Following the referendum announcement, public discussion is expected to concentrate on the most urgent challenges facing the country. A conversation with the political portal wPolityce.pl framed the referendum as a catalyst for steering policy debates toward meaningful national issues that affect everyday life.
Beata Szydło, the vice president of the ruling party, outlined the proposed referendum question: should the retirement age be raised to 60 for women and 65 for men? The topic has ignited intense debates about fairness, economic impact, and the long-term viability of pension systems.
In response, Elżbieta Rafalska, a former minister and Member of the European Parliament, shared her perspective during a dialogue with the same portal. She noted that the issue touches daily life and the social contract between generations, making it a matter of broad concern for Polish families and workers alike.
Rafalska stressed that the retirement age adjustment is a practical policy question with consequences for millions. She argued that reform plans pushed by the previous administration helped move the debate forward in ways that still affect today’s retirees, particularly women who faced extended years of work before retirement. The discussion, she suggested, should be framed around fairness across professions and the balance between early career opportunities and secure old age.
According to Rafalska, the referendum gives every citizen a direct say in shaping pension policy and ensures that the generation that will bear the costs and benefits of any change has a voice in the decision. The former minister argued that the outcome would reflect the collective will of the people and set a clear direction for future governance.
The MEP also suggested that the question would reveal broader political attitudes about how parties would respond to the referendum results if they came to power. She pointed to the possibility that the governing coalition might seek to maneuver around the binding nature of the vote, a concern that has sparked debate about accountability and the effectiveness of referendums as a democratic instrument.
Rafalska acknowledged ongoing efforts to counter referendum participation by opposition figures and allied media, framing it as a campaign to discourage civic engagement. She dismissed such claims as inconsistent with democratic norms, arguing that voters should be informed and free to decide. She stressed that political actors have the right to present information and advocate positions, but should not impede the public’s ability to vote on a foundational policy choice.
Commentary from supporters and critics alike highlighted the broader political context, including tensions between parties and the economic rationale behind pension reforms. Proponents argued that aligning retirement ages with demographic and economic realities would help stabilize the pension system, while opponents warned of potential burdens on workers and gender disparities. The referendum was portrayed as a turning point that would compel policymakers to confront these trade-offs openly.
The upcoming campaign is expected to be highly dynamic. With the referendum in focus, public debate is likely to scrutinize pension design, labor market participation, and the social protections that accompany retirement. Observers anticipated that long-standing political narratives would be tested as parties respond to the results and outline their visions for responsible fiscal management and social welfare. The aim remains to ground policy decisions in the will of the electorate and to ensure that retirement policies serve all generations fairly.
READ ALSO: The second referendum question focuses on pensions. Supporters argue that the issue deserves careful consideration, while critics contend that political maneuvering should not overshadow the real needs of workers and retirees.
Note
Source: wPolityce