Substantive vs. Formal Constitution in Light of Article 1
The debate over the interpretation of Article 1 of the Constitution concerns whether the common good is a value superior to written law or merely a collection of enacted regulations. The choice between a substantive constitution (a living system of values) and a formal one (a set of procedures) is fundamental to the political system. In a formal approach, the judge becomes a mere executor of the parliamentary majority's will, and human dignity becomes a postulate dependent on the will of politicians. However, if we recognize the common good as a prior value, it gains a critical function, allowing for the moderation of law and protecting the individual from the arbitrariness of power.
The Three-Step Test of the Common Good: A Verification Mechanism
Reducing the common good to the state interest is a dangerous error that weakens civic loyalty and destroys trust in institutions. To prevent this, a three-step test of the common good is proposed. The first threshold examines whether an action serves the integral development of persons. The second checks whether the inviolable dignity established in Article 30 is respected. The third verifies that the concept is not reduced solely to security or administrative efficiency.
Classical doctrine (Thomas Aquinas, John Finnis) emphasizes that the legitimacy of power depends on its orientation toward the common good, rather than the mere legality of procedures. The most common interpretive errors include instrumentalizing the concept for propaganda purposes and prioritizing technocratic efficiency over the axiological content of politics. Unjust law, lacking this orientation, loses its moral binding force.
Elinor Ostrom: Polycentric Resource Management
Research by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom proved that a "third way" exists between statism and privatization: polycentric governance. It shows that the common good does not require a state monopoly, but rather a rational, bottom-up order based on clear rules and monitoring. This classical vision was already implemented by the Constitution of May 3rd, which, by abolishing the liberum veto, placed the survival of the community above the anarchic freedom of the individual.
The Polish constitutional tradition differs from the American concept of general welfare. In the US, the priority is the liberal protection of individual independence from tyranny. Meanwhile, the Polish "common good" is more teleological—it views the community as an arena for moral perfection and participation in the good, making our tradition closer to classical republicanism.
Anthropological Foundations of the Common Good Principle
At the foundation of the common good lies an anthropology that recognizes man as a zoon politikon—a being who achieves full development only within a community. Personalism (Emmanuel Mounier) teaches that the person and the community exist in mutual reference: there is no common good without persons, and no full development of the person without the community. This principle serves three key functions: integrative (uniting around a goal), critical (evaluating the legislator), and obligatory (imposing a duty of solidarity).
Today, this idea is evolving toward the global commons—the protection of humanity's shared assets, such as the climate, oceans, or cyberspace. In European Union law, the common good is also becoming a foundation for integration, reminding us that the internal market is merely an instrument for the well-being of citizens, not an end in itself.
Human Dignity: The Source and Limit of Subjective Rights
Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland defines human dignity as the inherent and inviolable source of rights and the ultimate measure of their limitation. In the Polish system, the common good is not a "cudgel" against freedom, but a framework for the rational reconciliation of individual rights with the needs of the collective. This interpretation creates a historical bridge between 1791 and 1997, linking the "general good" with the "establishment of freedom." In both visions, politics remains a prudent concern for the conditions of development for every individual and the entire community.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF