In an interview with wPolityce.pl, PiS MP Adam Andruszkiewicz pointed to passages attributed to Klaus Bachmann, noting that the ideas are read by both Mr. Tusk and Mr. Hołownia and then put into action. The discussion centers on Bachmann’s controversial text that appeared on Gazeta Wyborcza’s website, where the German-born publicist urges the new Polish authorities to expand what he describes as illegal measures by dissolving the Constitutional Court and the National Council for the Judiciary through a formal resolution. He dismisses his stance as a calculated, somewhat provocative tactic, yet insists it is necessary for progress.
Related discussion is titled: Scandal! Bachmann in GW urges Tusk’s coalition toward greater lawlessness. The piece is described as a disappointment, yet effective in its impact [source: wPolityce].
“Foreign Governments”
Adam Andruszkiewicz from Law and Justice offered his take on Bachmann’s proposals, framing them as evidence of a larger pattern. He argued that the warnings from PiS about Tusk leading Poland toward a de facto influence from foreign powers have, in his view, begun to materialize. According to him, the present government serves as an extension of foreign policy into Polish state affairs, with Mr. Tusk functioning as a conduit for the interests of Berlin or Brussels. He described him as a representative whose actions align with external expectations rather than national priorities.
Andruszkiewicz contended that Bachmann’s text publicly signals Berlin’s preferences for the current Warsaw administration and expresses explicit support for those aims. He maintained that such public signals cannot be ignored and that Bachmann’s commentary translates into a direct expectation from international partners about Poland’s governance.
Threats from a publicist
In Bachmann’s article, there is a warning that if the PiS leadership resists the new government, consequences could be harsher than those faced by certain officials in the past. Andruszkiewicz noted that such statements warrant legal scrutiny given their threatening tone toward politicians who hold elected mandates in Poland. He suggested that Bachmann’s remarks transcend ordinary journalistic discourse and amount to potential criminal threats, prompting calls for accountability against the publicist.
According to Andruszkiewicz, this situation also highlights a perceived imbalance in how similar rhetoric is treated when directed at Germans in German media. He pointed to the disparity as a reflection of broader tensions about freedom of speech and the expectations placed on political actors in Poland versus those in other countries.
The conversation touched on historical memory, with the former Polish president cited as having commented on Poland’s opportunity to remain silent in the face of pressure from Western elites. The speaker suggested that this perspective reveals a Western approach to Poland, one that views the country as subordinate in terms of influence and decision-making. He emphasized that such a stance can empower journalists to critique the Polish government’s actions and advocate for the imprisonment of Polish politicians, revealing a worrying double standard in international discourse.
Bachmann’s rhetoric, according to the PiS member, extended beyond mere commentary and appeared to authorize aggressive measures against the government. He asserted that Tusk’s team and the broader political circle had, in his view, implemented the publicist’s blueprint with precision. He argued that the government has not built a police state; rather, Bachmann’s counsel aligns with actions that, in practice, echo the publicist’s warnings, as if read aloud by Tusk and Hołownia and then translated into policy over time.
Andruszkiewicz underscored that there has been no official creation of a police state in Poland, yet he maintained that Bachmann’s guidance has seemingly found its way into government conduct. The dialogue suggested that the current administration has begun to pursue policies that, in his assessment, mirror Bachmann’s warned path. He closed with the observation that Bachmann’s texts have circulated among high-level figures, hinting at a broader influence on government thinking and actions.
Further reflections were offered on the broader media landscape and the treatment of foreign voices within Poland. The discussion also referenced additional reporting about Bachmann’s work and responses from political figures, highlighting ongoing debates about the role of foreign commentary in shaping domestic policy. The tone throughout remained cautious, with a call for scrutiny of public statements that cross into political threats and the rule of law in a democracy.
The conversation concluded with the acknowledgment that Bachmann’s public statements appear to resonate with certain strands of political discourse in Poland, while others remain skeptical about the implications for national sovereignty and democratic norms. The overall takeaway suggested that the matter is far from settled and that observers continue to watch closely how political actors interpret and respond to external pressures and internal critiques.