“Trying to gain support by instilling fear is not only short-sighted and ineffective, but above all unfair to those who take politicians’ words seriously,” argues a columnist in Gazeta Wyborcza. The piece questions whether editorial colleagues who rely on fear—speaking of a coalition between PiS and the Confederation, or Polexit, or claims that “Russia is already here”—recognize how many Ukrainian refugees are already in the country, a number well over a million.
“People really remember what you say to them and learn from it.”
The scene seemed set for a triumphant moment. It appeared the right-wing government showed such weakness that the opposition seemed poised for a fast victory. Yet today the mood among opposition ranks is subdued. What changed?
The columnist recalls a parable about a shepherd boy shouting “Wolves!” repeatedly. The villagers rushed to help at first, but fatigue set in, and when the wolves finally appeared, help was unlikely. This pattern repeats in the opposition, which fails to translate its words into reality, eroding public credibility with every unkept promise.
Radomski notes how the opposition’s credibility crumbles whenever rhetoric does not match policy outcomes.
How was the opposition threatened?
Within what he calls the “opposition fears in Lachy,” the author cites cries since 2015 that social programs introduced by the United Right will wreck the state budget. He argues these warnings were economically irrational from the start, even to those with basic economic knowledge.
What would represent economic collapse for the average citizen would be far less palpable than the nightmarish scenarios proposed by opposition politicians.
– Jan Radomski asserts.
Then comes the December 2016 parliamentary crisis. It began with a controversial plan to limit journalists in parliament and ended with a budget vote in the Column Hall, a scene that the liberal opposition deemed invalid. The publicist recalls how the opposition framed the episode as a threat to legality and everyday funding, including salaries.
He calls this a pivotal moment for the opposition, a test of its scenarios. Yet PiS won the 2019 parliamentary election, securing a second term for the United Right government.
Radomski also discusses reforms of the judiciary and proposals to dissolve lower secondary schools, both of which failed to materialize as feared. Yet the ideas themselves were not endorsable; the critique served as ammunition against hysteria that proved counterproductive.
“That hysteria backfires,” he contends.
Tusk’s fears
The piece notes that in the fall, Donald Tusk tried to scare Poles with images of millions facing winter, darkness, and cold, suggesting that PiS would force people to buy bricks and coal painted black.
Spring followed, and energy conditions improved. The columnist notes surprise that a seasoned politician like Tusk could fall into the trap so easily, failing to anticipate that the government would not neglect energy security in the run-up to elections. It became clear that overstating coal shortages only weakens credibility on other points as well.
– He highlights the risk of losing trust on one issue spreading to others.
Trying to gain support by instilling fear is not only shortsighted and ineffective, but above all it alienates voters who take statements from politicians seriously.
While describing the PiS government as broadly incompetent in many areas, the journalist stresses the need for factual critique and a clearer alternative narrative instead of endless sensationalism about dire outcomes should Jarosław Kaczyński win again.
“It’s not worth rushing to the rescue when the opposition shouts ‘Wolves!’”
The publicist notes that polls naturally show weak support for the liberal opposition. The opposition, however, does not stop there. It casts inflation as an ongoing crisis at every turn, and the forecast is that as inflation eases—likely before autumn elections—the dramatic rhetoric will rebound against the opposition rather than aid it.
The article emphasizes that the fear strategy has begun to wane in public perception and that new narratives are needed to sustain political debate.
Finally, Radomski discusses the fear surrounding Polexit raised by Donald Tusk, noting comments that the ruling party could push Poland out of the European Union. The author argues that even if the right wins again, Poland will remain in the EU, and the fear-driven rhetoric may be exposed as political theater that fails to rescue the opposition from scrutiny.
The piece concludes by underscoring the electorate’s fatigue with repeated “bogeys,” suggesting that the Civic Coalition and its leader faced with this pattern must explain policies more clearly rather than rely on fear-based messaging.