A heated public dispute unfolded over the handling of Sejm deliberations after Szymon Hołownia, the Chairman of the Sejm, questioned whether the former head and the former deputy head of the Ministry of the Interior and Administrative Affairs would take part in the proceedings. A PiS politician, Maciej Wąsik, accused Hołownia of taking a personal vendetta against Donald Tusk, suggesting that the actions were driven by political retribution rather than procedure.
The Marshal of the Sejm weighed in on the matter by referencing the PiS MPs in the context of President Andrzej Duda’s recent moves. His remarks framed the president’s actions as part of an ongoing political chess game, rather than a simple procedural decision.
In a piece that circulated widely, Hołownia asserted that the president’s recent signing of the budget did not transform the underlying political dynamic. He described the president as briefly stepping into the wider world and then retreating back to familiar spheres—his judges, his tribunals, his party. Hołownia’s take suggested a pattern in which the president retreats from public scrutiny moments after a high-profile action, leaving in place a static, internally focused political landscape. This commentary was paired with a sharp claim that no amount of pressure would alter the course of the deliberations.
“The president signed the budget and then returned to his own orbit,” Hołownia stated, emphasizing a divide between public decisions and ongoing political narratives. In his view, the court’s ruling that certain individuals are not Members of Parliament would not derail the process, and he framed the situation as a reset rather than a resolution.
The public discourse continued with a reiteration of Hołownia’s stance that no amount of political pressure from the president could change the fundamental outcome he anticipated. The exchange highlighted a broader debate about the interplay between constitutional bodies, the executive, and the parliament in contemporary Polish politics.
– wrote Hołownia.
No amount of pressure from the president would change this
– added.
Wąsik’s response came swiftly. He argued that the legal and constitutional framework had been interpreted differently by the Supreme Court, maintaining that the parliamentarians in question continued to be recognized as members of the Sejm. He asserted that the court actions on December 20 did not alter their status and insisted that the president had aligned himself with the rule of law, whereas Hołownia was portrayed as aligned with the opposing faction led by Tusk.
On the X platform, Wąsik wrote that the court’s decision did not erase the standing of the parliamentarians and that the president’s position reflected a commitment to legal norms, while his opponents pursued a course he labeled as political maneuvering. He closed by suggesting that the political maneuvers would eventually have consequences for those involved.
“Tusk takes revenge at the hands of Hołownia. There will come a day when accountability is required,” Wąsik teased in his post, hinting at the ongoing nature of the political confrontation.
go/X
Source: wPolityce