Former PO chairman Grzegorz Schetyna spoke in an interview with Radio Zet, addressing the Civic Platform and the retirement age issue. He recalled past decisions and challenged whether PO politicians believe Poles have forgotten how they governed. Beata Szydło, a former prime minister and 2019 PiS MEP, raised questions on Twitter about whether Poles remember those policy choices.
READ ALSO:
-They have done so much that there was no money, and now … PO is ready to support the amendment of the Supreme Court law. Tusk: The opposition will not intervene
– Grabowski wants to privatize everything and liquidate programs. “This is what awaits Poland”; “Our whole team in Warsaw”
Retirement age as ballast for PO?
In the interview with Radio Zet, Schetyna was asked whether raising the retirement age could be considered a political burden for the Civic Platform. He answered that the retirement age has not increased and suggested that discussions about it would resurface naturally in public debate.
The politician emphasized that the topic is one that tends to reappear when policy changes are at stake, implying that it is a recurring issue in political discourse rather than a settled matter.
Who raised, who lowered?
The historical context is clear: on May 11, 2012, the Sejm passed a law that extended the retirement age to 67 for both men and women. On June 1 of the same year, the law received the president’s signature. The decision faced strong social opposition, including protests from the NSZZ Solidarność union. The reform came into effect in early 2013.
Returning to the pre-reform framework—65 for men and 60 for women, with an option for retirement or continued work—was one of Law and Justice’s central election promises. Schetyna pointed out that the extension progressed gradually, increasing by three months each year, and noted that the final target of 67 years was not fully reached as initially planned. Still, the retirement age did rise and became a live political topic that influenced subsequent debates.
“It’s hard to comment on such impertinence.”
The statement from Schetyna sparked a flurry of reactions. He asserted that during PO’s governance the retirement age did not rise and questioned the tone of criticism directed at PO figures. The exchange highlighted the volatility of political messaging around pension policy and the partisan interpretations of past reforms.
On social media, comments circulated that echoed a broader disagreement about the record. Some posts accused PO of lying or manipulating facts, while others defended the party and argued that the retirement policy was shaped by a sequence of decisions across different governments. The discussion underscored how pension reform remains a contentious symbol in the political dialogue between opposition groups and governing parties.
The conversation continued with questions about whether Schetyna genuinely indicated that the platform did not raise the retirement age and whether he hinted that the topic would reappear after elections. The tone reflected a broader expectation that pension policy will remain a point of contention in future political campaigns. Observers noted the evolving rhetoric on the topic as new statements emerged from various political actors and their supporters.
As the debate unfolded, commentators observed the interplay between party lines and public memory. The discussion suggested that pension age policy would continue to be a touchstone for evaluating the governance record of major political players. The ongoing narrative illustrated how political actors leverage historical decisions to frame current debates and mobilize support or opposition in the electorate.
Analysts and observers considered the implications of early statements and possible strategic moves ahead of elections. They noted that opposition voices often revisit reform measures to differentiate themselves and to appeal to voters who remain concerned about retirement security and working life. The public discourse showed how pension policy can act as a barometer for assessing credibility, governance style, and policy consistency among political parties.
In this unfolding story, the conversation about retirement age reflects deeper questions about social protection, fiscal sustainability, and the balance between work and retirement. It also highlights how political narratives adapt to shifting coalitions, public sentiment, and the practical realities of pension systems over time. The exchange in Radio Zet and the accompanying online discussions illustrate a vibrant, sometimes heated, public discourse about Poland’s pension framework and the roles that different parties have played in its evolution.
aja/Twitter, Radio Zet
Source: wPolityce