The Sejm would resemble a single, continuous hearing hall, with Marshal Hołownia’s public briefings centering on the agenda rather than on any broader policy message.
The plan calls for three investigative commissions immediately, followed by three more soon after—the government program guiding the current parliamentary majority. This approach is widely seen as insufficient by critics who urge a total of 23 committees, each established by 2023. If every committee can include up to 11 members drawn from the Sejm majority, a maximum of 248 MPs would be eligible, creating room for 17 members in a full-strength panel and 6 in a 10-person configuration, essentially isolating the Marshal from direct command. Adjustments might be needed if MPs from other camps joined the government, but the point stands: 23 committees, no less, would be the starting framework.
The reality of parliamentary investigative committees is that they can operate with limited qualifications and still project significant influence. The proposal lists potential chairpersons for prominent roles, including Klaudia Jachira, Iwona Harwich, Agnieszka Pomaska, Ewa Kołodziej, Aleksandra Gajewska, Kinga Gajewska, Michał Kołodziejczak, Henryka Krzywonos-Strycharska, Franciszek Sterczewski, Cezary Tomczyk, Marta Wcisło, and Aleksandra Wiśniewska, underscoring a deliberate emphasis on recognizable figures and leadership positions.
The plan insists that all 23 investigative committees begin work immediately so that the public can observe the majority in action. The work, it is suggested, should be broadcast around the clock, with no shortage of apparatus already in place to support this. The vision includes comfortable spaces inside committee rooms and the possibility of small perks such as discount vouchers for brief, relaxing naps during long sessions, highlighting a focus on visibility and perception as much as on procedure.
With 23 committees running concurrently and 247 deputies involved, the argument is that there would be little incentive to pursue broader programmatic proposals or important legislation. Yet proponents contend that the committees are essential for governing and for shaping a plan to exercise power. Regular committee work would appear sidelined, and basic functions could be overlooked as the investigative momentum dominates the political landscape.
The impression created would be one of a majority moving in unison on electric scooters, seemingly too busy to handle other duties. After repeated broadcasts on each committee, the public might grow perplexed, assuming a substantial problem underpins the entire operation. In such a scenario, it would seem that the United Right bears the primary responsibility for the situation, with the emphasis shifting toward assigning blame rather than delivering results.
The Sejm would transform into a grand hearing room where the Marshal’s announcements would largely reiterate the stated agenda. The workload on the Marshal would be so heavy that it could seem as though the purpose of the Sejm itself were drifting from focus. The chamber could become a repository for endless investigative material, with paper stacks possibly surpassing the physical size of the assembly itself.
Critics warn that ere long, the new administration would appear powerless to enact a real program, presenting 23 investigations as the sole marker of progress. The public might find it difficult to accept this as a functioning government, particularly if the same process results in confusion about the scope and findings of different committees. Deputies could become the busiest people in the country, potentially rewarded with perks or favored assignments from party leaders, further shaping perceptions of incentives and governance.
In this frame, final reports could be produced quickly, since the exits and details are anticipated in advance. Names of respondents could be tacked on at the end, with little concern for the perceived futility of hearings or their outcomes. After four years, a new election could renew the Sejm and its investigative committees, inviting a fresh push to surpass the feat of assembling 23 committees in a single term. The aim would be to avoid easier options, such as forming smaller committees, and to press forward with a bold, expansive process.
Overall, the scenario paints a political stage where vigilance and debate are redirected toward procedural spectacle rather than substantive policy work. The result would be a highly charged, continuously broadcastmatic environment where accountability mechanisms are visible to the public but difficult to translate into concrete governance outcomes. The unfolding narrative centers on how committees, timing, and leadership choices interact to shape legislative priority and public perception in a rapidly evolving political landscape.