Marshal Szymon Hołownia’s parliamentary remarks about Gene Z. and Jay-Z stirred strong reactions, including online mockery after a recent Polish leader’s 2050 declaration.
Marshal’s remarks about Gen Z and Jay-Z
The dialogue began during the third reading of a draft amendment to Sunday trading regulations. Adam Gomoła, Poland 2050’s youngest MP, reported on the committee’s work in the field of law and highlighted issues affecting students.
As both rapporteur and the sole Gen Z member in attendance, Gomoła drew attention to student concerns. According to a 2016 Student’s Portfolio report prepared by the Polish Banking Association, after the PiS government took office, the average monthly cost of living for a student stood at 1.5 thousand PLN. The comment prompted reactions from other MPs, and Hołownia urged the speaker to stay focused on the bill under discussion.
When his party colleague resumed, Hołownia interrupted again and remarked: Not Jay-Z, but Gen Z, Mr. Kaleta. These are two distinct phenomena.
READ ALSO: The “Hołownia Show” in the Sejm continues. The Marshal is attempting to educate: not Jay-Z, but Gen Z, Mr. Yes, these are two different phenomena. VIDEO
Editor Schwertner’s reaction
The discussion surrounding Gen Z and Jay-Z appeared to elicit mixed feelings, with some followers praising Hołownia’s approach and others critiquing the exchange. Janusz Schwertner’s commentary supported the political narrative surrounding Hołownia’s remarks.
“Not Jay-Z, Mr. Kaleta, but Gen-Z,” Hołownia stated, a phrase that quickly circulated in political commentary.
The conversation extended to social media, where commentators weighed in on whether the statements reflected a serious policy stance or a moment of rhetorical flair.
You went with this God
As the discussion progressed, some supporters framed Hołownia’s comments as a reflection of broader beliefs, while critics questioned the seriousness and relevance of religious metaphors in parliamentary debate.
The public response included a mix of admiration and skepticism, with many debating the line between ideology and policy in the Sejm sessions.
There were voices noting that the exchange, though provocative, was part of a larger term with ongoing developments. Observers predicted further discourse on Gen Z’s role in politics and how leaders address youth perspectives in future sessions.
During the third session and beyond, expectations for subsequent discussions remained high. Analysts suggested that the term could feature more debates on youth representation and economic policy affecting students, alongside broader national and international considerations.
Questions about foreign policy, economic priorities, and the role of contemporary media in political life continued to surface as the term unfolded. Observers called for careful attention to the substance of policy proposals while acknowledging the cultural and rhetorical dimensions of parliamentary discourse.
As the term progressed, the emphasis remained on how lawmakers engage with Gen Z concerns and how public figures communicate ideas in a way that resonates with younger voters, while maintaining parliamentary decorum and substantive debate.
The public conversation around these events illustrated a broader interest in how political leaders connect with youth, how they frame policy issues, and how social media amplifies parliamentary moments into lasting narratives for the electorate.