Piotr Duda, the leader of NSZZ Solidarnosc, argues that rulers should wield power in service of the citizens who mandate them through elections, but when questions touch the core of public life, a referendum becomes a rightful instrument for direct citizen input, he stated in an interview with a Polish political portal.
wPolityce.pl: How would you evaluate the new referendum question announced today?
According to Duda, the long struggle behind this issue spans over a dozen years. He emphasizes that he pressed the matter with President Kaczyński and the United Right to ensure such a question would appear in the referendum scheduled for October 15. The initiative represents a culmination of a campaign that began years ago when petition signatures were gathered for a referendum motion. The alliance collected more than 1.5 million signatures in the Sejm and a similar amount at the NSZZ Solidarity office in Warsaw. Duda describes this as a celebration of democracy, contrasting it with what he views as the previous administration’s approach, which he says dismissed the public voice in favor of ruling alone. He notes that the referendum would restore a previous retirement age and reinstate bridging pensions to their proper place in the system.
How does he view the attempts to discourage Poles from participating in the ballots?
He criticizes the reluctance to participate as hypocrisy. To him, a referendum stands as the pinnacle of democracy, with those in power tasked with acting on behalf of citizens who gave their mandate at the ballot box. He argues that opposition to the referendum equates to opposition to democracy and the constitution, accusing some opponents of denying democratic principles while loudly invoking them in public spaces. The referendum, in his view, is a genuine expression of democratic quality and civic engagement.
Does he expect a future Civic Platform government to recognize the referendum’s result?
He believes the outcome should bind the government, though he acknowledges possible pressure or maneuvering by Brussels and specific European actors. He recalls a past exchange with Martin Schulz, then president of the European Parliament, in which Schulz reportedly argued that the European Parliament should not interfere in a sovereign country’s internal affairs. He treats such statements as revealing a standard that seems to favor Brussels’ influence over national decisions. Duda asserts that Solidarity is prepared to persist and that the measures already secured, including retirement age adjustments and bridging pensions, empower the Polish people to vote with confidence. He argues that politicians have no moral right to persuade Poles against voting in the referendum.
Is another question about social issues on the horizon for a future referendum?
He predicts a question about the relocation of migrants, alongside a crucial question regarding the sale of state-owned enterprises. He notes the historical moment when Jan Olszewski’s government fell over privatization attempts, and he frames privatization along with retirement age as fundamental concerns for Polish workers. He suggests that Solidarity and the United Right are offering Poles a meaningful choice, and that those who fail to seize it will have to answer to themselves.
Would a rise in retirement age be considered if circumstances necessitate it?
On the occasion of the agreement signing, discussions highlighted a potential path toward revised pension arrangements, while opponents labeled as Social Democrats and some former ruling groups criticized pensions as insufficient. He counters that pension concerns stem from past contracts and mismanagement where social security contributions were not paid or were misused, and that the pension system must be funded with a solid base. He expresses skepticism toward celebrities who failed to contribute yet now complain about pensions, arguing that tax policy plays a role but is not the sole factor. There is no need to raise the retirement age if issues related to job placement and bridging pensions are resolved and contributions are properly paid. He advocates for giving people real choices about when to retire and how to manage their working lives, so long as the system remains financially stable and fair.
Earlier remarks highlighted the broader aim: a referendum that captures the voice of working people and safeguards their future in the labor market and pension framework. Acknowledging that life in the labor market can stretch careers, he contends that incentives for longer work lives must be balanced with fair pay, secure social protections, and a credible path toward retirement that respects individuals’ health and stamina. The point remains clear: the opportunity to vote is a direct instrument of democracy, and it should be used in a way that reflects sustainable social welfare and national sovereignty.
Policy discussions around pensions and privatization have long shaped the political landscape, and the referendum is positioned as a crucial moment for Polish workers to express their preferences about how the economy is managed and how social protection is funded. The overarching message from the spokesperson is that citizens should seize the opportunity to participate in the democratic process, to shape public policy in a way that aligns with their needs, and to hold elected representatives accountable through the ballot box.
Tomasz Karpowicz provided comments on the matter.