The Civic Coalition in Piotrków Trybunalski faced sharp accusations as Patryk Jaki, a United Right member of the European Parliament, criticized Bogusław Wołoszański, portraying the former journalist as a controversial figure whose past has resurfaced. Jaki argued that Wołoszański was not just a Soviet-era collaborator but someone who publicly denounced a gay person and stigmatized a businessman on account of Jewish heritage. In Piotrków Trybunalski, Wołoszański was named to the Civic Coalition’s list for the district, a point Jaki highlighted as emblematic of the coalition’s alleged ties to problematic legacies. The speaker labeled the situation as evidence that political opponents are shielding individuals with a tainted history, and he suggested a broader pattern in which the opposition aligns with Moscow’s influence and anti-Semitic rhetoric rather than defending democratic values.
Jaki released a recording on Twitter, adding the hashtag DrużynaTusk to emphasize his stance against what he described as a pro-Tusk, pro-Soviet network. According to his account, the Coalition’s candidate in Piotrków Trybunalski carried a history of making controversial statements about gender and ethnicity, which he asserted should be treated as disqualifying for public office. The claim, he insisted, points to a broader willingness to overlook or excuse past actions that he characterized as hostile to national unity and to Poland’s post-war political evolution.
The argument extended to questions about what information the individual may have shared with security services. Archives held by the Institute of National Remembrance reportedly include reports indicating that Wołoszański described a British journalist in Poland as homosexual and alleged that a British businessman he met at the PRL embassy was Jewish by descent. Jaki claimed that such disclosures were connected to financial rewards and privileges, painting the figure as someone who benefited from this entanglement with state authorities.
In parallel, Jaki criticized the then-prime minister for signals about defending the secret police and restoring their pension rights. He argued that certain former security personnel served Moscow and still received generous pensions while others who opposed them faced significant hardship. In his view, this laid bare a political alliance with those who aided the Soviet apparatus rather than with ordinary Poles who had fought for independence and democracy. He framed the debate as a choice between two national narratives: the Home Army and a different alignment he described as Urbana’s Poles. The media frenzy around these claims, according to Jaki, reflects a persistent tension in Polish public life about memory, loyalty, and the rightful handling of sensitive archival material.
The United Right representative concluded by urging voters to consider where their loyalties lie. He posed a direct question to the audience: who represents the true Polish story—the veterans who stood against occupation or others who, in his view, would rather defend a legacy of collaboration. This closing remark was meant to mobilize supporters by tying current political choices to historical memory and national identity.
For context, the public discourse surrounding Wołoszański has featured multiple interviews and opinion pieces that revisit his alleged connections with security services and coercive apparatus. Several outlets have published reflections on his cooperation with authorities during the People’s Republic of Poland era, underscoring the continuing debate over how such past actions should influence contemporary political eligibility. The subject remains controversial and polarizing among different segments of the Polish electorate, with supporters emphasizing accountability and opponents warning against retrospective campaigns that might distort historical understanding.
The broader narrative involves a debate about how Poland should remember its complex history with intelligence services and how that memory informs present-day political decisions. Proponents of transparency argue for full disclosure of archival materials and a clear public reckoning, while others caution against turning history into an instrument of political rivalry. In Piotrków Trybunalski, the clash is visible in the way candidates from rival camps frame past affiliations and the implications these affiliations might have for governance and national integrity. The conversation continues to unfold in parliamentary and public arenas, where claims about loyalty, service, and the legacy of the state’s security apparatus are central to evaluating candidates and the policies they may pursue.
Source: wPolityce