The Warsaw court recorded a party in the register under the name Tak! For Poland. This group is described as an organization formed by impartial local governments, frequently labeled by critics as a PiS equivalent or an appetite for influence. In an interview with RMF FM, Jacek Karnowski, the president of Sopot, stated that the court’s ruling, which remains non-final, would be met with protest from those involved.
“It’s typical nonsense.”
The dispute centers on the naming of a political party between the self-governing bodies not aligned with any party and the opposition movement led by the presidents of Poland’s largest cities. The full designation of the rival party is Ruch Samorządowy Yes! For Poland. In the meantime, impartial local governments have simply registered a party bearing the name Yes! For Poland.
Observers describe the situation as an attempt to imitate a real party’s identity. This concern was voiced by Jacek Karnowski, who leads the movement in Sopot and also chairs the Self-Government Movement, in an interview with RMF FM.
Wadim Tyszkiewicz, a senator from KO and a former president of Nowa Sól, offered a sharp assessment of the action by the Nonpartisans, calling it cynical and treacherous—a move that, in his view, strengthens PiS rather than the opposition.
“I used it because I could”
It later emerged that the name Ja! For Poland did not receive any legal protection. This revelation prompted questions about the practical consequences of naming rights when no formal safeguard exists.
A Lower Silesian official, Bartłomiej Kubicz, who serves as a member of the nonpartisan local government, explained to RMF FM that he was the one who registered the party in court. He noted that No Name For Poland had no protective status, so he proceeded with the registration because the option was legally available.
“Yes!” was not protected for Poland, he stated, and the decision to act came from the belief that the move was within permissible bounds.
What is the self-government movement afraid of?
The registration of a new political party, though not yet final in court, prompted questions about potential repercussions for the opposition-led self-government movement. Representatives from the impartial local governments argue that the party led by the opposition has little chance of crossing the electoral threshold, yet they believe the resulting votes could inadvertently help Law and Justice.
Opposition politicians within the Local Government Movement contend that the new party is intended to confuse voters and may destabilize the coalition that opposes the government in the Senate.
Some commentators have asked whether the name could have simply stayed as a label rather than becoming the basis for a formal party structure. In this view, the question centers on whether the appearance of identity copying could mislead voters and complicate public perception of the political landscape.
Observers note that the episode highlights ongoing tensions between self-governing authorities and national party platforms, especially as municipal leaders weigh strategic choices ahead of elections. The outcome of the court’s decision will influence how such naming disputes are handled and whether safeguards exist to prevent confusion or misrepresentation among voters.
Cited sources from wPolityce and RMF FM provide context for the evolving legal and political dialogue surrounding this case. [citation: wPolityce] [citation: RMF FM]