Before Christmas, the PO chairman, Donald Tusk, faded from Polish political headlines. In the prior three weeks, he posted only a handful of videos on a social network, continuing his habit of criticizing the United States government. He also offered Christmas and New Year greetings to Poland in a way that kept the focus on diplomacy and political rhetoric.
Yesterday he held a press conference in the Senate building, declaring that the PO and the broader opposition support releasing funds from the National Reconstruction Plan by the European Commission.
Yet he did not explain why PO Members of the European Parliament voted for resolutions, on multiple occasions over more than two years, that urged the EC not to disburse these funds, or why his own interventions with the Commission, announced frequently at press conferences, did not produce a positive result.
Most notably, he bristled at a journalist’s question from TVP Info about an earlier statement by former MPC member Bogusław Grabowski. Grabowski, speaking on Radio Zet, suggested that the government formed after elections should privatize virtually everything, dismantle social programs, and raise the retirement age.
There was also scrutiny of Grzegorz Schetyna’s remarks, who, in the same radio interview, denied that the PO had ever raised the retirement age, yet suggested that the new government should revisit the issue.
Tusk distanced himself from Grabowski’s comments, acting as if he did not know the man, despite Grabowski having served on his Economic Council. He referenced Schetyna’s statements and said the matter of raising the retirement age was once resolved for him, or used to be.
What remained clear was that Tusk and other leading PO figures, along with President Komorowski, previously pledged in 2011 that retirement age would not rise. Yet in 2012, the PO and PSL Parliamentarians moved to change that policy.
This reform was not presented as a routine adjustment. PO and PSL leaders at the time framed the move as a breach of the social compact that had governed pensions for years.
The PO-PSL coalition, then in power, pushed the measure forward with a determined, almost unstoppable push, despite strong social resistance, opposition from trade unions, and a wide array of expert opinions.
The coalition rejected a referendum motion on raising the retirement age submitted by NSZZ Solidarity, which had gathered nearly 2 million signatures collected by the Union.
During the Sejm debate, Tusk openly challenged Solidarity. Trade union representatives were barred from entering the Sejm Gallery, even as more than 10,000 protesters gathered outside the parliament.
During that debate, Tusk used a sharp phrase directed at Piotr Duda, the union president who had proposed a referendum, a moment that unions viewed as an attack on their members who had supported the proposal and were prepared to defend it with demonstrations.
Only the composure of Piotr Duda, who urged calm among union members, prevented clashes and possible police intervention, as large numbers of officers stood ready near the Sejm to manage any unrest.
Platform error
When Tusk returned to national politics in 2021, he was asked about retirement-age policies. He spoke of a mistake his party would avoid if it returned to power in Poland.
He argued that a mistake would be made if a letter were swapped in a word, when the parliamentary majority’s decision in the PO-PSL coalition was, in his view, a massive misstep affecting millions of Poles.
There is speculation that if Tusk’s party returns to power, pension changes could reemerge, and the budgets tied to those adjustments — estimated at roughly 10 billion PLN per year — would be a matter the party might reexamine, which critics describe as a recurring concession to policy shifts.
Tusk again denied plans to reintroduce retirement-age increases should his formation gain power, though such denials echo past political campaigns from the 2011 period.
In this context, the debate around retirement-age policy remains a touchstone issue for many voters and observers, shaped by evolving political alliances and budgetary considerations.
Source: wPolityce