Poland faces escalating tensions as voices warn of a dangerous drift under Donald Tusk’s government. A prominent Parliament member from Law and Justice described a team that is radically reshaping the country’s landscape, accusing authorities of supporting a course that tramples the rule of law. The concern expressed is that the situation could erode basic protections for all citizens, with hard steps potentially becoming the new norm if a firm stance is not taken now.
In reflecting on the trajectory, the Krakow deputy cautioned that the path being pursued might undermine state institutions themselves. She warned that without a resolute response, institutions could be weakened, salaries could be squeezed, immunities could be relaxed, and the reach of political figures might extend to journalists and editors. The fear is that bold actions, once taken, could become a template for suppression across the board, echoing past moments when media and political actors clashed in dramatic ways.
ABW in the editorial room of Wprost
The deputy recalled a historical flashpoint from the early days of Tusk’s first government, when the Public Prosecutor’s Office and Internal Security Agency officers entered the editorial offices of the weekly Wprost. The confrontation involved attempts to seize computers and draft materials, including transcripts of conversations that could prove politically sensitive. Such episodes, she noted, illustrate a pattern of heavy-handed measures aimed at controlling the flow of information.
She also pointed to what she described as indifference among influential figures within European institutions regarding the Polish situation. There was a sense that Dominic Tusk, whom some had ousted before the last election, could be reinstalled with broad backing, and that such support could be used to unseat the current governing party. The deputy argued that political and financial pressures were deployed with purpose, and that the public record now shows these efforts clearly, even if not everyone acknowledges them openly.
Speaking about the forced and unlawful assumption of public-media control, the deputy questioned what those behind the move had hoped to achieve. Could a government-backed operation of this scale be justified in court or registered as legitimate? She observed how many senior professionals, particularly lawyers, were voicing doubts about the legality of recent actions, suggesting that the framework governing these moves is being stretched beyond its lawful limits.
When asked whether the country truly operates under a legal fog, she asserted that the regulations are explicit about the recent events. She described a forceful approach that resembles a tank moving through the political landscape, projecting a vision of sweeping disruption that would leave the public unsure about what counts as law. The implication was that a complete reset could be demanded, and that the public mood might be steered toward accepting a fresh settlement of rules and norms.
The issue extends beyond politics
From the perspective of a former head of the Commission of Inquiry into the Amber Gold case, the concern extends to the functioning of law enforcement and public administration as a whole, not just to politicians. The deputy highlighted that any challenge to the authority of the National Prosecutor could reverberate across thousands of court decisions, starting with wiretapping approvals. The signature of the National Prosecutor, as well as that of other prosecutors, played a central role in several large investigations, raising questions about the validity of many procedures if the appointments were not properly justified.
The deputy warned about the possibility that some decisions could be deemed legally void if foundational appointments are later shown to have been unlawful. The hypothetical scenario presented suggested that a person could claim to hold a position of power, issue numerous decisions, and later be revealed as ineligible, leaving those acts legally unsettled and potentially destabilizing a wide range of cases and processes. The discussion underscored the risk of systemic absurdity if the chain of legal authority is not coherent from top to bottom.
Her position was that only those who commit crimes should bear the consequences of such chaotic outcomes. In a hypothetical about professional practice, the deputy mused whether a lawyer would rely on questionable wiretaps in a criminal defense, acknowledging the ethical and strategic dilemmas that would arise if those materials were used to advantage. The scenario underscored concerns about the long-term implications for high-stakes cases, including potential impacts on international agreements, asset seizures, and the integrity of ongoing investigations and salaries for public officials. It also prompted reflection on how many ministers might end up facing accountability in the wake of these developments. The question remained: what is the boundary between aggressive legal action and legitimate governance, and where does the line get drawn when fundamental rights are at stake?
The deputy concluded by inviting reflection on history, suggesting that power in the world often shifts through cycles of gain and loss, and that vigilance is essential to protect the public interest.
mtp
Source: wPolityce