Questions about the Future of Constitutionalism. The Strength and the Weakness of Comparative Law

The future of constitutionalism revolves around two critical issues which we see against the backdrop of the crisis of liberal democracy. The first issue concerns the conflict between the “judicial” constitutionalism and “political” constitutionalism. The “judicial” constitutionalism assumes a strong role of courts in a democratic system. Only courts can decide on compatibility of law with the constitution. In turn, the “political” constitutionalism assumes that the parliament decides on constitutional law. The rivalry between these two constitutionalisms seems to be the matrix of contemporary political dilemmas. The result of this rivalry is important for the efforts to end Polish constitutional crisis, as we will have to decide on the constitutional benchmarks applicable after the crisis. The second issue concerns the limits of constitutionalism. The author argues that the current digital era created a new phenomenon of digital constitutionalism. It operates in the sphere of private law relationships, dominated by private entities (big corporations). The relevant provisions for the digital world are the private law provisions. Comparative law and comparativists are crucial for answering the questions on the future of constitutionalism. The conflict of the two visions of constitutionalism and the extension of its limits are a great “training ground” for the comparativists.

The future of constitutionalism revolves around two critical issues which we see against the backdrop of the crisis of liberal democracy. The first issue concerns the conflict between the “judicial” constitutionalism and “political” constitutionalism. The “judicial” constitutionalism assumes a strong role of courts in a democratic system. Only courts can decide on compatibility of law with the constitution. In turn, the “political” constitutionalism assumes that the parliament decides on constitutional law. The rivalry between these two constitutionalisms seems to be the matrix of contemporary political dilemmas. The result of this rivalry is important for the efforts to end Polish constitutional crisis, as we will have to decide on the constitutional benchmarks applicable after the crisis. The second issue concerns the limits of constitutionalism. The author argues that the current digital era created a new phenomenon of digital constitutionalism. It operates in the sphere of private law relationships, dominated by private entities (big corporations). The relevant provisions for the digital world are the private law provisions. Comparative law and comparativists are crucial for answering the questions on the future of constitutionalism. The conflict of the two visions of constitutionalism and the extension of its limits are a great “training ground” for the comparativists.