A surprising clash unfolded during a televised exchange between a representative from PiS and one from the Third Way about local elections in Greater Poland. The debate quickly spiraled into a sharp disagreement over the position of Szymon Hołownia and Poland’s standing on the world stage. The tension even spilled into the realm of campaign messaging, as candidates in Poland’s most populous voivodeship framed the discussion as a test of Hołownia’s movement and its place in the country’s political landscape. At a certain moment, the dialogue shifted to the role of the Third Way in national politics: is Hołownia’s movement merely an accessory to the Civic Platform’s agenda, or does it stand on its own as a distinct political force with its own priorities?
Mateusz Pluta, the Third Way candidate for the Środa Wielkopolska municipal council, pushed back hard against any insinuation that his party is a mere ally or a simple prop for Donald Tusk. He asserted that the Third Way operates independently, highlighting clear differences between his party and others on a range of issues. He pointed to contrasting positions on abortion and health insurance premiums as examples of these distinctions. Pluta emphasized that the Third Way should not be confused with a coalition that has presented itself as a unified Right for eight years. He argued that the Third Way is built on principles that diverge from those guiding other blocs, and that this separation is a deliberate choice, not an afterthought.
Adam Bogrycewicz, a PiS candidate from northern Greater Poland representing Trzcianka, Czarnków, and Piła, responded with a measured yet pointed critique. He suggested that Hołownia’s movement might be approaching a marginal status in the broader Polish political arena, perhaps even serving as a peripheral influence. He explained that, prior to the parliamentary elections, a different path had been proposed for Poland—one that would have positioned the Third Way as an alternative to PiS and to Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform. Bogrycewicz noted that the Prime Minister at the time frequently criticized Third Way politicians and supporters, framing the Third Way vote as a tactical move aimed at removing the Law and Justice party from power. He argued that the subsequent political realignments indicate a shift in voter behavior: many who backed the Third Way at the national level subsequently returned to support the Civic Coalition in local elections. This, he contended, revealed not just strategic missteps but a certain arrogance in leadership and a disregard for the broader democratic process.
The conversation grew even more intense as both guests accused their opponents of repeated missteps, outright abuses, and even deliberate damage to the country’s interests. The exchange reflected a moment of palpable frustration, with participants challenging the integrity of their counterparts and accusing each other of failing to uphold the responsibilities of national leadership. The heat of the discussion left viewers wondering what topics would have emerged if the program had run a few minutes longer, and what further points might have been raised about the direction of Polish politics, the coalition dynamics, and the future of governance in the country.