dc.description.abstract | The material right of interpellation was assessed by Art. 14 of Constitution Act of July
15, 1920, which contained the organic statute of Silesian voivodeship (Dz.U.R.P. No 73, pos.
497) constituting that Silesian Sejm had the right to interpellate with the Silesian voivode and
Voivodeship Council. On the other hand, the formal right to interpellate, and therefore the manner
in which material right was realized, was to be specified by the act on the internal constitution
of Silesian voivodeship. Nevertheless, advanced — especially in the 1930s — works on the
bill did not lead to adopting the act on internal constituton.
In such a situation the interpellating procedure was regulated by the standing orders of the
Silesian Sejm: the interim orders (of October 13, 1922) and the permanent orders (of January
31, 1923), the standing orders of the I Silesian Sejm, the standing orders of the II Silesian Sejm
of June 17, 1930, the standing orders of the Silesian Sejm of the IV term of office, adopted on
March 11, 1936.
As for the material right on interpellation, one has to notice some disturbing, because against
the law, transformations: the appearance of the third interpellated body, namely the Council of
Ministers, in the standing orders of the II Silesian Sejm, and the omission of Voivodeship Council
as the interpellated body in the standing orders of March 11, 1936.
The Provisions of the standing orders of the Silesian Sejm sittings, thus art. 44 of two standing
orders of the sitting of the Silesian Sejm of the I term of office; art. 24 and 25 of the standing
orders of the II Silesian Sejm; art. 84 of the standing orders of the Silesian Sejm of the IV term
of office, allow to identify three subsequent periods of interpellation, i.e. the first period: accepting
the interpellation by the marshal and submitting it to the interpelled; the second period: performing
the interpellation by the interpelled body and submitting a reply to the marshal; the third
period: lodging the interpellation at the orders of the day of the plenary sitting, discussion, voting
for acknowledging the reply (or, alternatively, for not acknowledging the reply).
Submission the interpellation to the Sejm Marshal was possible after meeting three formal
requirements: obtaining the minimal required support, expressed by the number of signatures on
the interpellation (7 signatures in the standing orders dated October 13, 1922 and January 31,
1923; 5 signatures in the standing orders dated June 17, 1930; 3 signatures in the standing orders
dated March 11, 1936); the interpellation could not contain any expressions that would violate
Sejm dignity (this condition is found only in the standing orders of the II Silesian Sejm); the
interpellation required written form; it had to be formulated in the Polish language. The comparison of the rules regulating the interpellation procedure in four standing orders
of the Silesian Sejm demonstrates that with the passing of time legal provisions restricted the
effectiveness of interpellating by means of the following: limiting the admissibility of the debate
on the reply to the interpellation; the participation in the discussion of a deputy whose standpoint
was different from the one of interpellants; excluding the possibility of expressing the opinion on
the reply by Sejm, in the form of a resolution on acknowledging the reply of the interpellated or,
alternatively, on not acknowledging the reply of the interpellated.
Interpellation practice in Silesian Sejm
1922—1939
The problem of conformity of practicing with legal regulation of interpellating
Art. 44 of two standing orders of the I Silesian Sejm obliged the marshal to pose a question
to the interpelled body about time when the interpelled body would submit their reply to the
interpellation. The review of 90 interpellations of Silesian Sejm of I term of office demonstrates
that not even once did the marshal pose such a question.
The same article specified that the written form of the reply was permissible only if the
interpellants agreed to it in advance. In practice, the interpellated body provided their reply
almost exclusively in the written form, despite the fact that the interpellants agreed to the written
form only in three cases.
With the exception of three cases, whereby — clearly by mistake — the marshal accepted
the interpellation despite the lack of one signature, in the remaining cases the minimal required
support was adhered to. So was the case in the Silesian Sejm of I, II, and III terms of office.
The standing orders of first three Sejms specified that a deadline for replying to the interpellation
should not exceed 3 weeks. In the replies that were found, the addressee of the interpellation
usually exceeded, sometimes considerably, the deadline specified in the standing orders.
There were merely few replies submitted within the deadline.
The contents of several interpellations were beyond the scope of the competences of the
voivode and the Voivodeship Council. These were interpellations concerning special (non-consolidated)
administration, i.e. judicial, military, or railroad administration, as well as interpellations
that fell within the competences of the voivode of Cracow, or even the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Silesian voivodes replied to these interpellations as well, acting as intermediaries, sending
the interpellations themselves to appropriate authorities and offering on their behalf adequate
explanation to the interpellants.
The first action of the third period of interpellating was lodging the interpellation by the
marshal at the order of the day of the plenary sitting, and the final action was formulating an
opinion — a positive or negative one — by Sejm about the reply submitted by the interpelled
body.Pursuant to the provisions of two standing orders of the I Silesian Sejm, the marshal lodged
the interpellation at the order of the day ex officio. In practice, marshal Konstanty Wolny lodged
at the order of the day of I Silesian Sejm merely 5 interpellations, two of which were lodged on
interpellants’ request. In the final period of interpellating, 3 replies were acknowledged by Sejm,
and 2 replies were not acknowledged.
In III Silesian Sejm, the marshal lodged 4 interpellations at the order of the day. The
voivode’s reply to one of them was acknowledged by Sejm, one reply was not acknowledged. In
the case of the remaining two replies, the motions were not voted on.
In practice — as a matter of fact against the law — the marshal of Silesian Sejm did not
lodge interpellations at the order of the day when interpellants accepted the reply. In such situa tions, probably after consulting the interpellants, the marshal terminated the proceedings of the
second period, endorsing on the interpellation and on the reply ad acta.
Due to the lack of sources, the question concerning the relationship between the statute law
and the law realized in interpellating practice of IV Silesian Sejm must be left unanswered.
Interpellating activity of parliamentary clubs (deputies)
of Silesian Sejm
In four Silesian Sejms there have been 141 interpellations altogether. The authors of 136
interpellations were parliamentary clubs, of 2 — Sejm committees, and in IV Silesian Sejm — in
the absence of parliamentary clubs — deputies signed on the interpellations.
The frequency of interpellating exhibited high variability: in I Silesian Sejm — 90 interpellations
per 187 plenary sittings; in II Silesian Sejm — 15 interpellations per 10 sittings; in III
Silesian Sejm — 33 interpellations per 49 sittings; in IV Silesian Sejm — 3 interpellations per
32 sittings.
In the period of three Silesian Sejms the PPS club (Polish Socialist Party), referred to as KPS
(Club Socialist Deputies) in III Silesian Sejm, submitted the most, i.e. 41, interpellations, which
constituted 29,7% of all (138) interpellations that were submitted to the marshal in the period
between October 10th, 1922 and March 26th, 1935.
In the second place, with 26 interpellations (18,8%), was ChD (Christian Democracy). Such
a result, gained almost exclusively until the May Coup, when Christian Democracy formed a part
of ruling coalition, contradicts the thesis that interpellations, as a means of controlling administration,
serve opposition more than factions in power. The interpellating practice proves the
truthfulness of this thesis in the period ranging from the May Coup up to the last sitting of III
Silesian Sejm, when opposition factions submitted 50 interpellations, while the sanation club
NChZP (National Christian Labour’s Unity) — only 2 interpellations.
Twenty-one interpellations (15,2%) were submitted by NPR (National Workers’ Party). Two
workers’ parties (PPS and NPR) altogether lodged 62 interpellations, i.e. 44,9% of all interpellations
(136) submitted by parliamentary clubs in Silesian Sejms of three terms of office.
The Club of Deputies’ Group of Christian Democracy and National Workers’ Party, formed
after the election failure of NPR in II (three deputies) and III (2 deputies) Silesian Sejm, submitted
20 interpellations (2 in II and 18 in the III Silesian Sejm), which constituted 14,5% of all
interpellations, submitted in the Silesian Sejm during three terms of office.
KN (German Club) interpellated individually 14 times (10,1%), joint interpellations were
altogether 14 (10,1%), i.e. 8 interpellations in I and 6 interpellations in III Silesian Sejm.
The authors of 3 interpellations of the IV Silesian Sejm were deputy Józef Płonka (NChZP
— National Christian Work Union), deputy Paweł Kubik (ZZP — Polish Trade Association), and
non-partisan deputy form Zaolzie, Rudolf Paszek. Therefore, formed in the year 1928, the sanation
club NChZP, with merely 3 interpellations (2 in II and 1 in the IV Silesian Sejm) occupied
the last place, exhibiting a very insignificant activity as far as interpellating was concerned.
The analysis of the content of interpellations submitted by parliamentary clubs
(Sejm committees, deputies) in Silesian Sejm
The content of interpellations allows to distinguish the following thematic groups: interpellations
on social affairs, political issues, sociopolitical affairs, educational problems, public security
matters, communication issues, construction issues, and police affairs. Moreover, there can
be identified other matters, which encompass a wide range of issues that go beyond the uppermentioned
categorization. Interpellations on social affairs were dominated by two parliamentary clubs of workers’ parties,
i.e. KPPS (Club Polish Socialist Party), later KPS (Club Socialist Deputies), with 15 interpellations
per 41 interpellations in total) and KNPR (Club of National Workers’ Party) with 11
interpellations (per 21 interpellations in total). Altogether, both clubs of workers’ parties interpellated
26 times per 62 interpellations submitted by them.
KChD (Club of Christian Democracy) interpellated on social affairs 7 times (per total 26
interpellations that they submitted).
Of 3 interpellations submitted to the marshal by sanation party KNChZP (Club of National
Christian Labours limity), 3 interpellations concerned social issues (2 in II Silesian Sejm, 1 in
IV Silesian Sejm).
Into the class of interpellations on social affairs, one also has to include 3 interpellations submitted
by KZPChDiNPR (The Club of Deputies’ Group of Christian Democracy and National
Workers’ Party). Moreover, there were 3 interpellations submitted by KN and 3 joint interpellations.
In total, in four Silesian Sejms there were 45 interpellations concerning social affairs (per
141 interpellations altogether), which constituted 31,9% of all interpellations.
A significant percentage of such interpellations in relation to their total number faithfully
reflected social problems of Silesia: increasing unemployment, lockouts, workers’ dismissals,
irregular payment of benefits, the lack of insurance against unemployment, mass job dismissal
notes, celebrating holidays (i.e. working not on all days of the week), suspending by fraternities
the payment of pensions and other dues, etc.
Interpellations concerning political affairs were 31. In this thematic group, in majority (13)
were joint interpellations (interpartisan). Nine interpellations on political issues were tabled by
KZPChDiNPR; 4 interpellations — by KPPS; 2 — by KChD; 1 interpellation was submitted by
each of the following clubs: KNPR, KN, and also NChZP deputies.
A small group, merely 8, of interpellations on sociopolitical affairs (5,7%) was constituted
by 6 interpellations by KNPR, 1 interpellation by KChD, and 1 interpellation by KPPS. The
contents of these interpellations demonstrates a close relationship between political affairs and
social issues. The examples of such a relationship may be interpellations on implementing on the
Silesian voivodeship — without the consent of Silesian Sejm- the spirits monopoly law, or interpellations
on inadequate distribution of tobacco warehouses, in which incorrect application of
law could deprive many people of their work.
As far other thematic groups are concerned, there must be identified the following numbers
of interpellations submitted by parliamentary clubs:
— on schools affairs: 12 interpellations (5 by KChD; 1 by KNPR, 3 by KN, 3 by KZPChDil-
NPR);
— on public security issues: 3 interpellations (1 by KChD; 2 by KN);
— on communication issues: 3 interpellations (2 by KChD; 1 by KN);
— on construction affairs: 3 interpellations (1 by KChD; 1 by KPPS; 1 by KZPChDiNPR);
— on police affairs: 3 interpellations by KPPS;
— on other affairs: 32 interpellations (7 by KChD; 2 by KNPR; 3 by KN; 12 by KPPS; 4 by
KZPChDiNPR; 3 joint; 1 by non-partisan deputy Rudolf Paszek). | pl_PL |