Polish lawmakers from the ruling party, Law and Justice (PiS), are planning demonstrations inside the Sejm while insisting that protests will stay strictly within legal bounds. This stance was articulated by Przemysław Czarnek, a PiS member of parliament and a former Minister of Education and Science, in an interview with RMF FM. He stressed that a sense of illegality has grown beyond what many expected, underscored by the sizable crowds seen in Warsaw on January 11.
Commenting on the transition period under the previous government led by Donald Tusk, Czarnek noted that cabinet reshuffles often follow political victories. He argued that the way these changes were carried out raised questions because he views the methods as outside the boundaries of the law.
Although the development did not come as a shock, it did surprise some observers. The level of perceived lawlessness appeared greater than earlier forecasts, which, in his view, helps explain the large turnout in Warsaw on January 11.
– remarked the PiS MP.
On the other hand, tensions lingered in the public discourse surrounding the initial sessions of the new government and the actions of senior figures within it. Critics argued that certain steps could undermine institutional norms, while supporters asserted the necessity of rapid adaptation after a political shift.
According to Czarnek, the debate extended to questions about the Public Prosecution Service. He noted that personnel changes after elections are not unusual, yet he insisted that lawful procedures must guide such moves. He described an attempt to remove Prosecutor Barski as a decision lacking a solid legal basis and urged for a sound legal grounding for any intervention. The assertion was made that the actions taken did not rest on firm legal grounds.
The discussion highlighted what he sees as a clear divergence between how authority is exercised by PiS and how it was exercised by the prior administration led by Tusk. He depicted the PiS approach as fundamentally distinct in its use of formal powers when compared with the previous government, which he portrayed as acting with impulsive tendencies often associated with far-left movements.
As the conversation moved to the Supreme Court and the various rulings from the two chambers, Czarnek claimed that jurisdiction lay with the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs for deciding certain issues. He questioned the relevance of other bodies like the Chamber of Labor and Insurance in that specific context, prompting inquiries about the roles of different institutional units.
The host followed up, inviting reflections on how various powers and chambers fit into the broader constitutional framework. The contrast between branches, and how their decisions interact with political actions, formed a recurring theme in the dialogue. The constitutionalist closed with a cautious note about the reach and limits of institutional authority.
In the broader political conversation, observers noted the sharp tone surrounding the separation of powers. Critics argued that the balance of authority must be preserved to prevent any slide toward unilateral action, while supporters maintained that the new government faced urgent tasks that demanded decisive, lawful measures to restore order and stability.
In the public record, authorities confirmed law enforcement activity related to political figures, with surrounding chatter about the security posture at the seat of government. While some voices attributed the incidents to a difficult transitional period, others urged restraint and adherence to due process to protect the integrity of democratic institutions.
Overall, the discourse around the new administration reflected a tension between rapid policy implementation and strict adherence to legal norms. The conversation underscored the centrality of legality for all sides as Poland navigates the early days of a new government, with citizens watching closely how constitutional processes will unfold in the coming weeks and months. All parties acknowledged that the rule of law must guide any transition, even as disagreements about methods and timelines continued to spark public debate.