Study visit to Rzeszów and Przemyśl

10 04 2026

On April 10, 2026, the fourth study visit took place as part of the “The political system at work” project. During the visit, participants had the opportunity to meet with two experts: Jan Rokita and Jan Bartmiński, who shared their knowledge and experience regarding the functioning of the state and political transitions.

Meeting with Jan Rokita

In Rzeszów, team members met with Jan Rokita — a former politician actively involved in the political transformation process after 1989. In the 1990s, Jan Rokita helped develop the concept of government reforms, including strengthening the role of the Prime Minister and streamlining state governance mechanisms.

The expert discussed the model of the state shaped by the political transformation, as well as the history of local government reforms and the current state of local government.

Referring to the political changes initiated by the Round Table talks, Jan Rokita noted the lack of reflection at the time regarding state-building. He emphasized that the main goal of the transition was to regain sovereignty, not the conscious construction of a modern system of governance. An exception was the reform of the judiciary, which, according to the speaker, led to the formation of a corporatist model based on the strong autonomy of the judicial community. In the expert’s view, this had long-term negative consequences for the functioning of the entire system.

The expert devoted particular attention to the structural problems of the state, including the executive branch. He noted that following the collapse of communism and the departure from the leading role of the party, which had served as the “head” of the entire state apparatus, Poland inherited a system devoid of strategic management capabilities. The state faced three challenges: determining who is responsible for policy directions, what the government’s organizational structure should be, and who manages it. Jan Rokita described the system in place at the time as chaotic and fragmented, pointing to the existence of numerous parallel administrative structures (“a loose confederation of ministries”) that undermined the coherence of the state’s operations.

In his presentation, the expert focused primarily on the reforms of 1995–1999, which aimed to strengthen the role of the prime minister and streamline the government’s structure. Among other things, mechanisms for coordinating the work of the Council of Ministers were introduced, along with a system for developing government decisions in committees, intended to ensure greater consistency in decision-making. Jan Rokita considered the Act on Government Administration Departments, which streamlined sector-specific statutory provisions, to be an important step toward better coordination of state activities. The expert noted, however, that attempts to assign strategic functions to the administration met with strong resistance and often resulted in nothing more than formal changes.

Jan Rokita also addressed the discrepancies between the government’s actual functioning and constitutional provisions, particularly regarding the powers of the prime minister and ministers. He highlighted the persistent limitations on the state’s ability to pursue coordinated public policy and the lack of an effective system for evaluating government actions. The expert also shared his own experiences in this regard, which the meeting participants found to be a very valuable aspect of the discussion.

Local government reform was the second topic presented by Jan Rokita. He noted that the reform’s objective was to decentralize the management system by transferring state tasks to the local level. He emphasized that local government reform was a key systemic reform, as strong local government forms the foundation of an efficient state. However, according to the speaker, this model—based on the coexistence of central and local government administration at the regional level—has not been fully implemented in practice and remains a source of tension to this day.

The expert also discussed issues related to the functioning of local government, including the problem of an excessive number of municipalities and the shifting public attitude toward decentralization. He noted that in the 1990s, local government was viewed in the context of liberation, which is why the reform was not treated as an institutional restructuring of the state, even though in reality it was. Jan Rokita noted that one can now speak of a degeneration of local government, linked to the weakening of public oversight over its quality and operations. In his view, an additional problem is the current weakening of local government by European policy, which is shifting away from the distribution of funds through regions in favor of national governments.

Both the Polish and Ukrainian sides agreed that support for more centralized solutions is currently growing, even though decentralization can promote effective governance.

Finally, contemporary attempts to cope with the system’s limitations were discussed. The expert cited examples of informal governance mechanisms used mainly by heads of government in recent years, which, though operationally effective, may weaken formal state structures. Strong polarization eliminates both control mechanisms: both social control and government control. There is a lack of an institution to formulate state policy and an analytical apparatus, including research on policy effectiveness.

Meeting with an expert in Przemyśl

The second meeting as part of the study visit took place in Przemyśl. It was devoted to the reform of local government in the 1990s and its significance for the functioning of the state.

The research team met with Jan Bartmiński, an expert in public administration and local government, a former long-time city councilor of Przemyśl and chairman of the City Council, a former member of the regional council, and the last Przemyśl voivode before the 1998 local government reform.

The expert emphasized that the local government reform, which took effect at the beginning of 1999, was in fact part of a broader process of state restructuring following 1989. Local government was one of its fundamental elements, although the very concept of “self-government” had existed in Poland earlier—especially in the 1980s, in the context of the “Solidarity” movement, when it referred more to professional self-government than to local government.

Later in the meeting, the expert also presented earlier administrative solutions, including the operation of 49 provinces since 1975. In his view, this led to excessive fragmentation and hindered effective state management, including budget planning. Jan Bartmiński also pointed out the difficulties in developing a concept of local government during the transition period, including during the Round Table talks, where there was a lack of a common understanding of the concept, and the government side was unwilling to transfer real power to the local level.

A key theme was the genesis of the three-tier administrative division of the state, comprising municipalities, counties, and provinces. Jan Bartmiński noted that the creation of larger regions was linked not only to the state’s internal needs but also to the processes of European integration. In this context, particular attention was paid to the role of regional cooperation and the emergence of cross-border initiatives, such as the Carpathian Euroregion, which served as a platform for cooperation between Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, and Hungary.

The expert pointed out that the development of international cooperation required the existence of sufficiently strong administrative units. This was one of the arguments for reducing the number of provinces and creating a smaller number of larger units. At the time, this process was the subject of intense debates, during which concerns were raised about the possibility of separatist tendencies emerging. The speaker emphasized that various division options were considered, ranging from 8 to 12 regions, and that the final shape of the reform was the result of a political compromise.

In summary, the study visit to Rzeszów and Przemyśl provided a better understanding of both the historical context of institutional reforms and their contemporary consequences, including the tension between centralization and decentralization and the challenges associated with coordinating public policies. The meetings demonstrated that both Poland and Ukraine face similar challenges regarding the effectiveness of public institutions and the transparency of their operations.