<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

This scientific article examines the system of electoral districting in the 2023 Sejm elections and its impact on the principle of equality of representation. The main objectives of the study are to analyse the relationship between the principle of equality of representation and electoral districting in Sejm elections, evaluate the compliance of current constituency boundaries with this principle, and assess the potential consequences of any changes in districting in the 2023 Sejm elections in terms of electoral representation. The research questions guiding this study are as follows: (1) How should constituencies be determined for the 2023 Sejm elections and what legal criteria should be applied in electoral districting? (2) Does the current districting system align with the principle of equality of representation? (3) Are there disparities in the size or demographics of constituencies that could result in unequal representation in the Sejm? (4) What are the potential implications of the current districting system for the representation of different political parties? (5) How do alternative scenarios of districting affect the principle of equality of representation in the context of the 2023 Sejm elections? The research employs an institutional-legal analysis, along with statistical data analysis and simulations, to model alternative districting scenario and evaluate their effects on the principle of equality of representation. The findings of this study contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the implications of districting on the principle of equality of representation in the 2023 Sejm elections. The research emphasises the significance of fair districting for ensuring equal representation and provides valuable recommendations for policymakers.
</abstract>

Districting in the 2023 Sejm Elections and the Principle of Equality of Representation — Selected Aspects

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Hybrid regimes are characterised by a balancing act between democracy and authoritarianism, with neither political regime type being dominant. The balancing of the state between democratic and non-democratic modes of functioning can take the form of a state transforming from authoritarianism to democracy and a form of regression from democracy to authoritarianism, when the democratic system is upset by non-democratic mechanisms. The functioning of the political system in Ukraine during the years 1996–2004 was such that the authoritarian aspects of Ukraine’s hybrid regime overshadowed its democratic elements. Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way (2002; 2013) refer to this phenomenon as “competitive authoritarianism”. This term denotes regimes where authoritarian features are more prevalent than democratic ones, according to the concept. Since 2004, the Ukrainian political system has transitioned towards a hybrid regime that places more emphasis on democratic characteristics. In the following twenty years, the Ukrainian hybrid regime was transformed between democratic-authoritarian hybrid regime (as a result of the events of the “Orange Revolution”, and the “Revolution of Dignity”) and authoritarian-democratic hybrid regime (during presidency L. Kuchma and V. Yanukovych). The hybridity of the political regime also translated into the functioning of the chief state bodies. The aim of this study was to find an answer to the question whether and to what extent did the hybridity of Ukraine’s political regime imply on the specificity of the functioning of the institutions of the prime minister and government in the state. The research hypothesis is that the hybridity of the Ukrainian political regime, as a stage of transition from authoritarianism to democracy, partly contributed to changing the traditional order of functioning of the institutions of prime minister and government in the state just formally losing the head of state’s dominant role in the process of government functioning.
</abstract>

The Institution of Prime Minister and Government in A Hybrid Regime in Ukraine (1996–2021)

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Since 2012, the Republic of Serbia has been governed by the Serbian Progressive Party, and since 2017 its chairman has also been the president, who has full power in his hands. In the first years after taking power, this group implemented a policy that could have been surprising to public opinion, considering the fact that it separated from the Serbian Radical Party. The negotiations on Kosovo, which brought a number of agreements, the diplomatic offensive that created Serbia as a European partner and regional hegemon, dynamic progress in the EU accession process and the promotion of Western European values were the elements that noticeably exposed the change in the image of this country in relation to the previous decades. However, the second term of government began to fit into the pattern of the global phenomenon of populism, leading to the ruling group taking over the structures of the separation of powers and limiting democracy in the country. Subsequent general elections brought the strengthening of this party in the structures of the state, whose level of democracy was rated increasingly lower in international rankings. Moreover, the political system of Serbia itself began to be presented in scientific and expert analyses as an example of stabilitocracy. The aim of this topic is to analyse the specific power of President Aleksander Vučić and his party in relation to shaping the state’s multi-vector foreign policy.
</abstract>

The Impact of the Political System of the Republic of Serbia on Shaping Foreign Policy After 2012

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

As a result of globalization, and modern scientific and technological development, information technologies began to cover an increasing number of areas, including politics. The issue actualizes as we enter the Artificial Intelligence (AI) era. In times of AI, increasing scientific influence on politics was manifested in the development of a new scientific field — Digital Diplomacy. The development of AI and the changes taking place today can transform the political processes, imposing new threats to the political systems and the entire system of international relations. In this context, ethical issues are of particular concern because they can be blurred by the political decisions made by digital/computer program algorithms; that is, giving power to computer programs to make political decisions can destabilize the political system. This issue is particularly sensitive in terms of ensuring justice and protection of state political interests. The presented paper aims to discuss political transformation in the context of the modern digitalization process, the work of political institutions, and digital diplomacy.
</abstract>

Political Institutions in Times of AI, and Ethical Aspects of the Digitalization in Politics

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The main purpose of this paper is to rationally reconstruct Nozick’s account of unproductivity, especially <italic>vis-à-vis</italic> his characteristically libertarian, and hence uncompromising, ban on fraud. We posit that, when Nozick’s theory is interpreted charitably, it does not yield to contradictory prescriptions concerning permissibility. That is, there does not have to be any inconsistency in the Nozickian ban on certain exchanges, with the ban tracking two properties of the said exchanges; that is, either (1) their unproductivity or (2) their fraudulence. When analyzing economic exchanges, our interest is focused on both productive and unproductive <italic>blackmail</italic> exchanges. However, we suggest that Nozick’s banning exchanges along the lines of their unproductivity tallies poorly with his avowed libertarianism since his position predicts prohibiting unproductive and yet non-fraudulent exchanges. Hence, and we suggest resolving the said tension in a principled libertarian (deontological) manner; that is, by banning <italic>fraudulent exchanges</italic> and allowing <italic>non-fraudulent</italic> ones, <italic>ceteris paribus</italic>, while submitting that the properties of exchanges such that <italic>being productive</italic> or <italic>being unproductive</italic> are morally inert.
</abstract>

Blackmail, Unproductive Exchanges, Fraud, and the Libertarian Theory of Voluntariness

Book Review: ‘Media Systems in Balkan Countries: Context and Dynamics Of Changes’ Edited By Bogusława Dobek-Ostrowska &amp; Jelena Kleut, Published By Peter Lang, ISBN: 9783631909232, 2023, 294 Pages

Conference Report: ‘Regional Assemblies in the Polish Political System’ (Sejmiki Województw W Polskich Systemach Politycznych), Wrocław, 25–26.01.2024

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 12 (2024): Issue 1 (June 2024)

Volume 11 (2023): Issue 2 (December 2023)

Volume 11 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)

Volume 10 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)

Volume 10 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)

Volume 9 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

Volume 9 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)

Volume 8 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 8 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

Volume 7 (2019): Issue 2 (December 2019)

Volume 7 (2019): Issue 1 (November 2019)

Volume 6 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 6 (2018): Issue 1 (December 2018)

Volume 5 (2017): Issue 1 (December 2017)

Volume 4 (2016): Issue 1 (December 2016)

Volume 3 (2015): Issue 1 (June 2015)

Volume 2 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)

Volume 2 (2014): Issue 1 (June 2014)

Volume 1 (2013): Issue 1 (December 2013)

Polish Political Science Review

The Polish Political Science Review (PPSR), or Polski Przegląd Politologiczny, is an online, peer-reviewed (double-blind review process), open-access journal. All articles are published in English. Once a year, the list of reviewers is published on the website of the PPSR. Issues are released twice a year and are available without charge for all users. In this manner a wide dissemination of all published articles is facilitated. The PPSR is not restricted to the Polish socio-political reality but is aimed at a broad, international readership and collaboration in various areas of political research. The following general domains fall under the scope of the PPSR:   Public Policy　  Comparative Politics　  Political Theory and Political Thought　  International Relations　  Political Communication　  Modern History　  Interdisciplinary Studies　   We invite scholars, researchers, PhD students and professionals to submit their research articles, theoretical papers, case studies and book reviews. Both established academics and researchers in the early stages of their academic careers are welcome. The PPSR is focused on political issues, but interdisciplinary research areas are also accepted.　  Why submit to PPSR?　  The PPSR has an international editorial board consisting of profound scholars and experts in the field of political science.  All articles are subject to a rigorous process of double blind peer-review, and the reviewers are carefully selected in accordance with their declared field of expertise and academic interests. Articles are reviewed by two or three independent reviewers, none of whom may be affiliated or employed at the same institution as the author of the article. The referee affiliation is different from the affiliation of the author. Additionally, the author and referee will not be the co-authors of any scientific work 3 years prior to submitting the paper to PPSR. Preferebly, articles are sent to reviewers from two different countries. All issues of the PPSR are available online (with no charge). Full proofreading and technical support is provided by the PPSR. PPSR ensures highest quality of the reviewing and publishing processes. 　  With open access of the publication, PPSR ensures broad accessibility of the published texts which can be spread, quoted and re-analysed, contributing to the further development of scientific knowledge. The journal collects no fees from either readers or authors. Contributors are not charged for consideration, review or publication of manuscripts　  Polish Political Science review is owned, managed and funded by the Institute of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Wrocław, Poland  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 