Public Institutions Facing Anti-Democratic Challenges: Why Public Decision-Makers Vary in Terms of the Banning of Right-Wing Extremists’ Assemblies in Poland?

While liberal democracies allow views that oppose democratic principles, their public dissemination causes controversy. Events such as demonstrations of far-right movements challange public institutions with the question of what the threshold of tolerance should be for anti-democratic attitudes, what values the state should protect and what threats it should protect them against. The concept of 'militant democracy' grants democracies the right to defend themselves against their enemies by restricting their rights and freedoms under certain conditions. However, repressive measures such as a bans of assemblies raise dilemmas as they may undermine democracy itself. Thus public institutions face the challenge of whether and when to limit civil and political freedoms. In practice, the decisions of particular public institutions are often not consistent. The goal of this paper is to examine how public institutions in Poland (municipalities, province governors and courts) deal with the dilemma of tolerance towards anti-democratic challenges. The primary aim is to study what causes their diverse responses to right-wing extremists’ assemblies, which results in a failure to implement the instruments of militant democracy. The study covers legal, institutional and socio-political incentives and constrains for decision making, with particular attention to orientations of institutional actors (their preferences and perceptions). The analysis is based on decisions banning extreme-right assemblies issued by two Polish municipalities (the cities of Wroclaw and Warsaw in the period 2013-2018) and subsequent repeal of those decisions by province governors and courts. The paper brings together three strands of literature: studies of reactions to political extremism, public policy studies and institutional analysis (particularly actor-centered institutionalism). The analysis is inductive and qualitative, with a strong empirical basis (official decisions, case law, and in-depth interviews conducted with representatives of municipal bodies). Preliminary outcomes indicate i.a. that municipalities and courts have different perceptions (and preferences) regarding threats to democracy and values requiring absolute protection. As a result defining of the limits of freedom and tolerance and, consequently, decisions of above mentioned institutions regarding the implementation of bans on assemblies vary. The study also shows that the specifics of a given institution significantly influence its decisions. It also indicates the importance of the mutual influence of various institutions as a factor in decision making, shaping institutional strategies and policy making towards extremism in Poland.