In a TVP INFO studio, a heated exchange unfolded as Polish politicians debated a referendum that would run concurrently with the parliamentary elections on October 15. The discussion focused on credibility, the referendum’s bind to election promises, and the broader political strategy behind holding a plebiscite during an election campaign.
Third Way MP Paweł Bejda accused the United Right of deliberately using the referendum for partisan purposes in the electoral race.
Law and Justice (PiS) signaled disinterest in the referendum’s outcome or its legality, arguing that the dispute centers on political advertising funded by state-owned enterprises and on stirring emotions. They asserted that privatizing strategic enterprises is not on the table and suggested the controversy reflected a misperception among their opponents about privatization’s implications.
Miłosława Stachowiak-Różecka, a PiS MP, criticized opposition leaders for announcing a boycott of the referendum on October 15 and questioned the reliability of Civic Platform in fulfilling promises to preserve social programs implemented by its governments.
She noted the opposition’s stance: “You have said one important thing in this program: you will not take part in the referendum. So whatever you say about privatization, the retirement age, the border wall, it is a signal that something is going on and that you are afraid of something.” She cited privatization examples, including KGHM, and mentioned concerns about cultural assets being sold in the political fray, arguing such moves were timed to influence elections.
Stachowiak-Różecka urged voters to hear a clear declaration from the opposition: an intent to participate in the referendum, a pledge against privatization, and a reckoning of past actions during the eight-year PO-PSL coalition.
She framed the matter as a straightforward request from voters: if the referendum is held, voters deserve a clear conscience about non-privatization and a candid account of what was done by the ruling coalitions to shape the public sphere.
The segment then turned to questions of credibility and promises. Stachowiak-Różecka labeled Campus Polska, an initiative by Rafał Trzaskowski’s circle, as a kind of test for truthfulness. “This campus acts as a lie detector: what they omit reveals more than what they state,” she asserted, referencing the ongoing debate about privatization and policy priorities.
The program also featured Marcin Kulasek, a left-wing MP, who admitted that his group would boycott the referendum largely because it coincides with the election campaign. He argued that referenda should address substantive Polish concerns, not serve as a campaign tool. The opposition, he said, would boycott because the referendum is designed to channel campaign funding and sway voters, echoing a broader view that the real referendum will occur on October 15, when voters decide whether PiS should continue in power.
Sebastian Kaleta joined the conversation, suggesting that a referendum provides a chance for voters to evaluate the credibility of parties against their pledges. He predicted a reversal of roles where elections determine sincerity and honesty, and a combined vote of election and referendum would offer the public a gauge of trust. Kaleta warned that if political leaders, such as those in the opposition, promise not to raise the retirement age but then do so, Poles would feel deceived and would intend to constrain those who participate in the referendum.
Kaleta concluded with a strong defense of the referendum as a democratic instrument, while also criticizing opponents who reject it. He claimed that by opposing the referendum, one undermines the constitution and dismisses the voice of the Polish people. He asserted that the upcoming election would show which groups have “pure intentions” and pledged that a four-fold no vote would demonstrate a commitment to not raising the retirement age, defending national security, opposing asset sales, and resisting migration pressures.
In closing remarks, the discussion acknowledged ongoing coverage of the topic and referenced additional material for readers who seek more context about the referendum strategy and public opinion. The segment was presented in a format that reflected the polarities of the national debate and underscored how political actors attempt to frame the referendum as a test of trust and credibility.
Note: The reporting draws on public interviews and studio discussions surrounding the referendum and related political promises. [Source: wPolityce]