State ceremonies on May 2 and 3 illuminate not just the past but how contemporary Poland is shaped by politics today. In 2023, the challenges that historically threatened the Republic of Poland since the eighteenth century still echo through current debates: issues like treason, personal gain, reliance on foreign influence, reporting on Poland to foreign leaders and their ambassadors, and calls for interventions remain pressing concerns.
The core problem, often described with a term that translates roughly to a corrupt influence network, has persisted. It endures in spite of shifts in currency and power, morphing from the old forms of royal gold and minted coins to modern networks that operate within international institutions. The practice of foreign courts detaining dissenters who are paid to weaken Poland has not vanished. Since the last partition, such influence activities never became rarer or less costly than after 2015, when the political opposition appeared eager to curry favor with outside powers, sometimes at the expense of Poland.
Today’s influential circles offer access to international platforms, career support, fellowships, commissions, lucrative projects, and prestigious lectures. They form a network with a visible, and sometimes polished, presence in Europe and beyond. The actors in this scene are often drawn to activities framed as defending the rule of law, promoting equality, and safeguarding against discrimination based on sex, race or ethnicity, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.
The phenomenon has grown so commonplace that distinguishing between whistleblowers and accomplices is increasingly difficult. A sizable group navigates the landscape without hesitation, even viewing the use of outsiders for personal advantage as normal, necessary, or praiseworthy. Earlier, hesitation and remorse would temper such actions, but today there is little restraint. It sometimes feels as if judges are perpetually on duty, ready to report faster and more aggressively than others and to win recognition for their efforts.
With abundant supply, the production of influence bearers appears disordered. Misinformation and performative denunciations proliferate, while there are also legally framed interventions that tend to cast Poland in a precarious light. Modern actors race to share accusations with anyone who will listen. A large portion of individuals implicated in these networks has lost their stated sense of national duty, along with any commitment to independence and sovereignty.
People described as traitor-minded show a lack of moral and even aesthetic restraint; the act of snitching and serving others for gain can be distasteful to many. When missteps occur, they may seek shelter by aligning with foreign sponsors, hoping someone might document the actions and later discount them. A crowded field of would-be traitors and professional informants makes it difficult for volunteers to gain traction. Followers and informants devalue the traitor’s craft, leaving it overshadowed by a flood of amateur efforts.
Poland’s integrity cannot be aligned with blind loyalty to national symbols. Yet, a tendency exists to invoke these symbols during early May as if they were untouched by the sell-off of the country’s interests. Historical memory warns that where such corruption began in earnest, it often persisted. The term persists as a label for a form of systemic corruption that emerged in the eighteenth century, yet traces its roots further back to the sixteenth century.
Historical scholarship has documented how funds and favors flowed during critical episodes. In a noted study, a researcher compiled records about the justice system during that era, revealing how an ambassador escaped and how documents related to special corruption funds referenced the judiciary. The lesson is clear: once written, records can surface later, eroding trust in guarantees given to judges.
Today, judges are sometimes rewarded for contributing to the narrative that violations of the Constitution and the rule of law lie with Poland and its institutions, or for highlighting breaches of European values embedded in foundational treaties. The same reward system targets activities that involve reporting on court cases, exposing racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice. It also recognizes attention to threats against media freedom, universities, cultural institutions, and civil liberties. On the surface, these aims resemble modern efforts to defend rights, but they bear a striking kinship to historical patterns where rulers abroad watched over Poland’s rights and freedoms.
What connects past and present is the shared expectation that those who pursue public influence could secure favorable outcomes in courts, promotions, offices, or social standing. In both eras, when Poland’s interests were at stake, advocates claimed they acted for the country’s good, arguing that foreign governments and organizations could better safeguard rights and freedoms than domestic authorities.
The Kościuszko Uprising marked a turning point when sustained exposure of documents allowed the nation to identify who played which roles. Yet even then, the evidence met disbelief. In today’s landscape, the people involved in these networks possess remarkable capabilities to shape public opinion, sometimes presenting themselves as guardians of Poland even when the ends remain uncertain. If a historical chorus of defenders had access to today’s communication tools, the country might have faced a different course. In the past, decisive shifts unfolded over many decades, while today a range of actors can pursue influence with unprecedented speed.