The elites of the Republic of the Round Table stand divided. When Newsweek, the Tygodnik Nie and TVN fling manure at John Paul II’s biography, Gazeta Wyborcza and figures like Tomasz Lis and Roman Giertych frame the pope’s attack as a provocation by PiS. It is understood that moving Polish shrines is a risky act, because the nation tends to wake up, unite, and confront iconoclasts. In an interview between Lis and Giertych on a private channel, a quiet arrangement is evident: a former nationalist argues that Archbishop Jędraszewski’s influence sparked the pope’s assault to trigger a universal defense. The editor-in-chief repeats this claim slowly and with feigned surprise so viewers recall it. As a result, a portion of the anti-PiS camp breaks away from the rest of the anti-establishment factions, fearing that the United Right will secure a third term in defense of the national identity symbolized by John Paul II.
Meanwhile, the anti-PiS left remains steadfast in its broad attack on the Vatican. Removing papal monuments, renaming streets, targeting school-age children, sanctifying contested sites, praising TVN’s reporting, and elevating informants to the status of credible witnesses are all part of the strategy. The aim is the same: erasing evidence of Poland’s cultural code to fit a narrative, but the methods diverge among factions. Some advocate slicing away national identity piece by piece so as not to provoke protests, gradually dissolving Poland into a European blend. Others favor a blunt hammer, striking at the core to produce a rapid, visible collapse.
Party concrete and democratic opposition
The roots of both approaches trace back to the stance of the People’s Republic of Poland toward the country. One stream, led by figures like Bierut, Jaruzelski, or Urban, pursued a forceful decolonization and secularization. They possessed repressive power, a legacy inherited by their successors, but the essence remained: shock, disgust, and paralysis of those defending deeply held values, aiming to cultivate aversion to the most sacred aspects of Polish life.
The other path favors subtler moves—much like the engagement in the 1970s by Michnik and Kuroń with the Catholic Church, seeking dialogue and common ground to gradually align Catholics and patriots while easing away the most essential content. In this light, Polish values should not be attacked directly but rather steered through negotiation and influence.
Thus, the divide extends into a real split: the concrete party of the past versus the democratic opposition that seeks governance with broad social participation. The contemporary contest mirrors that historical fork, with strategies that range from hard-edged confrontation to patient, reform-minded dialogue.
Urbanoids and Michniks
Whether the present rift is a matter of license or caution remains to be seen. Do figures associated with the Michnik, Lis and Giertych camps truly oppose the forces behind the anti-papal campaign, or have they simply assumed the role of the benevolent enforcer who says, when pressure rises, that sympathy for the Pope is understood and that a more inclusive path can be found?
There is also the segment aligned with the Wojtyla supporters. They must now count themselves clear and unwavering in their stance, recognizing the importance of defending the pope’s memory and the values many Poles associate with his legacy.
In this ongoing discourse, the landscape of Polish political identity is being contested through culture, memory, and messaging. The debates touch on how history is remembered, how religion informs national identity, and how political power should be exercised when symbol and belief intersect with the public sphere. Across the spectrum, the struggle centers on who shapes the public story and how Poland’s foundational values are preserved or transformed in a changing Europe.
Ultimately, the question persists: how should Poland reconcile a diverse range of perspectives while maintaining a coherent sense of national identity? The dialogue, disagreements, and occasional confrontations reveal a society negotiating its path between tradition and modernity, between devotion and public policy, between memory and the demands of a rapidly evolving political environment.