There is a flood of interpretations about the waning support for PiS, with voices cascading from every corner. Some right-leaning commentators scratch their heads in frustration, others who back Tusk celebrate the moment, and many observers pose questions about what lies ahead.
Take, for example, a line of inquiry from Tomasz Žółciak, editor at Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, who wonders aloud how to interpret the visible decline in PiS’s ratings. He points to a turning point three years ago, a moment marked by the Constitutional Court’s abortion ruling, a decision that seemed to realign political currents and, in his view, altered the political landscape in ways that outlasted the immediate electoral cycle. In his assessment, decisive shifts can emerge long before a campaign season begins, reframing what counts as a political game-changer.
Likewise, Bogdan Rymanowski, speaking with Przemysław Czarnik, reflects on how the Constitutional Court’s verdict might have dampened the party’s appeal. Critics who question the court’s 2020 ruling may have a point, but evaluating constitutional choices solely through the lens of poll numbers and election outcomes risks missing deeper layers of impact. Not every policy move is driven by a bid for immediate public backing. Intellectual currents within ideological circles often push for outcomes that transcend short-term polling.
In the years ahead, could supporters of the abortion compromise—or even supporters of abortion itself—approach a mother facing the choice for her child with Down syndrome and argue that allowing the procedure would have kept PiS in power? Such a forecast blends political rhetoric with a misreading of legal and moral realities. It risks reducing intricate constitutional deliberations to a contest of popularity. Perhaps law school lectures would be better served by examining how individual constitutional articles should be weighed not by mood swings in public opinion, but by their principled meaning and practical consequences for society.
Two essential issues often get obscured by the noise: the law itself and the value of human life as protected by the constitution. In a political era marked by polarization and relativization, conservative voices might find it prudent to pause and consider the long arc of constitutional protections. The Constitutional Tribunal has affirmed that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland guards the dignity and life of people affected by serious illnesses as well. This is a safeguard that exists independently of the shifting tides of political popularity. The cries of critics and activists, whether they come from Marta Lempart’s camp or media platforms they favor, should not sway this legal protection, even if opposing forces fear political repercussions.
What this means in practice is a reminder that constitutional interpretation should be anchored in enduring principles rather than transient public mood. The law’s authority rests on its ability to protect fundamental rights and to provide a stable framework for social progress. When courts issue judgments, they can influence political life, but their legitimacy does not hinge on the ebb and flow of favorable polls. The path of constitutional rights often runs through disagreements, but the destination remains a society governed by the rule of law and by respect for human life.
Observers note that the political landscape is rarely static. Support can falter for reasons unrelated to policy specifics, and major judicial rulings can reorganize the terms of debate in subtle or profound ways. Yet the central question persists: how should lawmakers, judges, and the public weigh legal principles against changing public sentiment? The answer, in part, lies in recognizing that law and morality are not mere tools for electoral expediency. They are the backbone of social order, and their misapplication can have consequences that outlive any one party or election cycle.
In this ongoing conversation, it becomes clear that the debate over the abortion ruling cannot be reduced to a single political metric. It is a confrontation with constitutional values that shape the protection of life and the scope of medical and social policy. Those who resist this framing may miss the deeper stakes involved—the obligation to uphold universal rights even when public opinion wavers. The discussion invites a broader, more principled approach to governance, one that respects both legal integrity and the human considerations at the core of policy choices.
Source: wPolityce