Neutrality, democracy, socialised law

Abstract

Michał Dudek in his article on the legal neutrality in the context of socialised law criticises the principle of the State’s neutrality. According to Dudek this principle is ‘highly problematic’ and vulnerable to different charges. The main object of his criticism is the idea of neutral justification (procedural neutrality). In his opinion, this idea is unattainable because: (i) it wrongly focuses on the legislator’s moral perspective (rather than the citizens’ point of view); (ii) it is too ‘weak’ (the mere adherence to the neutral procedure does not guarantee the neutrality of legal regulation); (iii) it is too demanding (as it requires the conformity with the principle of restraint); (iv) applying this idea in the law-making process may lead to acts of manipulation. However, the most important objection against the State’s neutrality principle of justification is that this principle cannot guarantee the proper level of social stability and socialisation of law.

In the paper, I defend State’s neutrality principle and address most objections raised by Dudek. I argue that the idea of neutral justification is not focused on the legislator’s moral perspective, but rather on the point of view of a reasonable democratic citizen. I also claim that although the conception of procedural neutrality is weak and demanding, its requirements are realisable and well justified. What is more, in my opinion the adherence to neutrality principle in political practice may generate social stability for the right reasons.