Prześlij tekst
Nr 1 (59) (1979)
Artykuły

Mandat przedstawicielski we współczesnym państwie burżuazyjno-demokratycznym (Francja, RFN)

[The representative mandate in the present-day bourgeois-democtratic state]

  • Barbara Zawadzka
Barbara Zawadzka
Instytut Państwa i Prawa PAN

Opublikowane 2023-04-30

Słowa kluczowe

  • państwa burżuazyjne,
  • Francja,
  • Niemiecka Republika Federalna (NRF),
  • Niemcy,
  • systemy prawne państw obcych,
  • mandat przedstawicielski,
  • bourgeois states,
  • France,
  • Federal Republic of Germany,
  • Germany,
  • legal systems of foreign states,
  • representative parliamentary mandate
    • ...Więcej
    Less
Creative Commons License

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.

Jak cytować

Mandat przedstawicielski we współczesnym państwie burżuazyjno-demokratycznym (Francja, RFN): [The representative mandate in the present-day bourgeois-democtratic state]. (2023). Studia Prawnicze The Legal Studies, 1 (59), 139-167. https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.1979.1.7

Abstrakt

An independent mandate, in the sense formulated by the classical theory of representation, appears only in the constitutional principles of bourgeois-democratic states. Constitutions still create such a model of a deputy who is independent of any constituency and represents ’’the whole nation” — an abstract nation, detached from vital public interests, which are generally represented by particular groups of society. When it is considered how numerous and differentiated are the links of the deputy with his constituency, it seems to be possible to point out the most general properties of the mandate of a deputy in the present-day bourgeois-democratic state. The more so that they reappear in various countries in spite of changed circumstances. The following features can be mentioned:
1. Under the provisions of the law the deputy is independent of the indications and instructions of any constituency; he is guided by his own conscience, since he represents the whole nation. The legal indépendance of the deputy is particularly important in case of conflicts.
2. Actually, however, the deputy is dependent on his party which put him up as a candidate. He is under moral and political obligation to follow the guidelines and implement the party policy. The degree of his dependence varies with respect to different countries.
3. The deputy keeps in touch with the citizens, particularly in his constituency, though he is under no legal obligation to do so. It is due to his political and moral obligation that he intercedes with the administration for his constituency or particular constituents, further he gets acquainted with their opinions on general issues and keeps them informed as to both parliamentary activities. His function is a very important link of the political communication between those who rule and the ruled ones. However this relationship is considerably one-sided: the deputy is active, whereas the constituents seem to be mere “consumers” of the results of his activities; they do not exact his activities and do not attempt at affecting his standpoint, they cannot avail of any sanction ever until a new election. Since it is the party that stimulates and organizes the contacts between the deputy and his constituency, and has many measures to influence him, it is the party that becomes the deputy’s mandatory and not the constituents — in the narrow sense of a constituency or in the wide Sense — citizens, a nation, who, according to the constitution are the subject to the sovereign authority.
4. The deputy represents concrete social interests of his constituents, milieu, union or a group, finally the interests of his party. The interests are often contradictory and it is the task of the parliamentary work to correlate them.
The above picture is quite distant from the traditional portrayal of a deputy who has an independent mandate. However, it is much closer to reality.

Bibliografia

  1. Abelein M., Plebiszitäre Elemente in den Verfassungen der Bundesländer, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1971, t. 2, nr 2, s. 187-199.
  2. Bermbach U., Probleme des Parteienstaates, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1970, nr 3.
  3. Cotteret J.M., Gouvernants et gouvernes, Presse universitaire de France, Paris 1973.
  4. Fraenkel E., Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien, Stuttgart 1973.
  5. Grahler M., Rechtliche und politische Bedenken. Kontra „Imperatives Mandat”, „Die neue Gesellschaft” 1974, nr 3.
  6. Hempel W., Das Mandat des Abgeordneten, „Die neue Gesellschaft” 1974, nr 3.
  7. Henkel J., Mandatsverlust bei Ausscheiden eines Abgeordneten aus seiner Fraktion oder Partei, „Die Öffentliche Verwaltung” 1974, nr 6.
  8. Kaack H., Fraktions- und Parteiwechsler im Deutschen Bundestag, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1972, nr 1.
  9. Kaack H., Fraktionswechsel und Mehrheitsverhältnisse im Deutschen Bundestag, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1972, nr 2.
  10. Kaltefleiter W., Zwischen freiem und imperativem Mandat, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1974, nr 2.
  11. Koja F., Das freie Mandat des Abgeordneten, Pustet, Salzburg-Munchen 1971.
  12. Mantl W., Representation und Identitat, Springer-Verlag, Wien-New York 1975.
  13. Matic M., Političko predstavljanje, Radnička štampa, Beograd 1974.
  14. Muller M., Repräsentativerhebung. Einführung plebiszitärer Elemente in die Verfassungsordnung der Bundesrepublik, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1974, nr 2.
  15. Nassmacher K.H., Funktionen politischen Personals in lokalen Vertretungskörperschaften (Kommunalparlamenten), „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1973, nr 4.
  16. Rausch H., Der Abgeordnete - Idee und Wirklichkeit, Munchen 1973.
  17. Rausch H., Der Bundestag und Bundesregierung, Munchen 1976.
  18. Richter G., Mandatsverlust bei Fraktionswechsel, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1972, nr 3.
  19. Scheuner U., Politische Reprasentation und Interessenvertretung, „Die Öffentliche Verwaltung” 1965, nr 3.
  20. Schmid G., Das freie Mandat der Mitglieder der Bundesversammlung, „Zeitschrift fur schweizerisches Recht” 1974, t. I, z. 3-4.
  21. Suleiman E.N., L’administrates et le depute en France, „Revue francaise de science politique” 1973, t. 23, nr 4, s. 729-757.
  22. Thaysen U., Repräsentativerhebung: richten sich die Bundestagsabgeordneten nach ihrem Gewissen?, „Zeitschrift fur Parlamentsfragen” 1974, nr 1.
  23. Wiese W., Das Amt des Abgeordneten, „Archiv des offentlichen Rechts” 1976, nr 4.
  24. Ysmal C., Cayrol R., Parodi J.-L., Les députés français et le système politique, „Revue francaise de science politique” 1975, t. 25, nr 1, s. 72-105.
  25. Ysmal C., Cayrol R., Parodi J.-L., L'image de la fonction parlementaire chez les députés français, „Revue francaise de science politique” 1971, t. 21, nr 6, s. 1173-1206.
  26. Zawadzka B., Przedstawicielstwo w państwie socjalistycznym, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Wydawnictwo, Wrocław 1976.
  27. Zawadzka B., Socjalistyczny mandat przedstawicielski, „Państwo i Prawo” 1973, z. 12, s. 61-78.
  28. Zawadzki S., Państwo dobrobytu. Doktryna i rzeczywistość, Państwowe Wydaw. Naukowe, Warszawa 1970.