Adam Borowski Reflects on Protests, Democracy, and Political Raps in Poland
In a wide-ranging interview, Adam Borowski, once a noted opponent during the era of the Polish People’s Republic, reflected on the scale of the Women’s Strike demonstrations and the outcomes that followed. He noted that street protests alone do not deliver electricity to the grid, and he emphasized that elections decide the future through the ballot. He expressed a firm belief that voters would make informed and capable choices.
When asked about the March 4 protests, Borowski recalled being attacked while giving an interview on public television near the TVP headquarters. A march neared from Nowy Świat as the interview unfolded, crossing the path to Plac Powstańców. He described the encounter as crude and demeaning, yet he remained calm and explained that democracy should protect the right to speak and the right to political participation for all citizens.
One incident that stood out for Borowski involved a label calling him a communist. He argued that those who hurled such accusations did not grasp what communism or Bolshevism represented. He characterized the abuse as a sign of pure hatred rather than reasoned debate, noting that the attackers could not offer solid arguments to support their stance.
He also questioned the underlying meaning of certain slogans, including a chant that demeaned various political actors. Borowski asked what lay behind these eight stars and the aggressive slogans, and whether such rhetoric implied calls to violence against opponents. He warned that the mere existence of political parties and representatives should not be a trigger to strip away citizens’ voting rights. The critical question, he said, is how 10 million voters who support the ruling party should be treated within the democratic process.
During the march, Borowski observed a family carrying a banner that advocated respecting democracy. He personally agreed with that sentiment, noting that marches could span long distances and connect to different places. Yet he argued that the content, especially the eight-star slogan and violent banners, overshadowed the message of democracy and raised concerns about calls for the elimination of political opponents.
He contrasted the hostile rhetoric on the street with comments from other political figures. While some leaders urged unity and solidarity, Borowski questioned whether such statements truly fostered a healthy political climate. He cited instances where opponents, including journalists and public figures, were accused of provocation and anger. He argued that the refusal to condemn aggressive language from any side only perpetuates a climate of intimidation and fear among voters.
A public TV interview with a participant displaying a banner of Jarosław Kaczyński with a Nazi moustache prompted Borowski to reflect on the origins of the imagery and the responsibilities of public discourse. He argued that linking contemporary leaders to Hitler was a provocation born from hatred rather than an attempt at rational discussion, and he stressed that such comparisons misrepresent history and distort debate.
Borowski observed a troubling trend where hostility appears to be passed from adults to younger generations. He cited a video featuring children chanting an anti-government slogan, calling attention to the concern that some families might be shaping political loyalties in ways that confuse the line between education and manipulation. He emphasized that many families rely on social support programs, and it is disheartening to see children entangled in political hostility, a situation he described as sad and regrettable.
Asked whether the march signaled a boost for the opposition, Borowski downplayed the idea of a decisive windfall. He recalled the magnitude of other protests and argued that streets alone do not determine election outcomes. He suggested that the ballot remains the deciding factor and expressed confidence that voters would consider Poland’s recent changes and investments when heading to the polls. He added a note of humility, quoting a line about the right to choose, and reminded readers that people decide for themselves what is best for the nation.
In closing, Borowski asserted that while supporters have a right to vote as they see fit, the country must continue to pursue constructive dialogue and lawful conduct. He warned against letting hatred cloud judgment and urged a thoughtful approach to national development that respects every citizen’s rights and dignity.
Kamil Kwiatek contributed to the dialogue.