1. Democracy in Poland Representation, participation, competition and accountability since 1989 Anna Gwiazda King’s College London

3. Outline  Evaluating the quality of democracy  The case of Poland, 1989-2011  The role of formal and informal institutions  Conclusions

4. The literature  Democracy as a ‘contested concept’ (Gallie 1964)  Democratization (e.g. Huntington 1991; Inglehart et al 2009; Linz and Stepan 1996; Przeworski et al 2000)  The quality of democracy (Diamond and Morlino 2005; Lijphart 1993; Morlino 2011; Przeworski 2010; Putnam 1993)  I propose: An in-depth analysis of the case of Poland A procedural approach to evaluating democracies

5. Procedural evaluation  Representation (Pitkin 1967; Mansbridge 2003) Women and minorities  Participation (Pateman 1970; Dahl 1971) Turnout, membership in civil society organisations and direct legislation  Competition (Dahl 1971; Gwiazda 2009) Party and party system institutionalisation  Accountability (Schedler 1999) Votes of no confidence, investigative committees and parliamentary questions

6. The case of Poland

7. Representation Women’s representation in the Sejm, 1991-2011 Women’s representation in the Senate, 1989-2011 German minority representation in the parliament, 1991-2011

8. Electoral partcipation Turnout in referendums Turnout in presidential elections, 1990-2010 Turnout in parliamentary elections, 1989-2011

9. Non-electoral participation Total participation in civil society organizations Citizen’s legislative initiatives, 1999-2011

10. Competition

11. Party system institutionalisation

12. Accountability Votes of no confidenceInvestigative committees Parliamentary questions, 1991-2011

13. The role of institutions  Formal institutions: electoral laws including gender quotas, the Constitution, law on political parties, etc. Changes of formal institutions have contributed to the consolidation of a good quality democracy in Poland  Informal institutions: political culture Political culture based on low levels of inter- personal and political trust, strong anti-party sentiments and general disengagement can explain low electoral and non-electoral participation in Poland.

14. Assessment  A diachronic comparison shows progress in improving democracy in Poland. Poland is now a good quality democracy.  Yet, a synchronic comparison with other democracies shows that there is still work to be done. The most notable democratic deficit in Poland is clearly in the dimension of participation.  Further institutional reforms are needed: deliberative democracy, use of ICT, and education reform.  Nevertheless, the Polish case provides a model for a successful democratization and developing a stable democracy.

15. What lessons can be learnt from the Polish case?  Effective accountability provides a democratic means of monitoring and controlling government conduct and prevents an increase in the concentration of executive power. The agents of accountability such as the opposition and the constitutional court have ensured that limited executive power has been a cornerstone of Polish democracy.  A good degree of representation of gender and minorities is vital for a good quality democracy.  S table political competition strengthen s the role of institutional accountability and provide s for clear policy choices and more effective governing.  Yet, contrary to expectations, higher levels of social capital were not necessary for sucessful democratization.

16. Conclusions  The book’s main finding is that effective accountability, good representation and stable competition are vital for democracies.  This book shows that democratic quality stems from good democratic institutions.  Moreover, the Polish case shows useful lessons that can be learnt by democratic reformers in countries that are undergoing the transition to democracy or are aiming to consolidate their democratic systems.