In a candid reflection captured by the weekly magazine, Ilona Lepkowska—often hailed as the leading figure of Polish television drama—addressed Szymon Hołownia with fierce honesty. She described him, in no uncertain terms, as a loud presence who speaks before thinking and who, in her view, let politics become a stage for personal ego rather than a collective cause. Her remarks came as part of a wider critique aimed at the way the opposition leader has positioned himself in the public arena, especially in relation to the ruling party.
Le pkowska characterized Hołownia as someone who elevates self-interest above the shared mission of unseating the current government. She described him as carefree and reckless in ways that she believes undermine serious political discourse. The writer’s assessment reflected a broader concern that his approach concentrates on personal theatrics and seat counts rather than substantive policy and responsible leadership. She explicitly stated that Hołownia appears to be betting on ego-driven bravado, hoping to demonstrate political stature through bold claims about future election results, while not gaining the trust of the electorate in a meaningful way. The sentiment she shared was blunt: his rhetoric lacks the seriousness required for the moment. [Citation: wPolityce]
Her critique did not merely focus on substance, but also on style. Lepkowska argued that Hołownia’s speaking manner and network-building ability do not align with her view of what a credible public figure should embody. She recalled an instance from his social media activity that, in her eyes, epitomized the problem. While stopping at a gas station, Hołownia spent several minutes describing the arrival of a truck, an episode that Lepkowska found inconsequential and far removed from the responsibilities of governance. The screenwriter noted that the delivery of his message came in a single, relentless cadence, leaving little room for nuance or reasoned debate. The overall takeaway, in her words, is that the public is invited not to engage with ideas but to consume a constant stream of emotionally charged statements. This, she argued, makes it difficult for listeners to discern any plan or policy behind the words. The bottom line for Lepkowska: the man on the microphone is not necessarily someone who can be trusted to carry a serious political project forward. [Citation: wPolityce]
The discussion extended beyond personal attributes to the expectations placed on a serious political leader. Lepkowska stressed the importance of responsibility and readiness to compromise in a functioning democracy. In her view, a political figure who leads with ego and spectacle risks undermining the opposition’s credibility and the electorate’s confidence. The remark about Hołownia’s approach was not merely a clash of personalities; it touched on a broader concern about how political messages are crafted and communicated in a way that resonates with everyday concerns rather than dramatic flair. The interview captured a disagreement about what constitutes effective political leadership, and Lepkowska’s stance reflected a insistence on substantive debate over theatrical performance. [Citation: wPolityce]
On a separate note, Lepkowska addressed the way sexuality and LGBT topics are treated in the media and public discourse. She indicated that, in her estimation, there is sometimes excessive emphasis on issues of sexuality and gender among cultural elites and media outlets. The screenwriter argued that the public arena is occupied with more urgent challenges, such as geopolitical conflicts, economic pressures, and domestic social tensions, and that focusing on LGBT topics can distract from these pressing matters. This perspective was offered as part of a broader critique of the media’s editorial choices and the headlines that shape public perception. [Citation: wPolityce]
Her remarks included a pointed critique of what she viewed as sensational coverage—an example she cited involved the front page treatment of a controversial article on animal behavior and sexuality, which she perceived as a distraction from more consequential issues facing society. Lepkowska described this type of headline as emblematic of a trend where entertainment-style narratives displace substantive public debate. The emphasis, in her view, should be on real-world problems and how they affect ordinary people, rather than debates over the sexuality of animals or the semantics of gender labels. In her words, such topics can trivialize serious discussions about war, economic challenges, and social cohesion. [Citation: wPolityce]
READ ALSO:
– A difficult candidate. Does Giertych already like LGBT+? The case of the patron’s old views resurfaces. An item has been recalled [Citation: wPolityce]
“Third Way introduced the slogan: ‘Enough fighting, let’s go.’ Earlier reports have been confirmed: Dziambor and Petru are candidates.” [Citation: wPolityce]
pn/Twitter/Youtube
Source: wPolityce