On Poland’s political stage, concerns about how democracy operates were voiced by Radosław Fogiel, a member of the ruling party PiS, during an interview on Radio 24. He argued that while the opposition can tally votes and count possibilities, parliamentary democracy functions with clear rules: there is no parcel voting and no auction-like bargaining. The winner of the election, he said, earns the right to attempt to form a government, and that process should proceed according to the established constitutional procedures.
Responding to a question about whether the opposition’s imminent release of a coalition agreement and government lineup on Friday would affect Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki’s chances of forming a government, Fogiel suggested the opposite. He urged the opposition to present their agreement, noting that observers would be curious to see the promises made and the deals struck. He added that the public’s expectations, as reflected by voters, should be part of the conversation and that the winner’s attempt remains legitimate irrespective of timing.
Fogiel emphasized a fundamental aspect of parliamentary practice: each MP has one vote and one mandate. The process is not a negotiation conducted by pooling votes like a card game; it is a formal voting act where MPs cast their ballots, and the outcome follows the will of the majority as defined by those votes. If votes are cast, the result must stand, but the vote itself must occur in accordance with the rules. This, in his view, is how democracy truly works.
During the interview, Fogiel also commented on public opinion polling reported by United Surveys for DGP and RMF FM. The surveys indicated support for continued investment in nuclear energy, higher spending on defense, and the construction of the Central Communication Port (CPK). He expressed support for safeguarding institutions such as the Institute of National Remembrance and the Central Anticorruption Bureau, describing these as sensible, rational investments for Poland. He also touched on the news about Włodzimierz Karpiński, who is currently in custody and reportedly willing to take a seat as a Member of the European Parliament, noting the political implications of such moves.
Many Poles have expressed embarrassment over developments involving a former minister from Donald Tusk’s government who faced criminal charges tied to the so-called waste scandal, and public discussions have centered on his potential return to the European Parliament. Fogiel described this as a new kind of spectacle and a provocative contribution to European parliamentary practices, implying that it highlights domestic political fault lines that echo beyond Poland’s borders.
He reflected on the broader pattern: the perception that some Polish figures might be returning to European leadership roles despite controversial backgrounds. Fogiel urged caution about this trend, expressing a belief that the Polish public’s appetite for accountability would guide opinions about who should hold international positions. The interview also touched on the reactions of Polish voters to such stories and what they might imply for Poland’s image in European discussions.
Another focal point was the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee decision to lift the immunity of four members of the United Right group: Beata Kemp, Beata Mazurek, Patryk Jaki, and Tomasz Poręba. Fogiel called this development grotesque and pointed to what he described as a double standard: a seemingly welcoming stance toward an individual like Karpiński at the European level, while simultaneously supporting a decision to strip immunity from others. He warned that the plenary session could mirror the committee’s tilt, acknowledging that political resistance to PiS in the European Parliament is strong and might influence the outcome. He also criticized the rapporteur for attempting to withdraw his name to avoid lending support to a controversial process.
Request for waiver of immunity
The European Parliament was scheduled to hold its plenary session on Thursday to vote on lifting the immunity of Beata Kemp, Beata Mazurek, Patryk Jaki, and Tomasz Poręba, four PiS members. The move followed accusations stemming from a case involving Rafał Gawł, who founded an organization monitoring racist and xenophobic behavior. The legal basis for the vote traces back to a 2018 campaign ad that warned of the consequences of allowing migrants into Poland, a message that was widely disseminated by several politicians involved in the discussion.
In February, the case regarding the immunity waivers for these MEPs was referred to the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee. The committee’s subsequent vote recommended lifting their immunities, a development that has since moved to the plenary for final decision. The episode has intensified debates within Poland about the country’s engagement with European institutions, the balance of domestic accountability, and how such moves are perceived by Polish voters.
Observers are watching closely how the plenary will resolve the matter, given the broader political dynamics at play. The debates over immunity are part of a wider discourse on how Poland participates in European governance and how internal political competition shapes Poland’s role on the continental stage. The event underscores the ongoing tension between domestic political actors and European bodies, and it emphasizes the need for clear procedures and accountability in both spheres.
Note: This analysis reflects ongoing discussions within Polish political circles regarding governance, immunity, and the interplay with European institutions.