Jarosław Kaczyński appeared today — December 31, 2023 — with a parliamentary intervention at the TVP headquarters on Powstańców Warszawy Square. The leader of law and justice joined MPs who carry that duty inside the Television Information Bureau building. Speaking to a reporter from wPolityce.pl, the PiS president laid out his assessment of the moment and the challenges facing the public media landscape.
He described the current period as a time of intense struggle. The battle, he said, is not easy in any ordinary sense, yet it remains hard because the opposing side refuses to follow the established rules. The leader pointed to a rejection of law and a disregard for the constitution as the defining behavior of the adversary. He invoked the term rehabilitations, a concept that, in his view, explains why a law may lose its effect when the framework that supports it ceases to work. In his framing, legal norms are at risk when compliance erodes and when the mechanisms meant to enforce them are bypassed or ignored.
The PiS figure described what he sees as a withdrawal from constitutional guarantees. This, he suggested, creates a long-term set of problems that the polity must confront and attempt to resolve. A recurring theme in his commentary highlighted the perception that the constitution has provided insufficient protection in the current climate, making it harder to guard against attempts to undermine the legal order. The message underscored a broader conviction: the nation should defend its right to information because access to reliable media is viewed as essential to steering the country back onto a stable course. The emphasis was not on short-term wins but on restoring a functional information environment that serves the public interest and upholds democratic norms.
In his remarks, the speaker drew a parallel with a line of reasoning attributed to judges from the European Court of Justice in Germany, though the reference was not to Poland specifically. He described their mission as preserving the state, a sentiment he framed as a shared responsibility for all who work in public life. For parliamentarians, senators, and journalists, he argued that the goal is to sustain the Polish state and ensure that the Polish people remain a free, self-determining nation. The link between national sovereignty and independent media emerged as a central thread in his interpretation of current events, suggesting that the health of the information sphere is inseparable from the vitality of the state itself. The idea carried a direct, practical implication: safeguarding media independence is part of protecting the republic’s capacity to govern itself and to reflect the will of its citizens.
The text references an interview that explored tensions around public media and political influence. The discussion touched on the broader question of how governance and information flows intersect in a modern democracy, and it framed media as a critical arena where constitutional coherence and public accountability must be defended. The emphasis remained on the principle that a robust information environment is essential for democratic legitimacy, and that any erosion of this environment undermines the people’s ability to participate in national life with confidence. The discussion also suggested that international institutions and member states share a concern for how media freedom is safeguarded within member states, while acknowledging the specific pressures faced by Poland in the contemporary political climate. The point repeated throughout was clear: the fidelity of the public medium to constitutional norms and to the public interest is a key marker of political resilience and national sovereignty, and it deserves persistent attention from lawmakers and watchdogs alike.
The overall message conveyed emphasizes vigilance in defending informational rights as a cornerstone of Poland’s democratic framework, while recognizing that the media landscape operates within a broader European context. The dialogue reflected a belief that genuine independence for the media is indispensable to national self-government and to the ability of citizens to receive balanced, accurate information. In this sense, the speaker framed media integrity as a shared objective for the state, the courts, and the press. The discussion did not shy away from acknowledging that struggles over media control and constitutional interpretation are longstanding and complex, but it asserted that unity behind a clear commitment to open information channels remains essential for the republic’s future stability and vitality. The discussion relied on the premise that information rights justify steadfast political action and that defending them is a responsibility that falls to the entire public sphere. [source: wPolityce]