Former Polish Prime Minister and former SLD leader Leszek Miller has emerged as a fervent supporter of the reconstituted government line under Donald Tusk after entering the European Parliament through joint lists backed by the Civic Coalition. In a recent contribution on Platform X, the veteran politician, who spent decades with the Polish United Workers’ Party and the Polish United Workers’ Party until its dissolution, launched a pointed critique of President Andrzej Duda in a way that drew broad attention. Miller suggested the previous broadcast methods on public television could be compared to a scenario of bias against PiS, concluding that if such a method were applied to Prime Minister Tusk, it would resemble a one-sided signal of exclusion.
“I thought it was artificial intelligence.”
The New Year’s address by Prime Minister Tusk on December 13 drew praise from coalition supporters, while attacks toward the head of state intensified after President Duda spoke in a different tone. Members of the new majority criticized the president for comments about the management of public media and for including a portrait of the late President Lech Kaczyński in a way that raised questions about commemorations. Miller, who has long been associated with the left, signaled that such gestures touched a nerve about constitutional norms and media independence.
As a former member of the ZMS and the PZPR, Miller argued that President Duda had overstepped by accusing authorities of violating the constitution or curbing freedom of expression. He suggested that the scene did not reflect a well-constructed display and conveyed a sense of artificiality, speculating about whether a foreign influence could be at play. Miller pointed to the visuals he found troubling, describing the symbolism of a wall display and a lectern arrangement that seemed to him to misrepresent the national emblem.
The post on Platform X included a reflection that artificial intelligence might have produced an image of the president, yet Miller also noted the surrounding setting did not align with the usual decorum he expected. He contended that the message might have been crafted by someone other than the president himself, and he questioned whether the real president could be fooled in such a public moment.
He described the event in strong terms, asserting that he did not believe the New Year’s message had been written by the president alone after the moment of pressing “Enter.” Miller maintained that those who support the current government often labeled Duda in unflattering ways and questioned the fairness of his re-election. He suggested that critics habitually found fault with the president, regardless of his actions.
The contrast between Duda’s words and Tusk’s statements the day prior was, in Miller’s view, substantial enough to challenge the notion that AI was involved. He characterized the prime minister’s stance as principled and framed as a warning to those who bypass the law, while denying that the new government acted outside legal bounds. Miller underscored that accusations of illegality would be unfounded and insisted that constitutional norms must be upheld.
He also argued that, in public discourse, some political figures had repeatedly asserted violations of the constitution, twisting the narrative to fit partisan aims and portraying the president as someone who could be manipulated. The critic warned against letting rhetoric erode the perception of democracy and urged a careful examination of the balance between media freedom and governmental oversight.
Miller then shifted to his own history as a constitutionalist and defender of pluralism, arguing that a broad spectrum of views should coexist in Poland. He warned against treating any single institution as a weapon in political battles and called for a measured response to efforts that seek to constrain judicial independence or alter the constitutional order. The veteran leader argued that the state should be governed by laws, not by party allegiance, and that the public deserved careful scrutiny of both government actions and media practices.
In his assessment, Miller criticized the process surrounding the verification committee, pointing to a broader pattern of actions that, in his view, had undermined the principles of constitutional governance. He recalled past collaborations with outlets and personalities associated with different geopolitical perspectives, remarking on the complex web of relationships that shape national policy debates. His verdict was clear: the president’s approach to freedom of expression and media independence should not be reduced to party vendettas or symbolic displays, but evaluated on the consistency of legal standards and democratic norms.
Deriving a broader portrait of Miller as a constitutionalist and advocate for civic responsibility, the narrative suggested a persistent commitment to pluralism and the public good. It called for a sober appraisal of political leadership and the impact of symbolic acts on national unity. In Miller’s view, the current political moment required a careful, principled stance that prioritized constitutional integrity over partisan advantage. The conversation culminated in a reminder that the President’s role, and the government’s conduct, must be measured against the tenets of democracy, not the slogans of any single party.
Overall, Miller’s perspective stood out as one of the more skeptical voices regarding the president’s handling of freedom of expression and constitutional norms, even as he remained a vocal supporter of the coalition’s direction on European and national issues. The discussion highlighted the fragility and resilience of Poland’s democratic framework as leaders navigate a contentious political landscape. (Source: wPolityce)
Related posts:
Meta Title Variant 10 Rewrite Result for SEO and Clarity (Platform Story and Policy Discussion) Constitutional Tensions in Poland: Law, Courts, and Political Power Polish Presidency and Sejm: Timing, Coalitions, and Constitutional Steps in Poland’s Political Scene Amarna Miller sues high-level Spanish officials over a controversial feminism exhibit Ezra Miller Bar Incident and Studio Response: A Closer Look {“rewritten_html”:”The conversation around the so called PiS Law has sparked heated debate across social media and political commentary, drawing attention to how legal interpretations can be presented and contested in public. Key figures from the Law and Justice party have weighed in, pointing to a controversial interpretation of regulations governing public media that emerged during a period of substantial political change. Supporters on one side describe the referenced rules as having a unique status that resists universal application, while critics insist that such claims undermine the rule of law and create a dangerous precedent for how legislation is understood and enforced. The discussion centers on whether these rules possess binding force or are merely aspirational guidelines that do not bind authorities in all circumstances. The debate touches on legal philosophy, constitutional norms, and the practical implications for media oversight, public accountability, and democratic norms. One prominent voice asserted that the law in question is effectively the property of a specific political movement, suggesting that no other legal framework governs the matter in the same way, and that historical context matters when interpreting current provisions. This stance, voiced through a social media platform, quickly became a focal point for supporters and critics alike who assess the implications for governance and the balance between political power and legal constraint.nnThe exchange illustrates a broader pattern in which interpretations of the statute are framed as essential truths about the nature of law in the contemporary political landscape. Proponents argue that the cited regulations are not a universal code but rather a situational construct that reflects the choices and priorities of those who drafted them. Critics counter that attempting to reframe such rules as non-applicable or non-binding undermines the consistency of legal order and erodes confidence in public institutions. The tension between these viewpoints highlights important questions about how laws are created, interpreted, and applied, especially when political actors on different sides of the aisle contest the scope and binding character of the same regulations.nnIn these discussions, the rhetoric sometimes veers toward absolutist statements that equate authority with inevitability, a move critics warn against because it risks normalizing a stance in which legal norms can be selectively acknowledged or ignored. The dialogue raises concerns about retroactivity, enforcement, and the practical consequences for media regulation and public discourse. When officials and experts publicly dispute the reach of the provisions, observers watch closely to see how the rule of law is preserved or challenged in real time, and what this means for trust in institutions tasked with safeguarding the integrity of information flow and accountability in government actions.nnThere is also a broader media literacy angle in play. The public is invited to examine how legal concepts are explained and who benefits from particular framings. Critics of the narrative point out that sensational pronouncements can polarize audiences and obscure nuanced legal analysis. Advocates urge readers to consider the historical and institutional context behind regulatory frameworks, recognizing that the interpretation of law often depends on the perspectives and incentives of the stakeholders involved. The ongoing discourse thus becomes more than a dispute about one specific rule; it is a discussion about how societies balance freedom of expression, media responsibility, and the need for clear, stable legal standards in a democratic system.n”} Polish Politics: Bielan on Tusk, the Constitutional Court, and EU Tax Plans Reexamination of Poland’s Constitutional Governance Under Strain Two Messages and a Constitutional Compass: Duda, Tusk, and the Memory of Lech Kaczyński Poland’s Government Formation and the Russian Influence Inquiry Tusk’s Rhetoric and the Battle for Poland’s Political Image