fully introduce the principle of accountability of political power in Poland. One of the reasons for the decreasing
trust in democracy and its quality is the lack or weak accountability mechanisms of political power. The results of the scientific analysis indicate that the process of implementing the principle of full accountability must be preceded by two necessary actions. The first step is to implement the concept of e-democracy proposed by the European Parliament, then the provisions included in the European Agenda for Democracy. In order to implement full accountability, must be introduced clear criteria for comparison, analysis, selection and enforcement of political sanctions.
References
Ackerman, J.M. (2005). Social Accountability in the Public Sector: A Conceptual Discussion and Learning Module. Washington: The World Bank.
Ansolabehere, S. (2006). Voters, Candidates, and Parties. In: B.R. Weingast, D.A. Wittman (eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy (s. 29–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Binns, R. (2018). Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason. Philosophy & Technology, 31, 543–556.
Brader, T. & Marcus, G.E. (2013). Emotion and Political Psychology. In: L. Huddy, D.O. Sears & J.S. Levy (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 165–204).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brzezicki, Ł. (2021). Czy e-demokracja i rozwiązania znane ze świata biznesu są właściwymi kierunkami zmian politycznych w Polsce? Horyzonty Polityki, 12(39), 41–66.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
Campbell, D.F.J. & Carayannis, E.G. (2023a). Digital transformation of democracy and politics: sustainable development as a crucial dimension for conceptualization and measurement of democracy and quality of democracy. In: E. Carayannis & E. Grigoroudis (eds.), Handbook of Research on Artificial Intelligence, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (s. 419–444). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Campbell, D.F.J. & Carayannis, E.G. (2023b). From Industry 4.0 to Democracy 5.0. In: E. Carayannis & E. Grigoroudis (eds.), Handbook of Research on Artificial Intelligence, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (s. 383–401). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
CBOS (2019). Oceny działalności parlamentu, prezydenta, PKW i Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego. Komunikat z badań nr 82/2019.
Civil Liberties Union for Europe (2021). EU 2020: Demanding on Democracy. Country & Trend Reports on Democratic Records. Civil Liberties Union for Europe.
Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Slade, M., Rand, A. & Collins, R. (2020). The Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report 2020. Centre for the Future of Democracy.
Gilejko, L.K (2012). Trzy wymiary demokracji: polskie problemy. W: Ł. Danel, J. Kornaś (red.), Dylematy polskiej demokracji (s. 59–73). Kraków: Fundacja Gospodarki i Administracji Publicznej.
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) (2019). The Global State of Democracy 2019 Addressing the Ills, Reviving the Promise.
Lakomy, M., Porębski, L. & Szybut, N. (2014). Polityka 2.0. Aktorzy polityczni w świecie nowych technologii. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Ignatianum w Krakowie.
Lewandowsky, S., Smillie, L. & Garcia, D. i in. (2020). Technology and Democracy: Understanding the influence of online technologies on political behaviour and decision-making. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Mulgan, R. (2003). Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Olson, R.S., Sarmiento, J.P. & Hoberman, G. (2011). Establishing public accountability, speaking truth to power and inducing political will for disaster risk reduction: ‘Ocho Rios+ 25’. Environmental Hazards, 10(1), 59–68.
Postuła, M. (2013). Problem rozliczalności w zarządzaniu wydatkami publicznymi. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia, 62, 155–168.
Przeworski, A. (2010). Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saward, M. (2021). Democratic Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sroka, A. (2014). Rozliczalność w badaniach jakości demokracji (na przykładzie Polski i Hiszpanii). Dom Wydawniczy „Elipsa”.
Warren, M.E. (2014). Accountability and Democracy. In: M. Bovens, R.E. Goodin, T. Schillemans (eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (s. 39–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warren, M.E. (2018). Trust and Democracy. In: E.M. Uslaner (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust (pp. 75–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wojtasik, W. (2018). Rola korupcji politycznej w procesie rozliczalności wertykalnej na poziomie lokalnym. Athenaeum Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 58, 114–127.
