In the aftermath of a difficult chapter in Polish history, debates over Volhynia and the actions of Ukrainian nationalists resurface with a sense of narrative ambiguity in public life. The left recalls public gestures by Aleksander Kwaśniewski alongside Leonid Kuchma in 2003 to remind voters of earlier moments, while liberal voices acknowledge that history still carries weight. The ruling party faces scrutiny for its stance on Ukraine, and fringe groups spread misinformation that exaggerates certain statements to advance broader political goals.
There is a temptation to lament the actions of one group and declare moral superiority, a familiar national reflex that paints the audience as eternally wronged. Yet the author offers two plausible internal explanations for the slow pace of historical policy, rooted in domestic dynamics rather than purely external pressures from abroad.
Lack of coordination
The first reason is that Polish historical policy lacks cohesion. A long-standing slogan about narrative security sits on a shelf as a reminder of unrealized ambitions. The current excavations in Volhynia involve several actors, including the Institute of National Remembrance, a university entity, a foundation, and a ministry. Each circle operates with different status in Ukraine, pursues distinct approaches, and communicates with the public in unique ways.
The fragmentation extends to many other historical topics. The Institute of National Remembrance has sent mixed signals over the years regarding the Cursed Soldiers. One historian asserted a particular figure committed a war crime, while another scholar later suggested the opposite. Debates also surface within the Polish Academy of Sciences, with some research implying claims that Jews perceived danger in escaping from camps due to Polish actions. In one area there is a lack of coordination, in another area even conflicting narratives within institutions and sometimes within a single institution. Predicting major breakthroughs seems uncertain.
Old methods
The second reason for the slow pace of historical policy is the outdated way ideas are communicated and how public figures are perceived. The approach to commemorations often becomes routine, especially around anniversaries, with officials ready to cut ribbons and deliver speeches that may not translate into actual engagement. Recent discussions about open-air exhibitions with the Palace and the Government touched on effectiveness and audience reach. The reaction from officials suggested that visibility in crowded spaces would drive attention, yet there is a sense that data on impact remains scarce. The aim should be more than ceremonial displays and placards; it should be meaningful public dialogue that informs everyday life.
It would be a mistake to limit the problem to a single political environment. Institutions tied to various political currents both benefit from open-air exhibitions, public talks, and ceremonial gestures. The satisfaction derived from these actions can become a feed of its own, offering a sense of progress that may not reflect real change on the ground.
Research
There is a need to recognize that messaging may lag behind reality. The country may be decades behind in consistently pushing a clear historical narrative. A classic challenge is the public’s reluctance to accept information that contradicts existing beliefs. People often resist new knowledge that requires effort to understand. Emotions, the influence of figures of authority, and the topic’s presence in popular culture can be more influential than formal campaigns. Historical themes have found surprising life in media formats, yet the impact of such efforts remains uneven and inconsistent. A well-known wartime example shows how media once moved public sentiment and resources, hinting at the potential for similar modern tactics when applied thoughtfully to historical education.
Social weakness
There is no simple scapegoat for the superficial state of historical policy. Directors may struggle to create compelling historical films, journalists may find it easier to provoke scandal than to convey complex context, and educational institutions may fail to engage students with the past. Public monuments sometimes capture attention, but they do not always provoke deep reflection. The hope is that a comprehensive approach could unite multiple channels of public education into a more powerful whole. The idea is for a broad coalition of state bodies, research institutes, cultural organizations, and civil society to work in concert toward a single, credible historical broadcast that resonates with a diverse audience.
If all these instruments of the state and civil society could collaborate in one historic broadcasting effort, it would unleash a remarkable capability. The question remains: what is needed to turn such a coordinated effort into reality?
READ ALSO: PRESIDENT OF THE IPN ON THE COMPUTER GAME THE GAME OF THE CODE
THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE FLORIST OR HOW WE WASTE THE PARTIES
ALSO WATCH THE PROGRAM ABOUT THE PROVOCATION OF THE UKRAINIAN IPN:
Note: This synthesis reflects ongoing discussion in Polish public discourse and is attributed to contemporary reporting on related debates and policy discussions.