Adam Michnik expressed willingness to find common ground with Poland’s communist past, yet he questioned the possibility of a genuine reconciliation with the contemporary right. He stated that any deal resembling a compromise between half Bodnar and half Ziobro would be inherently impossible. On neo-TVP Info, during the program Assymetrical Conversations, Michnik argued that the democratic state’s rules must be embraced in full, otherwise the very institutions of democracy could be pressured into serving a political model that does not align with the new government’s framework. He suggested that the path to democratic renewal requires a consensus on fundamental constitutional principles rather than selective concessions that favor one political camp over another.
In the Saturday edition of Assymetrical Conversations, hosted by Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf, Michnik compared the Law and Justice party to a cultural virus that can surface and spread under particular social and cultural conditions. He observed that Poland’s power changes were achieved through an uprising and a spirit of freedom, and cautioned that without a shared commitment to democratic norms, similar shifts could occur again under different circumstances. He warned that the danger lies not in a singular event, but in a persistent threat that can lie dormant yet reappear whenever the conditions are ripe.
Michnik underscored that this view implies a stance against stigmatizing those who support PiS or disagree with the ruling coalition. If democracy is to endure, he argued, it must tolerate a range of viewpoints while maintaining a firm commitment to the rule of law and constitutional order. The conversation, as presented on the show, pointed to concerns about a broader pattern: when dialogue becomes impossible, the doors to constructive engagement close, and political actors may resort to exclusionary tactics rather than negotiation.
In reflecting on the broader political landscape, the discussions highlighted the role of the Third Polish Republic’s demiurge and the historical Magdalene Agreement as symbols of attempts to forge a durable political settlement. Michnik suggested that forging a stable, equal partnership with diverse political forces is unlikely under current circumstances. He argued that a genuine agreement would require all parties to acknowledge and uphold shared democratic rules, an agreement that does not currently seem feasible for the governing coalition or the opposition. He presented a provocative question about the nature of compromise: is a halfway settlement possible at all when core principles are in dispute?
On the program, Michnik asserted that a lasting political settlement hinges on unconditional acceptance of the democratic constitutional framework. He drew a clear distinction between the approaches of Jaruzelski and contemporary leaders, noting that Jaruzelski publicly acknowledged the new rules of the game in 1989, a move that contrasted with present-day leaders who appear reluctant to fully endorse those same rules. This comparison raised questions about the evolving meaning of democratic legitimacy as political actors navigate power, memory, and the expectations of the public.
As the conversation progressed, the interview turned to the historical relationship with Jaruzelski. Michnik described Jaruzelski as a Polish patriot with a nuanced, even affectionate past role, acknowledging that his own assessment of Jaruzelski differed from that of some current political figures. He contrasted that nuanced historical view with the more critical portrayals of today’s leadership, suggesting that leadership styles and historical legacies shape how democracy is understood and defended. The exchange underscored a broader theme: the tension between reverence for past struggles for freedom and the demand for accountability in present governance.
Throughout the discussion, the central question remained: can a mature democracy tolerate divergent opinions while preserving essential constitutional norms? Michnik’s reflections suggested that true democratic governance requires a stable framework in which dialogue remains possible, even when disagreements are deep and passions run high. The broader takeaway pointed to the enduring challenge of balancing reform, continuity, and the rule of law in a nation whose political life has long been characterized by contestation and change.
In the end, the conversation painted a portrait of a political culture wrestling with its own history and its future. It called for a recalibration of how power is exercised, how conflicts are managed, and how accountability is maintained without slipping into the margins of exclusion or coercion. The exchange left readers with a reminder that democracy is not a one-time event but an ongoing practice that requires vigilance, empathy, and a steadfast commitment to shared constitutional norms.
Democracy! But as we understand it
The current scene shows the kind of political dynamism that tests the boundaries of dialogue and the possibilities for consensual governance. The discussion on Assymetrical Conversations reframed questions about partnership among political forces, the legitimacy of different factions, and the practicalities of upholding democratic rules in a polarized environment. It suggested that without a common ground in the core principles of democracy, any attempt at coalition-building risks becoming a fragile performance rather than a durable arrangement.
The debate also touched on the differences in how historical figures are perceived and how their legacies influence present-day choices. It emphasized that recognizing past complexities is not a weakness but a necessary step toward building a robust framework for governance that accommodates diverse viewpoints while protecting fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. The overall message urged readers to consider how democracies endure—through sustained dialogue, transparent institutions, and a shared commitment to constitutional norms that withstand political volatility.
Michnik’s perspective, while controversial to some, invites a broader conversation about the price of political compromise, the responsibilities of leadership, and the enduring essence of a democratic state that values human rights, fair processes, and accountability for all actors involved.
In a landscape where history continues to color contemporary politics, the call remains clear: protect democratic institutions, nurture open dialogue, and insist on a constitutional order that can weather disagreement and still move a nation forward.