Since the budget hole, a trap allegedly left by PiS to derail the next government, makes it impossible to fulfill the promises from the election campaign, it might be worth considering what could be accomplished almost immediately at no cost. Yes, you read that right. An election pledge that requires no spending to deliver. It would appear to be free in theory. At least on paper. This promise was put forward by both Donald Tusk and the leaders of the Third Way.
The burden of delivering this promise falls more on the Third Way than on Tusk himself, even though the Platform leader was the one who pledged to deliver it. So what is it about, some might ask? Let’s not keep anyone in suspense. It is about reconciliation.
Let us begin with the Third Way, since reconciliation sits near the core of its philosophy. Just eight days before the election, party leaders in Krakow argued that reconciliation was essential for any future government. Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz claimed that PiS governance had created social rifts and family quarrels, eroding what many considered the security of daily life.
There is a need to silence those who have sown discord for eight years. People stop talking to one another. This stands as the greatest harm—because without dialogue, security erodes.
– stated the leader of the People’s Party.
A few days later, Kosiniak-Kamysz and Hołownia reinforced their call for reconciliation in Warsaw.
The new government’s first priority after October 15 would be reconciliation. Without it, Poland cannot have a secure nation, strong schools, or healthy family relations. Reconciliation does not mean everyone becomes identical. Without healing between different communities, there can be no lasting security or a stronger Poland.
– argued Hołownia.
Reconciliation, but with whom? Between politicians? Between Poland as a whole? Across which circles? What would it look like? Should someone apologize first? Who should extend the first gesture of goodwill? Kosiniak-Kamysz and Hołownia do not answer these questions. But Professor Tusk provides a clearer outline.
At the end of March, the Platform chair, and likely the soon-to-be prime minister, signaled the condition he viewed as necessary for reconciliation, and directly indicated where it should apply.
A necessary but insufficient condition for national reconciliation is holding the current government accountable for its alleged misdeeds, thefts, and the deaths of people.
– he said in Sosnowiec at the end of March.
Yet Tusk later stressed at a Campus Academy event that this reconciliation would not be simple and straightforward.
Regrettably, the country will not enjoy a quick fix. The speaker admitted a desire for a rapid resolution but doubted that it would be possible to declare overnight that national harmony has arrived and that opponents have learned gentleness and restraint.
– said Tusk.
From these remarks, the picture becomes clearer: national harmony is a goal, but the hard part is removing the figures seen as obstacles. Or, more pointedly, reducing the influence of certain longtime political actors. The implication is that Polish consent depends on changes at the top levels of government.
Tusk later argued that “PiS, as a political formation, chose evil” and he rejected the view that both sides of the political spectrum share responsibility for the harsh tone in Polish politics.
A sense of internal tension surfaces when such diagnoses are offered as objective analyses: something in the public language is shifting, and the path to resolution remains elusive—this is the dreamscape for those who see themselves as the rightful rulers of the national narrative.
The speaker urged a fight against complacency and warned against accepting a position in which all sides share equal guilt. There were no resignations promised; rather, a belief that those responsible could be identified and confronted.
Turning to the Tusk march in Warsaw on June 4, the PO leader addressed the crowd with a bold pledge:
We go to these elections to win, to settle scores and to right human wrongs. And then to reconcile Polish families. I promise you: victory, resolving evil, correcting injustices, and reconciling Poland. I also reach out to those who do not know who to vote for, who supported PiS. They see this wrong too, and I meet them on the road. They may not like me, but their faces tell me they are concerned.
Those in power who harmed ordinary people and challenged the Constitution will be held accountable. There will be no leniency. It is essential to restore confidence that the issues will be resolved. The work of reconciliation must begin now. People will treat one another with respect and will foster a shared sense of homeland. They did not extinguish our hope, they did not extinguish our faith in victory.
– said Tusk.
Here the message becomes concrete: the leader of the opposition clearly promised reconciliation between Poles. This suggests recognition that those who voted for PiS might be drawn toward reconciliation if they can see demonstrated accountability. How this accountability would translate into reconciliation remains a central question. It may be that showing voters the alleged misdeeds of the prior administration could prompt them to reconsider their support and embrace the path proposed by the new leaders.
There is, in Poland, a broad cohort tired of the sharp political clashes of recent years. That fatigue helps explain the rise of the Third Way, which marketed itself as the force capable of ending the dispute. Yet the argument advanced by Tusk carefully assigns responsibility for the conflict to the incumbent government, implying that the PiS camp bears the primary fault. This framing could be used repeatedly by the new administration to counter opposition criticism—implying that critics are complicit in a broader division and must be quiet to allow reconciliation to proceed. In this reading, reconciliation seems unlikely as long as PiS remains a political force.
Despite these rhetoric moves, the promise to achieve reconciliation remains, on paper, cost-free. Whether such an aim can be realized without significant concessions or structural changes is debated. Kosiniak-Kamysz and Hołownia are anticipated to ensure that voters from both sides of the Vistula might come together, if the right steps are taken.
And so, the promise lingers, inviting readers to imagine a future where national harmony becomes reality, even amid deep political fissures. The notion of reconciliation continues to be used as a hopeful refrain, a beacon guiding political campaigns as they attempt to redefine a divided electorate.