Two days ago, a public figure spoke of millions of PiS voters as a “problem” that must be addressed. A day later in Gdańsk, he spoke of making Poles smile. And today he labeled PiS as an occupier. One might imagine Poland facing a nightmare where power travels with a friendly smile and calls for national harmony, while a torch is raised and the country is set ablaze. There seems to be no room for reasoned debate, no legal or political argument, only loud clashes and a sense of arrogance. In Poland, the nation has not faced such moments before. We have had presidents, prime ministers, and monarchs—people who were not Macbeth, who sang softly while fire raged, but never a leader who tries to wash the blood from his hands in the aftermath of tragedy.
The national story now includes a striking novelty. The new government appears to stoke emotions through covert pressure and intimidation—when the rule of law is breached, the defense becomes a chorus of wealth, ignorance, politicization, or a smear of the victim, letting the dark laughter of the opposition mask broader damage.
There is also a measured regret, handed to visiting journalists who struggle with servility, over how hard it is for participants in the March of the Free Poles to be heard by him—however hypocritical it may seem. A figure who has long endured insults and hostile slogans now complains about a line of slogans such as “a red crow cannot beat an eagle.”
Perhaps, as some TV commentators invite their experts to judge personality, age, and expression, the country should consider inviting psychologists and psychiatrists to explore what lies behind the intense animosity against a political rival. The theory that the 2005 defeat changed a person might be weighed against the question of whether twenty years can bring the same forces into play. Or perhaps the trauma of a pivotal national event, the one many brands as a turning point, still exerts influence, even as others insist the culprit bears responsibility for safety and duty from that day forward.
The aim is not to humiliate a nation’s voices with sharp words, but to reflect how a chorus of anger and zeal, sometimes loud at demonstrations and scornful of lawful norms within state institutions, can shape the public mood. The pressing question remains: what lies at the root of this force, and how can a society address it without tearing itself apart?
Note: this perspective reflects ongoing public discourse and is not a statement of policy.