The chorus, echoing the structure of Greek tragedy, voices the same chorus of media voices, political scientists, and what some call mass culture authorities, celebrities included. It repeatedly urges a unified opposition. Yet within this chorus, the belief in a single electoral list lingers only as a contested hope. Some voices defend it with the conviction that only such a list can prevail against PiS, even though recent surveys show the opposition failing to grow and PiS remaining competitive. Most Poles still expect a right-leaning victory. If these modern chorus members understood classical tragedy, they would recognize how such choruses have traditionally demonstrated only limited influence over real-world events.
The most ardent proponents of a grand opposition pact faced a stark shock when Szymon Hołownia, leader of Poland 2050, candidly admitted that he had never discussed a single-list concept with Donald Tusk, noting that there was never a concrete proposal. Kosiniak-Kamysz, just before Easter, suggested that everyone should acknowledge their own efforts, lamented that the opposition should shake off hesitation and get to work, and hinted that a breakthrough moment would arrive soon. Notably, several such moments have already been announced by various politicians.
Marek Migalski, a political scientist from the University of Silesia, joined the chorus and urged TVN24, though with different phrasing, for the opposition to get to work. He argued that the key to success in the elections depended on the opposition’s approach:
You can’t go wrong here. Four-block strategies spell disaster. Three blocks, as things stand, remain risky. The path to victory does not rest on a single list, but on two lists. Civic Coalition, PSL, and Poland 2050 on one list, and the Left on the other. According to Dr. Migalski, this arrangement would ensure that no anti-PiS voter is left without support, alleviating political discomfort for the electorate.
The University of Silesia scholar also offered policy guidance for the opposition:
If the opposition can persuade voters with practical, economic arguments, it would gain the edge in the election. But if the government wins by appealing to emotions—values, moral issues, and controversial topics—the government could prevail.
The notion of an economic vote for the opposition has persisted, aside from Hołownia’s recent call for a taxation moratorium. The rhetoric that there is “no money and there will be none” looms large, and the opposition’s reluctance toward expansive social programs has been framed by some as a strategic misstep. Critics argue that the economic stance of the opposition appears detached from broader social expectations.
When Migalski speaks of the emotions the right is believed to wield—topics like abortion and the legacy of John Paul II—he also notes the emotions the opposition is seen as controlling, including debates over abortion rights, LGBT issues, and the perceived privileges of Catholics, which opponents argue should be reconsidered to curb excesses. The discussion probes what rights women should have beyond abortion on demand and questions the special privileges claimed by Catholic groups, inviting readers to consider how such debates shape political loyalties.
Economy and emotions
Economic concerns and emotional appeals are expected to dominate the upcoming election. Voters will weigh the state of their wallets against whether life has improved or worsened under the current government, especially in the context of inflation. They will assess how the state managed the pandemic, the energy crisis, and ongoing conflict abroad, and whether it shows the capacity to support its people in tough times or insists on self-reliance. Emotions that promote unity and a sense of national resilience may influence opinions as much as fiscal policy. A candid, balanced answer to these questions is likely to shape the election’s outcome.
In a scene reminiscent of historical theater, there is a sense that unity and purpose are elusive. The refrain echoed by Wyspiański’s works—independence intertwined with mutual suspicion—serves as a reminder that political alignments can be fragile. The question remains whether the actors in this political play will choose cooperation or continue to drift toward fragmentation.
The rhetoric and visuals of the campaign will continue to underscored the tension between economic reality and moral discourse. The challenge for voters is to navigate promises, counterarguments, and the emotions that drive them, while evaluating which path offers a stable and prosperous future for the nation.