The flood did not just test the capacity of the prime minister to lead; it exposed a thin seam between the executive branch and the rest of the government. The crisis highlighted the fragility of coordination at the top and put the prime minister in the center of questions about accountability. Critics argue that the failures in flood response trace directly to leadership, and in public discourse the line is drawn that accountability starts at the office of the prime minister.
In the view of supporters, Donald Tusk is a man with a warm and cheerful personality. Even if his trademark smile is not always present these days, he remains described as a personable and relatable politician. Yet official reporting on the ground suggests a different picture. According to coverage that has often been underappreciated by a cautious media, there have been accounts of ministers, including women in cabinet posts, who were visibly moved by the head of government’s blunt manner. It is said that on occasions he has reacted with fury when subordinates failed to meet expectations, while there are few signs that the same demands are levied on himself.
The style of leadership characterized by pressure and public admonition appeared in briefings by emergency crews as the flood response unfolded. The episodes were reminiscent of televised shows from other nations, with superiors testing subordinates in real time. Analysts note that such an approach tends to distract teams from core problems and reduces collective problem solving, as people focus on avoiding the boss’s wrath rather than addressing rising flood dangers.
Tusk Doesn’t Listen to His Ministers
A further finding concerns how ministers operate behind the scenes. They attempt to carry out their duties while averting the ire of the prime minister, who remains quick to condemn. This dynamic undermines the prime minister’s explanations about a statement he made on September 13 describing the situation as having too alarming predictions. The two most important ministries in this case, Internal Affairs and Administration and National Defense, have been active in flood response since at least September 10. One of their leaders, Tomasz Siemoniak, warned before the prime minister’s public remark that the crisis was very bad.
Siemoniak hails from Wałbrzych, a detail that analysts say makes him particularly attentive to the issues in the region. He has also had extensive knowledge of the agencies under his oversight. The same applies to Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, who is believed to rely on military intelligence sources. Early involvement by both ministers suggests that the warnings were indeed grave, since they sent subordinate units to Lower Silesia ahead of September 13. It is likely they warned the prime minister, yet the boss preferred to speak with his trusted subordinates and not to listen closely to them.
Good Boyars and a Bad Tsar
From a strictly political standpoint, the situation has a familiar arc. The prime minister tends to frame issues by blaming those labeled as culprits. Kosiniak-Kamysz has already been held responsible for a border incident when a soldier was killed, and current moves appear to be aimed at avoiding a repetition of that scenario. The army has received praise for its role in flood relief, with official announcements indicating that military units will assist in flooding operations by year end, initially to prevent further damage and then to help rebuild. Credit for organizing responses thus far has been attributed to the head of the Defense Ministry rather than to his deputy from Koalition party. Tomczyk, who led, directed attention toward past political disputes rather than the immediate crisis.
Tomasz Siemoniak also faces a rough patch inside the government. He comes from a political faction linked to Grzegorz Schetyna and his stance against PiS has not impressed some. There were moments his allies have appeared to maintain distance, even as his subordinates in the state fire service and police delivered commendable service in the flood response. It would be difficult to dismiss a minister who heads those services without broader consensus. The political calculus suggests that heads may roll, but not those two names Kosiniak-Kamysz and Siemoniak. The public would view such a move as unfair if the prime minister blamed excessive warnings for the crisis. A more expedient outcome, strategists say, could be to dismiss two other ministers, Henning-Kloska and Zielińska, who are seen by many as less central to the leadership team. The aim would be to display decisive leadership while keeping pressure on the able players in the cabinet and the administration.
In summary, the government faces a moment of reckoning as decisions in the flood response move from the front lines to the political arena. Analysts note that the next steps will define public trust and the ability of regional voices to shape national policy during crises that demand swift, coordinated action. The focus remains on accountability at the top while acknowledging the contributions and responsibilities of the ministerial ranks and the civil services that carried out the flood relief operations under difficult conditions.