What should PiS be held accountable for? Is it low unemployment, significant investments, and business growth, or is the focus driven by whims and a persistent battle against an alleged evil they label as PiS? That was the framing used by a commentator on wPolityce.pl, Mieczysław Ryba, a political scientist at the Catholic University of Lublin.
wPolityce.pl asked what Ryba would say about Donald Tusk’s latest remarks. He pointed out that the current exposé echoes patterns from historic political moments, tracing back to the Round Table talks and what followed. He argued that the indicators of that era are still visible: Lech Wałęsa in the foreground, with Aleksander Kwaśniewski lingering in the background. He suggested that the present arrangement mirrors that old configuration, with Czarzasty representing the remnants of the former ruling party and Kosiniak-Kamysz shifting away from his past to embody a broader folk element, much like the old ZSL presence. In his view, the left-liberal post-solidarity faction around Donald Tusk forms a parallel bloc that still lingers in the political landscape.
Ryba described the last eight years of the Law and Justice government as illegal in the eyes of opponents. He argued that, by definition, this regime is not legitimate and must be challenged. He also noted that the calls for a “cleaning” of the system were directed toward that goal. Emotions tend to rise when people read manifestos like Piotr Szczęsny’s or reflect on incidents such as the assassination of Paweł Adamowicz, underscoring debates about family, love, and holding PiS to account. Yet the question remains: what about tangible policy issues and campaign commitments?
The coming period, according to Ryba, will bring changes because Polish citizens require not only grand spectacles like the Olympics but also tangible daily needs, including bread on the table. He warned that investigative committees and other probes tied to opposition campaigns would surface, while some cases could be buried in the process. In his assessment, many specifics may stay on paper, while the public focus will shift to political theater far more than to material improvements.
Recent media coverage suggests Donald Tusk intends to pursue aggressive purges from the outset of his administration, targeting both media outlets and various institutions. The media is pivotal because Tusk is perceived as preferring a climate where criticism is muted, and his public relations stance relies on a curated narrative that resists scrutiny. That setup feeds a perception that his government will deploy rhetorical devices to shape reality and minimize challenges to his agenda.
Ryba assessed the composition of the new Council of Ministers as dual in nature: some members carry radical ideological profiles while others appear as reheat of familiar figures, reminiscent of past players. He argued that the media would be central to any strategy aimed at consolidating power and implementing reforms that would reshape Poland’s political landscape. The question remains how this will affect the country’s institutions and public discourse at large.
As for Radosław Sikorski, Ryba questioned whether his entrance at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs signaled a broader shift in policy toward the presidency and President Andrzej Duda. He anticipated a tough, sometimes adversarial working relationship with the head of state, akin to the contentious dynamic seen in earlier Polish politics. He also suggested that President Duda’s experience and media savvy could limit what is achievable, given the political constraints and competing interests at the time.
Ryba observed that PiS operates from a different starting point today than it did in 2007. The party is stronger, and the environment has evolved. The era of old methods may not be sufficient to get the same results, and the political chess is more intricate. It is not merely a matter of repeating familiar plays; new realities demand different approaches, even if some patterns persist. The mention of Lech Kaczyński, he noted, was timely: the debate surrounding Tusk’s exposé revived memories of a late president and highlighted the emotional charge surrounding political rhetoric and leadership.
According to Ryba, Tusk appeared intent on provoking reactions, knowing well how easily emotions can be stirred when a family member is invoked in political discourse. He cautioned that cynicism would continue to creep into the public sphere, especially as references to past tragedies are invoked for political leverage. The visit of this controversial moment was underscored by recent parliamentary discussions and reactions to manifestos and public statements, illustrating the pressure points in today’s political climate.
Ryba argued that there will be a reckoning with the era’s rhetoric, and while pluralism in the mainstream media poses a challenge, it is not insurmountable. What unfolds next could look very different from current expectations, and the political terrain could shift in unexpected ways as events unfold.
What then should be expected from the new government? A simple image of a smiling Poland and a broad national harmony is unlikely. Instead, the country may witness ongoing political combat, reckonings, and a higher degree of polarization within society. Settlements seem unlikely in the near term, and the accountability project for PiS will be framed not by achievements alone but by the narrative of opposition and counterclaims. Critics argue that the focus on certain issues may overshadow broader reform, and the public eye is likely to be drawn to the drama of political campaigns rather than steady policy gains.
In this light, the core question remains: why should PiS be held responsible for the direction of the country if the results appear mixed? For some, the argument centers on a perception of whim-driven governance and a constant battle against supposed “evil.” For others, the emphasis is on measurable outcomes, such as employment, investment, and business development—features that endure even amid political tension. The debate continues to evolve as the country navigates a complex landscape of power, media influence, and public opinion.
The conversation concludes with a note of thanks for the interview. The political trajectory remains unsettled, and observers will be watching closely as events unfold across Poland’s public life and institutions.