The opening and closing pages of Michnik’s magazine and other opposition outlets stand in stark contrast. Headlines shout about new failures of PiS, looming ends of PiS, and supposedly decisive polls. Yet beneath the surface, a sense persists that something fundamental went awry. The writer observes that a supposed research breakthrough never materialized.
The alliance among opposition groups proved, for now, unachievable. A shared minimum program proved, at least temporarily, unrealistic. Even the planned joint march on Sunday, June 4, appeared too ambitious for the diverse coalition of parties seeking to present a united front.
The editor worries about what troubles readers most: the number of votes the opposition can realistically count on does not yet indicate a level strong enough to secure a democratic majority in the Sejm after the elections.
What happened, as the author recently noted, is that the opposition has appeared listless, overblown in rhetoric, and perhaps overwhelmed by a sense of fatigue, like a student before an exam. In such moments, a miracle is hoped for, but the belief seems misplaced because many among them appear convinced that success hinges on distant certainties rather than practical work.
Thus, rational explanations are needed. Grzegorz Sroczynski offered a provocative thesis in a well-known essay, arguing that the political stalemate stems from predictability, superficiality, and a lack of seriousness. The author finds some truth in the critique of seriousness. The discussions include comments from an intellectual weary of politics, noting that such criticisms are common in Polish journalism—every year, some voice disappointment at the futility of the political game. It is a free society, after all.
Yet when political freedom of choice is taken into account, Sroczynski’s argument falls short. The opposition is not too predictable or dull. On the contrary, it is volatile, unstable, and full of competing ideas, with new voices and plans emerging weekly. To voters, this can resemble a whirlwind of impulses rather than a coherent program fit for hard times.
There is a call to read more about reactions to Sroczynski’s text, including sharp pushback from opponents who accuse the piece of aiming to keep the opposition on the outside looking in rather than empowering it to govern.
It is not that the opposition lacks desire to win. Ambition exists, but the necessary groundwork often does not. Without basic preparation, electoral success in a mature democracy remains elusive.
What some have labeled as political shamanism has taken hold. The current landscape is marked by cheap psychologizing, a trend observed by writers in the Michnik circle. The discussion turns to Agnieszka Kublik, who questions why PiS voters seem impervious to criticism and why alleged scandals are amplified into larger narratives, while the notion of accountability sometimes fades.
Disregarding the rhetoric and the sensationalism surrounding alleged PiS scandals, the public senses that such stories fail to resonate. The tendency to amplify dramatic episodes without solid evidence erodes trust. Likewise, the critique of political alliances and controversial public stances—such as attacks on public figures—often reflects a tendency toward sensationalism rather than constructive policy debate.
What remains intriguing is Kublik’s explanation for the strong support base of Prime Minister Kaczyński, anchored in the idea of collective narcissism. This concept suggests that certain political actors draw confidence from a shared memory of perceived martyrdom, reacting with defensiveness to criticism and seeking validation from leadership. The argument looks at how social and economic policy shifts since 2015 have been framed in this light, suggesting that claims about redistributing wealth or boosting investment may be overstated while broader social dynamics are emphasized instead.
In this portrayal, large-scale transfers, wage increases, or significant investments are described as lacking in reality and visible impact. Critics argue that the focus has shifted toward philosophical debates about guilt and inferiority rather than tangible policy outcomes, while the impression of a broader shift in governance remains contested.
Such journalism can appeal to emotions within a political culture that thrives on narrative. It may satisfy certain audiences but falls short of providing a solid political program capable of guiding a nation through difficult times. The question remains whether the authors’ frustration signals a quick burnout or something more systemic in the way public discourse is conducted.
There is also a sensational moment in the same issue featuring a provocative line about Kaczynski, prompting further unease about how public conversations are framed and disseminated. The reactions to this moment underscore the unsettled nature of the current media environment and the uneasy sense that important discussions may be overshadowed by provocative headlines.
In sum, the discourse exhibits tension between ambitious polemics and the practical demands of governance. The political climate in Poland continues to be shaped by competing narratives, with both opposition and government voices striving to define the terms of debate, while voters watch, assess, and decide. This snapshot invites readers to consider how media narratives influence judgment and how parties might move from rhetoric to responsible policy in the years ahead.