PROBLEM SAMORZĄDU TERYTORIALNEGO W OBRADACH „OKRĄGŁEGO STOŁU”
The “Round Table” and the issue of self-government

Summary/Abstract: In the course of negotiations known as the “Round Table” in 1989, the opposition- Solidarity party pushed for a discussion of issues related to political system reforms. “Solidarity” postulated a reconstruction of self-government at the lowest level of territorial division of the country, that is in gminas (municipalities). According to the opposition-Solidarity party, territorial self-government should be the subject of civil and public law. Self-governing should entail law-making competencies, executive competencies and be complemented with adequate financial means, originating both from its own sources and from state budget grants, being at free disposal of self-governing authorities. The state government’s control over the self-government should follow the criterion of accordance with the law first of all and only in exceptional cases the criterion of purposefulness as well. The self-government was to be entitled to the right of a court protection. During the “Round Table” negotiations, the governmental party was against part of the postulates tabled. According to the governmental party, the resolution making organs of the self-government should also attend to the functions of a state authority. Similar solutions were proposed in the case of self-government executive organs. Moreover, the governmental party supported simultaneous creation of selfgovernment at the voivodeship level. “Solidarity” was against such a move because it could further consolidate the existing territorial division of the country which was criticized by the opposition. Furthermore, “Solidarity” saw the state voivodeship as a guarantor of stability of the occurring changes. The “Round Table” debate on the local authority system ended in the defeat of “Solidarity”. The compromise between “Solidarity” and the governmental party had not been reached as far as the most essential issues. One of the reasons was a strategy adopted by “Solidarity” which had primarily aimed at legalisation of the “Solidarity” trade union. Members of “Solidarity” were not enough appreciative of the issues of local governance whereas the union’s top representatives did not want to put the final agreement with the government at risk only to defend secondary aims such as the creation of self-government.

• Details
• Contents