Among the regulations behind the procedure of passing laws, those relating to the statutory notion of “readings” of a bill are of peculiar significance. That is the main phase of the legislative process. Although both the form and contents of the legislation are determined to great extent by measures and activities relating to the implementation of legislative motions, or with regard to the work of the Sejm — the discussion in respective commissions — only during the plenary sessions it is finally and validly resolved if a bill is to be passed and what its final wording should be. Moreover, only this phase is completely overt and, due to its democratic properties, of great significance to the process of enacting laws. This accounts for the postulates that for several years have systematically been made by scholars and parliamentarians to “make the practice of two readings of bills more frequent”. In the bourgeois many-party-system the procedures of two readings not only regulate but also provide the principles and forms of “political game”, thus providing its participants with definite legal guarantees and opportunities. Whereas in the socialist system those principles cannot be politically determined or function in the way they do therein. There are no premises for such practice either in the general mechanism of political life, or in the party-political structure of the parliament, finally, in the relations between the latter and the government. However the said procedures are essential to optimize political resolutions manifested in legislative form, not in technical sense but rather in terms of social participation in the process of passing resolutions. The fact that there is a notorious inadequacy between the statutory provision of “two readings” and the actual practice in the Sejm forces a reflectionon the sources of this discrepancy and the usability of the existing regulation. In this connection a definite standpoint was manifested by the recent statutory changes of March 25, 1976. The reflect a conviction that It will be aimless to follow the existing construction — though, from the formal point of view, it is now that the procedure of two readings is to be permanently and universally applied. This is due to a formal operation, only on the plain of nomenclature. For actually the provisions of the law were adjusted to the praxis and the procedure of two readings i.e. the basic regulation of the legislative process, — was abandoned. The hitherto status quo was the outcome of the existing praxis and the previous structure of the legislative process. Due consideration should be given to the very concept and organization of this procedure in the Sejm, particularly that neither the postulates of scholars relating to “the consolidation of the process of two readings” based on the previous statutory solutions, nor the political guidelines in this respect brought about satisfactory results. There exists not only a need but also a possibility to organize the legislative process in the Sejm so that it would correspond to the postulated increased role the latter should play during plenary sessions. While determining particular legislative procedure and transferring the gravity of the plenary session to the second reading, directly prior to the adoption of an act, the Sejm deprives itself of the possible discussion when substantial impact could be exerted on the contents of the bill. In fact the Sejm is completely deprived of this opportunity, since the second reading is the belated one. As to the plenary session, it seems to be advisable to reverse the proportions between the first and second reading. It is the former that should become the main phase of the legislative work in the Sejm. Since, it is then that, on principle, the assumptions of the bill would be discussed as well as the accuracy of particular measures. It is then that the deputies would table their motions as to changes and amendments to be further examined in detail and worked out by respective commissions. Such an arrangement would be advantageous and increase the role the Sejm should play in determining the contents of legislation. Moreover, this would establish more correct proportions between the role of commissions and the Sejm during the plenary session. However, with regard to the preparation of the discussion the most important tasks would still remain with the commissions. The movers’ pronouncements, where they account for a bill, should be complemented with the initial report of a commission, where the problems that require special consideration would be indicated and possible measures suggested. Thus a commission would become an animator of the plenary session without usurping its functions, however. The second reading would supervise the work of commissions that followed the first reading.
Read full abstract
Nov 21, 2024
Sofia Gierow 
Open Access
Just Published
