The question of dismantling the Institute of National Remembrance sparked intense debate. Historian Piotr Gursztyn challenged the notion, arguing that there was no rational reason to wind down the institution, and he pointed to the opposition’s plan as a political move rather than a response to real failures.
Emotions in play
Gursztyn described himself as a defender of the Institute, yet he asked why anyone would want to liquidate an organization that had not been credibly accused of wrongdoing. He asked what the Institute had done to warrant its demise and whether any scandal had occurred under the current leadership. He reminded audiences that decommunization remains a topic of public interest in Poland.
He stressed that during Karol Nawrocki’s leadership the Institute did not commit acts that would justify its abolition. In a vast institution, mistakes can happen, and a scandal could surface, but there was no such tale that could justifiably fuel liquidation. Even hostile media could not generate a crisis around the Institute, he observed.
Gursztyn added that ending the Institute is an emotional tool used by a certain faction, but it is, in his view, nonsense.
What political gain would come from dissolving the Institute? He highlighted the practical costs and organizational upheavals that would follow, noting that the agency also oversees state archives, historical research, and public education. Those functions carry substantial budgetary implications.
Anna Sarzyńska remarked that the Institute of National Remembrance stood as a landmark institution established after 1989 and that undoing the compromises reached during the first president’s election would mark the end of an era.
What does the Institute for National Remembrance do?
Antoni Trzmiel outlined the Institute’s core activities. He recalled a mass grave discovered in Ukraine and the ongoing work of the IPN Search Agency. He noted that many cemeteries and burial sites are being identified, and that halting these efforts would hinder the broader understanding of the crimes committed by different regimes. He warned that ignoring the Institute would obscure the full historical record and leave society with a sanitized version of the past.
A journalist emphasized the historical research role of the Institute and described how the organization documents victims, identifications, and the historical context of crimes. The claim was made that the liquidation would limit access to essential information about the actions of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, reducing public awareness to a simplified narrative.
Efforts to shock public imagination in Poland
Marek Formela described the liquidation announcement as a political maneuver aimed at masking the opposition’s difficulties and prolonging electoral maneuvering. The editor of Gazeta Gdańska referenced statements by Izabela Leszczyna of the PO, who warned about a potential hole in the state budget.
When Mrs. Leszczyna speaks of such risks, Formela asked why she accepts parliamentary funding without fully reviewing publicly available data on state finances. He urged transparency and argued that the data show the country surpassing some peers and approaching others. The rhetoric, he suggested, sought to alarm the public about changes that might accompany policy reforms.
Trzmiel added that the liquidation would serve as a vehicle for privatization by creating a narrative of financial necessity. He warned that selling state assets could be justified by imagined shortfalls in programs such as family support payments.
There were calls to reflect on statements about this topic and to consider the broader political implications. The discussion included remarks about how the Kremlin would react to liquidation and how Berlin might interpret a shift in Poland’s stance on memory institutions.
According to the discourse, the Institute’s role would be diminished in a scenario where its work is sidelined. The discussion emphasized that the Institute is seen as a guardian of memory for those who suffered under authoritarian regimes, a voice for victims of crimes, and a critical chronicler of history.
Wider politics, memory, and accountability intersected in the debate, with participants arguing about the balance between national memory and budgetary considerations. The central question remained: what is lost when a central institution of historical interpretation is reorganized or dissolved? The conversation underscored the enduring importance of transparent, well-supported institutions that document and teach history without succumbing to partisan pressurized narratives.