Observers say it might look like a transitional government, yet in reality it has accomplished almost nothing of what it pledged. Within a hundred announced goals, about ninety remain unfulfilled, according to Krzysztof Bosak, deputy chairman of the Sejm for the Confederation, who spoke on Telewizja wPolska while assessing the performance of Donald Tusk’s administration.
Even the Confederation has taken the initiative to draft concrete measures, including a law establishing a free quota. The bill sat in a parliamentary freezer for months, treated as a non-urgent item. Yesterday it was finally raised for debate and sent to a committee, which marks a small victory because it was not rejected outright. The real test now is how the committee handles it, and whether it becomes a victim of bureaucracy or partisan maneuvering that stalls progress.
— noted the guest, moderated by Aleksander Majewski.
After the first 100 days, the impression grows that the governing coalition is split on several key issues. They appeared unprepared to govern, lacking a clear agenda, and there was no durable division of responsibilities across ministries. They did not seem to have settled on a coherent plan for governing. From the outside, the government may appear orderly, perhaps due to media framing, but conversations with Sejm members reveal a different story—visible chaos and a creeping paralysis in decision-making. The worrying takeaway for Polish citizens is that this stalemate could endure longer than expected.
— continued Bosak, reflecting on Tusk’s government.
Bosak on abortion projects: May they all fail
The Sejm deputy speaker also commented on the tensions within Donald Tusk’s coalition regarding proposed changes to the abortion law.
Right now there is a palpable nervousness among the left, Bosak observed, because there is no clear majority in the Sejm to back projects that would grant broad permission to end unborn life. The Confederation has been steadfast in its pro-life stance and its commitment to protecting the lives of children. If the debate over these projects becomes heated, let the arguments be aired. The hope, as he put it, is that the proposals will fail because they are not sound enough to justify their consequences.
— Bosak stated.
As the sole member of the Presidium of the Sejm, Bosak described having commissioned constitutional expert opinions on the proposals. The experts reportedly found that several of these bills clash with the Constitution. This leads to a stark choice: either the rule of law and constitutional obligations are upheld, or the view that individual autonomy overrides ethical constraints, the law, the constitutional order, and the right to life is asserted. To him, aligning with the latter path would place the country alongside factions he terms cultural adversaries, challenging fundamental human rights and the democratic framework that holds society together.
— Bosak elaborated on the constitutional concerns.
In these comments, the conversation turns to the core tension between judicial rulings, the role of ethical norms in lawmaking, and the protection of life as a basic human right. The debate is framed not merely as a policy disagreement but as a question about the character of the state and the direction of civilizational values that guide public life. The adviser’s view on constitutional fidelity is presented as a benchmark for judging political choices, especially when life and rights are at stake.
These developments come amid broader discussions about how constitutional principles inform daily governance, and how political actors balance reform with the safeguards embedded in the legal fabric of the country. The dialogue, as captured by Bosak, reflects a broader fear that hasty or ill-considered reform could undermine the rule of law and the protection of vulnerable populations while attempting to deliver on other policy promises.
Consequently, Bosak’s remarks emphasize a critical point: the recognition that constitutional integrity and the protection of life are not negotiables in the face of political agenda-setting. The debate continues, with supporters urging restraint and opponents warning against any move that could compromise foundational rights or the legitimacy of the legal framework on which the nation depends.
In summary, the exchange underlines a moment of political contention where constitutional fidelity, policy coherence, and human rights converge. It highlights the expectations placed on a government to translate words into concrete, lawful, and ethically sound actions that reflect the will of the people and the enduring commitments of the state to protect life and the rule of law.