Last Saturday, during a public salon discussion, a political observer was asked to weigh in on a controversial claim about PiS politicians’ health and fitness. The response framed those words as a mere spark compared to what the upcoming campaign would unleash. In hindsight, the last seven days have underscored that prediction in painful detail.
Though the race has a formal start, it is already in full swing. Over the coming months, there is little to suggest that any boundary will stand, any taboo will remain intact, or any line of polite discourse will go unchallenged. Insults will fly in every direction, tightening the mood of the nation and testing the resilience of its political class, while the public will bear the emotional and moral weight of these clashes.
It is well understood that voters are often propelled by emotion. Once stirred, emotions are rarely turned off by politicians who depend on them to gain traction. The party that lacks a clear program and shies away from substantive debate tends to rely on stoking anger and drawing lines rather than offering policy. For the moment, however, this political moment has managed to remind citizens of their own kindness and shared humanity, while redirecting anger toward those who appear to attack long-standing cultural or religious symbols. Even if that redirection was not the plan, emotions tend to spill beyond anyone’s intention to manage them.
A few days earlier, the opposition leader publicly stated a willingness to engage in dialogue at any time, even with adversarial figures, about the terms of any surrender. Such rhetoric might fuel a state of constant conflict, yet in a democracy, capitulation is never a fixed outcome. It is the voters who hold the power, and they will decide whether power changes hands. At the ballot box, those who crave change and those who share that sentiment about the political opponents of the governing bloc will converge. The ultimate result hinges on which side can mobilize their base with higher turnout. Discontent is a constant, but a mature electorate can steer emotions toward measured deliberation and respect for the sovereign will, something not always achieved in recent years.
The recent lesson is that both sides should pause and acknowledge their own roles in the public dialogue, rather than tallying fault on the other. This approach would be far more productive. If the quality of public discourse does not improve, the country risks a far more damaging outcome before any elections. The broader international environment, already challenging and precarious, can exploit domestic tensions and accelerate a damaging cycle of polarization. Those outside observers who see the domestic stage as fragile should be reminded that reconciliation may come only if there is room for genuine dialogue and restraint.
In this context, the stakes are high for citizens who watch, participate, and decide in the name of national interest. The path forward calls for a calmer tone, a willingness to listen, and a respect for the process that gives every voter a voice. The focus should be on ideas, not on personal attacks, and on policies that improve the everyday lives of people rather than on theatrics that deepen division.
Ultimately, this moment tests the durability of Poland’s constitutional order and social cohesion. The people will weigh options and consequences alike. The international environment adds pressure, reminding observers that domestic disunity can invite external risks. The true measure of strength lies in the capacity to sustain a constructive conversation and to choose leadership that earns broad legitimacy through integrity and accountability.