Leszek Balcerowicz has sharpened his critique of Donald Tusk and the Civic Platform in recent broadcasts. During an interview on Radio ZET, the economist described the PO program as populist and warned that promises of generosity can mislead voters. He also weighed in on remarks from Marcin Kierwiński and Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, framing the conversation around economic credibility and political responsibility.
Could the Confederation offer a clearer program than PO?
When assessing party platforms, Balcerowicz notes that the Confederation currently emphasizes economic freedom. He asks what the Confederation truly stands for and whom it represents. He also observed that the economic program associated with the Hołownia faction appears less populist than the Civic Platform program at present. Balcerowicz argues that chasing a strategy that tries to outbid PiS with extra gifts misreads voter motives from a partisan lens. The path forward, he says, is a credible, fiscally responsible plan geared toward long‑term growth rather than short‑term freebies. (attribution: wPolityce)
Balcerowicz cautions against populist promises and emphasizes that any political plan must answer a basic question: where will the money come from? He notes that if a candidate cannot justify financing, the proposal loses credibility. The economist highlights that pledges to widen the public purse for citizens fall into the category of populism, especially when funded by borrowed or depleted resources. (attribution: Radio ZET)
Balcerowicz on populism within the PO
Asked about the Civic Platform’s policy proposals, Balcerowicz states that he is not competing on someone else’s turf or endorsing positions he does not represent. His public commentary relies on survey data indicating that many PO supporters also hold libertarian leanings, including a preference for a free market. He explains that this stance stems from a concern that handing out favors is a risky path rather than a vice aimed at opponents. (attribution: Radio ZET)
He stresses that every politician should be asked where the funding originates. If questions about budget sources go unanswered, the promises become hollow. He argues that commitments to expand gifts funded by the state do not stand up to scrutiny as sound policy. (attribution: Radio ZET)
Kierwiński and Sienkiewicz respond
Balcerowicz’s comments prompted responses from Kierwiński and Sienkiewicz. Kierwiński suggested that Balcerowicz tends to view issues through the lens of economic columns and warned that his statements could spark alarm about a Poland under PiS for a third term. He labeled the economist’s remarks irresponsible. (attribution: PO communications)
Kierwiński argued that the broader aim is to support women returning to work, noting that a grandmother‑themed program proposed by Tusk could have practical social value. He criticized what he saw as insults and urged a focus on substantive policy questions rather than personal attacks. (attribution: PO communications)
Balcerowicz pushed back against personal attacks, urging a focus on language and substance. He argued that if public discourse devolves into labeling people as fascists or Nazis, constructive dialogue becomes impossible. He urged Kierwiński to reflect on the tone used in such debates. (attribution: Radio ZET)
In response, Sienkiewicz characterized Balcerowicz’s rhetoric as echoing an older era and suggested that today’s priorities are different. He argued that the focus should be on policies that preserve work incentives and avoid punishing legitimate effort, rather than courting popular but unsustainable giveaways. He also asserted that ad hominem critiques undermine meaningful discussion. (attribution: Polsat News)
Both Kierwiński and Sienkiewicz reiterated the need for precise, policy‑driven dialogue and cautioned against letting language eclipse substantive issues. The exchange highlighted a broader tension in the political debate over populism and fiscal prudence. (attribution: PO communications)