An independent court, an independent prosecutor’s office, and independent public television — these are the goals the head of the Civic Platform outlined in Kartuzy, in the Pomeranian Voivodeship. He argued that if someone steals from a citizen, that act should be seen and punished, underscoring a desire for stronger checks and accountability within the state apparatus.
During a meeting with local residents, questions arose about what would happen after a potential electoral victory to ensure that vacancies would not be filled by partisan supporters or loyalists. The leader’s response emphasized a commitment to safeguarding institutional independence and the rule of law, regardless of who wins power in the next election cycle.
In his remarks, he recalled how he first came to office and the decisions made at that time. He also referenced conversations with journalists, noting that the public interest hinges on maintaining institutional integrity rather than allowing power to concentrate in the hands of any one party.
I remind listeners of a past moment when the head of a key anti-corruption body remained appointed by the party that originally established it, illustrating a principle: new rulers should not automatically commandeer every institution. The aim is to prevent the use of power to shield allies from accountability and to ensure that public money is not directed toward private benefit.
He described this stance as a reminder that independent bodies exist to monitor authorities and prevent overreach, even if it means challenging powerful figures. The message was clear: the state’s institutions must watch over those in power to maintain fairness and transparency.
He further argued that when independent institutions are absent, power can threaten or punish citizens arbitrarily. The present situation, he suggested, shows why these safeguards are essential for a healthy democracy.
The leader of the Civic Platform then addressed a question from the audience with a direct commitment: the goal is not merely to claim that wrongdoing will be stopped personally, but to restore an independent court, an independent prosecutor’s office, and independent public television. The idea is that if wrongdoing occurs, it should be visible and punished accordingly.
TVP under scrutiny and a defense of editorial independence
Discussing public television, the speaker asserted that during his time as prime minister, critical coverage of the government by public media was stronger than before. He argued that firing journalists based on political alignment never crossed his mind, framing public television as a watchdog that should scrutinize authorities without serving partisan interests.
The refrain was that public media should protect the integrity of the political process rather than shield the ruling party from criticism. The emphasis, as stated, was on the role of public broadcasting in holding power to account rather than softening critical voices.
He noted that public media often faced relentless scrutiny, but the central idea remained: this is the channel through which the public can assess governance and ensure accountability. The point being made was about the purpose of such media in a democracy and the importance of maintaining its independence.
He argued that the creation of independent bodies is essential to ensure that authorities are observed rather than left unchecked, and that this surveillance helps protect ordinary citizens from abuses of power.
The discussion also touched on broader questions of how independence in institutions can influence how policies are implemented and how accountability shapes the relationship between the state and the people. The advocate maintained that citizens deserve a system where power is examined by independent institutions rather than wielded unchecked.
Turning to the broader political program, the speaker emphasized the need for a conservative frame that supports family and social policy without compromising democratic norms. He argued that assistance for families should go beyond cash transfers and slogans, aiming to create an environment where parents feel supported and not abandoned by the state.
During the event in the Kashubian region, the discussion touched on how tradition and faith inform public life. The speaker asserted that a respectful approach to history and cultural norms should coexist with policies that help families flourish. He underscored the importance of ensuring that women’s rights are protected while avoiding precipitous social experiments. The central claim was that a stable state would provide reliable support for mothers who choose to have children, including those with special needs, and would respect the dignity of every family member.
In recounting the recent political rhetoric, the speaker likened the tone of some slogans to a spring hive where drones may be removed in autumn, using a metaphor to convey a belief in orderly, lawful governance rather than punitive, fear-based tactics. The overall message suggested that voters should consider which leadership will uphold democratic norms and protect public institutions rather than undermine them for short-term gain.
Ultimately, the discourse painted a portrait of a leader who believes that voters deserve clear, accountable governance and a political system where independence of key institutions remains a cornerstone of democracy. It reflects a call for structural safeguards that ensure power serves the public, not private interests, and that the state earns trust by upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens from arbitrary action.
gAH