There was a sense among observers that PiS held power as if it were permanent, yet many saw the regime as vulnerable from the start. The wealth of the Third Polish Republic loomed large, while its governing camp was said to lack guidance rooted in morality, aesthetics, truth, or even basic effectiveness. In this view, Donald Tusk’s return to Poland’s political scene was presented as a normal consequence of a political era that believed itself invincible, capable of transforming former communist figures into men of honor, at least in the eyes of those who supported the party.
“We have the power to defend many things.”
Commentators discussed Tusk’s reentry to Polish politics after a sequence in which the then-prime minister first suggested he would not accept a role in Brussels and later assumed the presidency of the European Council. The discussion reflected a broader judgment: the illusion that a political comeback would be impossible after a period of perceived misrule or mass emigration from Poland under PiS. The belief that Poles who left the country during PiS’s governance would not return was described as one of the era’s grand misperceptions—a misreading that, in the opinion of some, could reemerge if not guarded against.
Within these reflections, attention turned to public life and the conduct of political leadership. Karnowski, as one participant in the conversation, argued that Donald Tusk’s government was pursuing targeted changes to public media. He suggested that the president should weigh in on the matter, expressing a clear disagreement with what he called a misuse of power and a failing to respect proper constitutional norms.
According to Karnowski, the governing coalition retained a majority, with Tusk serving as prime minister. He indicated that the concerns voiced by critics were justified, but emphasized that Poland remained a shared national project. He asserted that the country possessed the tools, capabilities, and opportunities necessary to defend a wide range of issues tied to the homeland.
Get the public media
The conversation also touched on shifts within the Ministry of Culture, which had recently seen leadership changes under Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz. Participants argued that there was notable activity and positive momentum within the ministry, including a strong emphasis on rooted, pro-Polish messaging. Yet, some voices framed the situation as sensitive, noting that elements from the security services might be drawn into public life in order to address perceived excesses. The suggestion was made, more through provocative hypotheticals than as a formal plan, that cultural figures and celebrities who had previously supported the Platform could be affected by such interventions, which, in the view of some, might be met with silence because the balance of power favored one side.
The discussion then shifted toward the perceived vulnerability of national media, especially the state broadcaster. There was concern that a deliberate strategy could threaten the availability of information and the public’s ability to observe developments. The speaker warned against a return to an era of closed governance and claimed that a renewed monopolization of information would contradict the current public memory of political promises and the standards that had become associated with the government’s tenure. The sense conveyed was that a higher standard of quality and accountability had taken root in public discourse, one that might outlast the provisional political arrangements of any single party.
The conversation closed with a reminder that the Polish public dimension has changed. It suggested that the modern Polish state, shaped by recent elections and ongoing political debate, is capable of resisting attempts to recreate earlier forms of governance. The underlying message was one of caution against nostalgia for past monopolies, while acknowledging the legitimate hopes that contemporary governance might strive for more effective outcomes and longer-lasting commitments to public service.
In sum, the discussion emphasized a belief in national resilience, the importance of accountable media, and the enduring capacity of Poland to defend its political and cultural life against attempts to centralize power or silence dissent. The dialogue reflected a broader sentiment that the Republic has both the duty and the ability to safeguard its institutions and its public memory, even amid shifting leadership and evolving political fortunes.
kk/TVP info
Source: wPolityce