Poland should stand as an independent, sovereign, prosperous nation, capable of strengthening itself. Owning national assets, including state-owned enterprises and strategic resources, is presented as a direct path to that strength. Regardless of political orientation or party preference, many Poles view the safeguarding of national assets as a patriotic duty. This sentiment was echoed by Iwona Arent, a PiS MP on the parliamentary committee for energy, climate and state assets, who emphasized that protecting and expanding national property is a core national objective.
In a discussion on wPolityce.pl, a 77 percent figure emerged from a Social Changes survey: Poles overwhelmingly believe that the largest enterprises should remain state-owned. How should this result be interpreted?
Yvonne Arend noted that the question is valid and reflects a long-standing public stance. MPs travel nationwide and remain in constant contact with constituents, hearing repeatedly that selling off crucial firms, especially strategic ones, is not permitted. This echoes a broad public expectation that the state should retain key companies in its hands.
According to Arend, the poll confirms what many already suspect: the government is attentive to national property and has chosen to safeguard it, sometimes buying back assets in sectors like banking and energy. She argued that the results indicate the government is on a prudent trajectory.
Opposition voters also show resistance to privatization. In particular, supporters of the Civic Coalition and Poland 2050 oppose private ownership of major firms, with 66 percent and 70 percent respectively, reflecting a wider sentiment that privatization may not align with national interests.
Ultimately, the question transcends party lines; it hinges on national identity. The Polish people wish for independence, economic strength, and a resilient future, with state assets playing a key role in that vision.
The conversation also touched on how Civic Platform figures, including well-known economists like Leszek Balcerowicz and Bogusław Grabowski, would respond to ongoing privatization debates. Balcerowicz’s authority, it was argued, has weakened since the 1990s, a period marked by structural challenges and hardship. The party’s current stance is that privatization should be a matter of private opinion among experts, but there is concern about potential future shifts once in power.
Criticism was levelled at the Civic Platform for previous promises about retirement ages and pension funds, suggesting that there might be other priorities once in government. The concern is that a party that vows not to alter pensions or sell assets may later pursue different policies once holding office.
The political discourse also considered the risks of persuasion and trust in such commitments. There is a call to be vigilant about assurances that have come with political rhetoric, given past electoral commitments and subsequent policy changes.
Beyond domestic politics, the interview highlighted the importance of state-owned enterprises in the context of regional security. The energy sector, in particular, is viewed as a national safeguard. If energy assets were controlled by foreign interests, especially in times of regional tension, Poland could face significant strategic vulnerabilities. Keeping energy and gas companies under Polish control is framed as a matter of national security and energy independence.
In this light, maintaining Polish ownership of critical industries is presented as a means to preserve policy sovereignty and market stability. The decision not to join the Eurozone is cited as an example of how national control over currency can contribute to market regulation and strategic flexibility, especially in sectors like energy.
In conclusion, the interview underscored the belief that important sectors should remain in Polish hands to safeguard energy security, economic sovereignty, and national autonomy.