The model of the presidency was the subject of serious discussion during the constitutional debates of 1919-1921 and 1989-1997. The aim of this article is to present the extent of the reception of this model from the March Constitution to the 1997 Constitution. The following problems are analysed: the constitutional position of the president, the procedure for the election of the head of state, and some of the powers of the president in his relations with parliament and the government. The author concludes with the thesis that the contemporary regulation of the institution of the president is most similar to the one used in the 1921 Constitution. The creators of the 1997 Constitution drew conclusions from several significant shortcomings of the regulations contained in the first full Constitution of the Second Republic - above all by placing greater emphasis not only on the division, but also on the balance of state powers. This confirms the validity of the thesis on the importance of historical reflection and historical argument for contemporary
legal discourse. They should also be present in discussions on future systemic reforms, including those concerning the institution of the president. The author also clearly points out some weaknesses of the current regulations concerning the head of state. These include the universal election of the president and his overly strong veto power.
Download files
Citation rules
Cited by / Share