During periods when the media focused on a particular list, observers noted that there would be no single list because it served the sole interests of Donald Tusk and his allies. The opposition leaders understood that forming a single list could backfire, shrinking their representation in the Sejm unless the electoral threshold was crossed. The distribution of campaign grants would become a problem, and the biggest beneficiary would be Tusk. The letters the Civic Platform sent to the Sejm only confirmed these concerns. Tusk appeared as a ruthless strategist toward Civic Platform members and potentially toward the rest of the opposition as well.
Public discussions about a single list dragged on for months. Opponents treated Tusk as a moving target, while internal critics argued over alliances. Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz joined the Civic Platform to the left, suggesting ideological links between them. The left accused Tusk of absorbing leftist slogans while moving toward centrism. They argued that the most natural starting point for the left would be a broad, left-wing coalition rather than a joint list in the Sejm elections.
When Szymon Hołownia broke the opposition agreement on the Supreme Court law change vote, he was promptly branded the gravedigger of the one-list idea. In an interview with Wprost, Marek Dyduch later disclosed that the plan favored Tusk and showed little concern for others. Many feared that no one inside the camp wanted to join a single list because they anticipated betrayal from the top.
This sentiment persists among many Civic Platform figures. The published letters were cited as proof that Tusk would not hesitate to use anyone for his purposes. Grzegorz Schetyna repeatedly pressed for Tusk to stay on course with his program, suggesting that anti-pissism had failed and that if Tusk were defeated, he would be called to account. He pursued a Senate bid that some viewed as a demotion, since politics in the Sejm is seen as the real arena. The claim that running for the Senate is not a demotion was widely contradicted by the perception of the political stage. Several of Schetyna’s closest allies faced poor placements on the lists, and Sławomir Neumann was dropped entirely. Other figures, like Marcin Gołaszewski of Nowoczesna, publicly claimed to have been cheated and soon disappeared from the lineup. Paweł Poncyliusz, active in criticizing PiS in the media, found himself placed twelfth on the Warsaw list. The pattern of disappointment and frustration suggested that those who feared a single list were ultimately vindicated by the unfolding events.
In the absence of one consolidated list, Tusk assembled a lineup for KO that included former left-wing politicians and former members of Hołownia who might appeal to village voters. This arrangement appeared designed to reassure voters in the decisive campaign phase with the familiar refrain used in 2015 about the alignment of leftists, Hołownia supporters, and rural representatives with Tusk. The aim was to discourage votes for smaller opposition parties and to present a united front as the campaign reached its climax. Yet the strategy carried with it the expectation that more could rise or fall as the political weather shifted, and the left part of the spectrum observed the unfolding maneuver with wary eyes, anticipating future confrontations as the election drew closer.
In January, Professor Markowski’s assessment resonated across political circles. He warned that votes for the largest party typically outstrip votes for smaller groups by a significant margin. When a citizen contemplates the race, his message emphasized boosting the strongest party’s tally to maximize impact. The idea was to concentrate votes into a larger bloc rather than risk dilution across several smaller parties. This line of thinking underlined the strategic calculus shaping decisions as candidates sought to align with the strongest possible showing in the polls.
Those who believe they have found a comfortable middle ground by avoiding confrontation with Tusk could be surprised as the election nears. He has emerged as a very forceful operator within national politics, and in this phase his perceived ruthlessness fuels both fear and strategic reflection among opponents. The situation remains fluid as campaigns intensify and the electorate weighs its choices in a climate shaped by maneuvering alliances and shifting loyalties.
Cited coverage follows this trajectory, illustrating the tension, the calculations, and the constant recalibration that define this high-stakes political contest. The ongoing discourse underscores how a single move or a single list could reshape the balance of power and influence the path of government in the period ahead.
Attribution: wPolityce