Opposition figures labeled themselves as “total,” a choice that drew sharp criticism from veteran anti-communist activist Gabriel Janowski, who also served as agriculture minister in the governments led by Jan Olszewski and Hanna Suchocka. He told wPolityce.pl that the move was utterly unfounded and perplexing.
The topic of this year’s Polska Wielki Projekt congress centered on sovereignty, prompting wPolityce.pl to ask: what is the current state of sovereignty for the Polish state?
Janowski described sovereignty as a foundational question with a troubling answer. In his view, Poland has not been granted genuine sovereignty. He went on to explain that sovereignty rests on four key criteria. First, the proper economic development of the state. He observed that Poland has effectively lost significant industry, major corporations, and a robust trade network. The strength derived from these sectors has been undermined, and he expressed strong frustration about the situation.
The second criterion concerns military security. He noted that national defense is increasingly recognized as vital, yet some recent arms purchases appeared impulsive rather than strategically planned. Despite this, he acknowledged that Polish armament has drawn international attention, with some foreign outlets, including the British press, referring to Poland as an “emerging military force.” He asked whether this depiction could be accurate and suggested that momentum in defense spending has grown, even if the strategic thinking behind it has not kept pace.
According to Janowski, the third criterion shaping a state’s subjectivity is national cohesion. He was blunt about Poland’s current fracture, suggesting that the country has seldom been as divided as it is now. He compared the situation to historical splits that occurred before the partitions, when opposing factions weakened the state. Today, he argued, deep disagreements make it difficult for citizens to even share a simple family meal, reflecting a profound rift in national unity.
He then explored the potential consequences of such polarization. In his view, the division diverts attention from necessary actions at a time when the world continues to evolve rapidly. A society that is fragmented and unaware of contemporary challenges risks being unable to respond effectively, a reality he calls a tragedy for the nation.
The fourth criterion concerns the ability to influence the wider world through culture, science, and related fields. Here too, Janowski warned, Poland is not keeping pace with modern demands. The state, he argued, needs a decisive repair. He criticized the dominant political forces for focusing on confrontation rather than renewal, insisting that the opposition is sometimes treated as an enemy rather than a partner in governance. He attributed much of this to government leadership, which holds significant responsibility in shaping the national debate.
When the discussion turned to whether the opposition is intentionally portraying itself as an adversary by intensifying the rhetoric, the response was candid. While the opposition may indeed sharpen its language, those in power bear greater responsibility due to the broader set of tools and opportunities available to them. Still, this does not excuse the opposition’s labeling of the government’s actions as hostile. The surrounding dynamic, in his view, requires a more constructive approach. He argued that systemic laws should be adopted with broad consensus, and that essential reforms require a broad, cooperative push rather than unilateral moves. At a critical juncture, he warned that Poland could either attain full sovereignty or risk alienating its citizens who think in terms of Polish identity and national interests.
In closing the conversation, the interlocutor emphasized the need for thoughtful, inclusive debate that advances Poland’s sovereignty while respecting diverse viewpoints. The exchange underscored a shared concern about national trajectory and the health of Poland’s democratic process.