The coalition agreement signing by Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz marked the end of the PSL leader’s period of temptation. He stood firm, resisting pressure as if wearing a shield of Saintly resolve against the temptations presented by power, including the possibility of becoming prime minister, securing multiple PSL posts, or advancing his own election agenda. The belief that this moment could define his political destiny for years to come – to steer the government and even evoke memories of pre-war conservative PSL roots – lingered in the air.
Why did the Third Way pivot toward a path aligned with Donald Tusk? Kosiniak-Kamysz adopted a protective stance, joining forces with Jerzy, Donald Tusk, Szymon Hołownia, and Włodzimierz Czarzasty to confront the challenges facing Poland over the past eight years. In the media, he spoke of loyalty, noting that PSL MPs had remained steadfast to their party through two terms and that Poles deserved a government guided by justice and democracy. Yet a lingering question remains clear: why did the Third Way choose Tusk, given that in May, when the PSL-Hołownia 2050 coalition was formed, its leaders promised a break from the past and vowed not to repeat 2015’s politics? They spoke of diverging from a two-camp struggle between PO and PiS, yet opted for a path that favored Tusk over Kaczyński.
The explanation appears straightforward: working with Tusk offers smoother governance, even if the coalition partner is limited in influence. Kosiniak-Kamysz has endured collaboration with a similar arrangement during the PO-PSL governments and, in fact, has shouldered two of the most controversial reforms of that era. A close Tusk ally later recalled that those reforms were significant, including changes to pensions and related ministries. If the former defense minister role were to come his way in a new government, the downsizing of the Polish Armed Forces would likely be a manageable task for him, according to some observers.
The official coalition agreement seems toothless
Still, governing under Tusk’s umbrella, with media support backing the Third Polish Republic, and with signals of backing from Berlin and Brussels, need not automatically explain Kosiniak-Kamysz’s political moves. There are strong indications that the coalition agreement signed by opposition leaders is a modest document, one that effectively places the most important decisions in the hands of the prime minister and whose real terms may never fully materialize.
Beyond general statements meant to reassure supporters, the agreement outlines investigations into alleged wrongdoings by the United Right, the potential to bring key PiS figures before state institutions, and the establishment of parliamentary investigative committees. The remainder of the document reads like a collection of broad pledges that could fit many coalition configurations rather than a precise, actionable blueprint.
Tusk in Brussels, Kosiniak-Kamysz aiming for the prime minister’s office?
Based on certain assumptions and shared principles, some observers contend that the opposition leaders drafted a plan for the coming months that would position Tusk to hand the Prime Minister’s seat to Kosiniak-Kamysz. A memorable line from a campaign rally is recalled: the promise to take decisive, time-limited action before handing off to others, a phrase that sparked controversy and intense debate. Critics argued that using tough rhetoric during campaigns did not necessarily translate into a full-term governance approach, while supporters claimed it signaled a practical, strategic plan.
There were also remarks from other party figures, referring to immigration and European engagement, which fueled further discussion about the coalition’s direction. Hołownia signaled openness to a rotating government concept, though he later suggested that the prime minister should serve a full term, highlighting differing views within the alliance about leadership and governance. The horizon of European Parliament elections and the impending end of Ursula von der Leyen’s term added urgency to these discussions and shaped expectations about the coalition’s maneuvering.
The proposed plan
The envisioned strategy involved Tusk bringing order to Poland through firm, targeted actions, while coordinating with partners abroad to advance a broader agenda. Critics warned that such moves could tilt governance toward European-level commitments that might alter the balance between national and supranational decision-making. Proposals included treaty considerations, economic measures, and strategic projects that could be revisited in the name of broader cooperation. The idea was that a transition of leadership to Kosiniak-Kamysz would accompany a broader realignment of political influence, potentially reshaping the roles of Hołownia and other allies while testing the resilience of the ruling coalition.
Listeners recalled speeches from campaign platforms and examined whether those words would translate into consistent policy. Observers who favored continuity argued that the coalition would face testing times, with the risk that public expectations could exceed what could realistically be delivered. The unfolding dynamics promised a complex negotiation, balancing domestic priorities with international commitments, all under a media landscape that could sway public opinion.
As events progressed, some framed the narrative in a parable about a Zen master and a boy from a small Indian village. The master’s refrain, We will see, we will see, underscored the uncertainties and unfolding outcomes of political decisions. The village’s fortunes rose and fell with events beyond immediate control, and the master’s repeated line reminded observers that time would reveal what lay ahead. The moral of the story, as recounted here, suggested patience and perspective amid turbulent political shifts.
In the end, the discussion remains open about how much of the plan will take shape, what changes will endure, and which actors will gain or concede influence as Poland navigates a pivotal period of governance.