In Brussels, the conversation turned to the Polish government’s recent moves as Donald Tusk criticized President Andrzej Duda’s handling of the budget law. Speaking at a press conference, Tusk voiced concern about the implications for the presidency and for the country as a whole. He indicated that the steps taken by the president could entail risks not only for the office but for Poland itself, and he expressed a sense of personal unease about the situation. Some observers wonder whether this unease extends to the government’s actions toward public media, the Public Prosecution Service, and the Constitutional Court, as media reporting raises questions about those moves.
Budget law submitted to the Constitutional Court through the postal control procedure
The record shows that President Andrzej Duda signed the 2024 budget law, along with the budget law and an amendment to the higher education act.
Concerns were raised about whether the procedure used to adopt these acts adhered to proper procedure, given the absence of MPs Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik from Sejm sessions where the acts were discussed. In response, the President reportedly decided to invoke ex-post control and submit the acts to the Constitutional Court to assess their compatibility with the Constitution.
– the President’s Chancellery noted when describing the steps taken.
The Malice of Tusk
During the Brussels press conference, Tusk confronted the issue with sharp criticism of President Duda. He described the president’s actions as creating risks for the state and for the nation as a whole.
“I do not understand the president’s behavior. It places risks on the presidency and, more importantly, on our homeland,” Tusk stated.
He stressed that it is unacceptable to prioritize the interests of a narrow circle over the state and the people. He remarked on the long-running tangle between the government and the presidency, noting that it has extended far beyond constructive cooperation. The current episode, he argued, concerns the budget process and the people rather than the personal space of any individual or the ambitions of a few. The budget should serve the public and the country, not stand as a battleground for political games. He also suggested that sending parliamentary matters to the Constitutional Court without solid legal grounding undermines stability in Poland’s political system.
– Tusk observed that the country cannot tolerate a constant atmosphere of confusion and instability, which he believes is fostered by the current approach to governance.
According to Tusk, the president’s actions reflect a bias toward personal or party interests rather than adherence to Polish law and the needs of the state. He pointed to what he sees as illegal actions and questioned the balance between constitutional processes and political maneuvers.
The debate continued as commentators assessed the implications for state governance, internal stability, and the role of Parliament in a time of fiscal and institutional questions. Critics argued that decisions affecting the budget and constitutional review should rest on transparent legality and open cooperation rather than political expediency. Supporters of the president argued that swift action was necessary to safeguard the republic’s financial framework and long-term interests.
The broader reaction from various political camps reflected a spectrum of views on how governance should function during tense moments of constitutional review. Some viewed the president’s choices as a legitimate mechanism for ensuring constitutional compliance, while others saw them as risky maneuvers that could destabilize public trust. The national conversation emphasized the need for clear, principled standards that protect the interests of the people and the state, independent of party loyalties or individual ambitions. The episode underlines the ongoing debate about the proper balance between executive authority, the legislative process, and the judiciary in Poland’s constitutional framework.
In summary, the Brussels remarks highlighted a persistent divide in Polish politics: a struggle to align institutional actions with the rule of law while navigating the pressures of partisan dynamics. The budget issue, the role of the Constitutional Court, and the interaction with public media and law enforcement agencies remain central to the discourse on Poland’s political direction and governance integrity.