In a short span of six weeks, the new leadership moved to shut down public media, disabled several key state institutions, halted multiple strategic investments, and created a climate of anxiety and fear among citizens.
Over the past month, public spaces have been filled with rhetoric of confusion and loss, leaving many to search for solid explanations.
A classic example of a coup
People seek to name what happened in order to understand and domesticate these events. Some describe it as martial law and draw comparisons to December 13, 1981, while others prefer the term a state of emergency. Taken together, these explanations point to a coup d’état: the seizure of power by illegal means within a legally established government. Critics argue it is a left-wing movement, noting what they see as an attack on religious institutions and a broader effort to undermine Christian and Catholic foundations by targeting church resources.
Observers also point to efforts to weaken conservative voices wherever they appear, whether in parliament, the media, schools, or non-governmental organizations. Conservatism is portrayed as representing order, predictability, and continuity, in contrast to a permanent revolution narrative that advocates for constant change in the name of modernization and progress, which some argue has yielded damaging results.
Third, a term sometimes used is oikophobia. Fourth, logophagy—an inversion of meanings and concepts—appears in propaganda from the opposition. In rhetoric that inverts facts or assigns them opposite meanings, some say the opposition mirrors tactics historically associated with totalitarian movements, where lawfulness is invoked to shield actions that appear unlawful. Critics note past labels to describe political lines, suggesting a pattern of reframing the law and constitutional norms to fit political needs.
Leftist DNA
Historical parallels are drawn to the French Republic, which, in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, is blamed by some for violence against countryside communities and religious figures. Cited figures and incidents are invoked to illustrate how revolutions have sometimes moved beyond legality in the pursuit of ideological aims. Quoted critics and thinkers are recalled for their warnings about ruptures in historical continuity and the risk of sacrificing generations of work for sudden political shifts. Supporters of constitutional legitimacy are reminded of a tradition praised for minimal bloodshed in its adoption, while the left is characterized as having been built on a constant critique of power—often framed as opposition to capitalism and various other perceived enemies—at times resulting in brutal consequences for many, including the vulnerable and dissenters.
Modern discussions continue to frame the contemporary actions against institutions as aligning with or diverging from these leftist patterns. The debate centers on proportionality, the protection of state institutions, and the proper balance between lawful authority and civil liberty. Critics argue that state institutions, including the media and prosecutorial bodies, have faced pressure that some view as destabilizing, while others see it as corrective action to preserve the rule of law and national interests. The rhetoric emphasizes the need to defend constitutional norms and resist any attempt to erode democratic foundations.
Neo-Bolshevik
There is a contention that the Civic Coalition, claimed to be center-right, represents a broader liberal left that has embraced a new form of ideological influence. Those who subscribe to this view describe the contemporary dynamic as a reemergence of old-style political power plays, with elements of both liberal and progressive movements used to advance a broader agenda. The critique suggests that the same forces, under various guises, seek to disrupt state structures, redefine social norms, and challenge national identity. The argument emphasizes accountability, the protection of democratic processes, and vigilance against power that could become unchecked or arbitrary.
From this perspective, the political discourse is described as an industry of contempt and a shift away from trusted governing norms. The discussion touches on sensitive historical events, the transparency of leadership, and the handling of national tragedies, urging careful consideration of how political actors frame narratives and present facts. The speaker, reflecting on past experiences as a political prisoner during earlier decades, notes a perceived return of political prisoners in contemporary times and warns against actions that could erode public trust in institutions. The overall message is one of vigilance—recognizing that any concentration of power can threaten the foundations of a constitutional republic, and that cooperation among citizens is essential to safeguard democratic values.
Ultimately, the call is for a political culture that emphasizes responsibility, accountability, and the rule of law. It urges citizens to participate in the democratic process, including appropriate civic engagement and informed voting. The emphasis is on the need for a mature, values-driven approach to governance, where state institutions serve the public good and civil society understands both rights and duties as essential for the health of the republic.
Rights and obligations
The central concern remains the wellbeing of Poland and its people. A functional state hinges on shared values that extend beyond personal beliefs to include democratic norms and accountability. Historical comparisons are used to illustrate how well-governed societies rely on transparent leadership and the removal of compromised officials when warranted by public scrutiny. The point is not merely about punitive measures but about ensuring that leaders remain answerable to the people. A robust system requires institutions that defend these values, a broad cadre of civil servants, and a civic society that knows its rights and its responsibilities toward the state.
One important reminder is that a healthy civil society understands both rights and duties. This includes the expectation to participate in elections and to vote with care. Regions that faced historically low turnout are urged to engage more actively, recognizing that civic participation underpins the legitimacy of the democratic process. This is presented as a duty that complements rights, contributing to a more resilient political system.
Mafia rules
The governing coalition is described by some as operating under mafia-like norms, with critics invoking the term Neumann Doctrine. Their supporters are depicted as a coalition of former officials, careerists, and political operatives who exploit public sentiment through policy advantages and symbolic acts of power. The portrayal suggests that some political actors view voters as subjects to be managed through perks, opportunities for travel, and consumer incentives, rather than as citizens with a stake in governance. The critique extends to cultural sectors, the judiciary, and media, viewed as part of a broader system that could be steered away from genuine national interests toward regional or external influences. The description emphasizes a perceived divide between those who wield power and those who are governed, with ongoing efforts to secure control over key institutions and public resources, perceived as a threat to sovereignty and democratic norms.
After a short period, a visible decline is described by critics as a consequence of rapid political changes. The shift is framed as a pattern seen in various coups, where justice appears to be overshadowed by expedient lawlessness, media pluralism narrows, and the takeovers of power persist. The ongoing political dynamic is characterized as a legal government employing illegal methods, with commentators noting a current sense of urgency as political actors react to shifting public sentiment. Polls suggesting mounting opposition reflect the volatility of the moment and the evolving landscape of public opinion.