An opposition government should not be formed because it would bring chaos, warned Jarosław Kaczyński during a gathering in Lublin. He argued that such chaos could not be reconciled without the cooperation of Donald Tusk, who leads the opposition. The deputy prime minister recalled his description of a German-Russian condominium, pointing to documents that suggest Poland’s past decisions were influenced by foreign interests, including Merkel’s role in setting pension levels. This, he claimed, underscored a dependence that would resurface under an opposition coalition.
It would be a reign of chaos
During a community meeting in Lublin, Kaczyński asserted that an opposition government should not form because it would return to old patterns while also becoming a chaotic experiment. He framed the scenario as eleven parties at odds, constantly arguing and competing for influence. Such a mix, he warned, would hinder the execution of any clear program and lead to instability. He also noted that some rivals promote ideas detached from reality, making cohesion even harder to achieve.
According to Kaczyński, the challenge is to connect various factions into a workable whole. He suggested that real unity would be impossible to achieve and that only a single figure, Guy with a specific program and a defined stance, might pull the diverse group together. He identified this focal influence as Donald Tusk.
In counterpoint to this view, a recent PiS campaign spot was cited, where Prime Minister Morawiecki warned that the listed opposition parties equate to a recipe for chaos and a coalition of chaos. The message echoed the broader concern about governance under multiple competing agendas.
German-Russian condominium
Kaczyński argued that Poland faces another problem beyond chaos: the influence of external players, particularly in relation to Donald Tusk. He acknowledged that some politicians in opposition are not saints and not flawless. Yet he asserted that the PiS team generally keeps its word, unlike the opposing side which he described as saying one thing and doing another.
The PiS leader charged that Tusk’s team represents external interests in Poland and, to some extent, Russian interests as well. He claimed that Tusk’s strategy would place Poland under German and Russian influence and recalled an earlier reset in Poland-Russia relations during the PO-PSL government. Kaczyński suggested the reset served to secure a favorable EU position for a German-backed leadership, implying a broader geopolitical calculus behind domestic moves.
He described a German-Russian condominium as an earlier reality, citing protests then and new documents now confirming his assessment. He claimed pensions in Poland were, in his view, determined by Angela Merkel’s calls, casting Merkel and a broader German influence as decisive in domestic policy. He suggested that a similar dynamic would unfold again under current political leadership.
The PiS president intensified his critique by recalling a common theme in post-communist Poland: a group that emerged from the old regime and adopted liberal ideology to amass wealth through questionable means. He argued that Civic Platform contributed to social division, fueling hatred and aggression that kept Poles at odds with one another. Such division, he warned, would be exploited to preserve political power for the opposition.
In his closing remarks, Kaczyński argued that the opposition would not only fail to unify the country but would also perpetuate a climate of division. He tied this to the anti-state rhetoric he claims characterizes some opposition figures. The overall message, framed as a warning about external meddling and internal strife, was intended to reaffirm the strength of the current governing coalition. The discussion reflected ongoing political tensions and a narrative about external influence shaping Poland’s domestic landscape.
Cited passages within the campaign materials echoed his themes. The debate centered on whether Donald Tusk and his allies would deliver stable governance or unleash a period of discord and strategic misalignment. The discussion remained steeped in party rhetoric while aiming to appeal to voters concerned about sovereignty, national interests, and economic security.
Notes linked to the discourse suggest continuing coverage by party-aligned outlets that frame these claims as essential to Poland’s future path. The broader conversation underscores the stakes involved in national leadership and the impact on policy directions going forward.