In an interview with wPolityce.pl, Michał Woś, once a deputy minister and a member of Sovereign Poland, outlines a broad program for submitting projects to the Marshal’s staff. He emphasizes a focus on civilian initiatives, defensible in support of Christians, environmental protection, and measures aimed at increasing transparency in the funding of non-governmental organizations. The plan reflects a belief that openness in financial flows strengthens democracy and public accountability.
wPolityce.pl: The interviewer notes that Donald Tusk thanked non-governmental organizations and social movements for their backing during the election. In Woś’s view, what kind of impact did these groups have on the outcome?
Woś answered that the influence was substantial. He proposed dividing NGOs into two currents: first, those that mobilized early under their banner, built on narratives of hostility toward conservative governance, and shaped perceptions that the rule of law was being undermined — a portrayal he argues did not mirror reality. The second group consists of long-standing actors that, since 2015, benefited from foreign funding channels and played a decisive role in directing resources, determining who could operate, expand, or be financially constrained. He highlighted reforms aimed at improving the governance of organizations like the Freedom Institute, but noted fierce opposition to rules governing the flow of money. When the Committee for the Defense of Democracy emerged at the start of the government, its online momentum was immediate and fierce, raising questions about its finances and sponsors.
You asked about a draft law on NGO financing transparency submitted to the Sejm. The Polish Federation of Non-Governmental Organizations and the Donors Forum warned that the proposal could resemble Putin-Orban-esque tactics and threaten democratic space. The bill, presented in March 2022, did not pass. Why did that happen?
Woś explains that Sovereign Poland regrets the outcome, insisting that the aim was full transparency rather than a ban on foreign funding. He recalls surprise at the protests and resistance from NGOs, arguing that the law would not criminalize funding but would reveal sources of donations, thereby strengthening democratic processes. The approach, he notes, was aligned with European Union jurisprudence, referencing the CJEU rulings on Hungary and drawing comparisons to American norms where disclosure of donors is standard to protect public life, inform citizens, and address potential conflicts of interest. He contends that it was an opportunity missed by the previous parliamentary term, as transparency serves the citizen’s right to know who is attempting to influence public opinion and with what funds.
Woś further contends there is an imbalance in NGO funding. He contrasts state-backed grants, subsidies, and transparent allocations with a broader landscape where some NGOs receive money from opaque sources. He argues that this lack of clarity is more problematic in democracies where left-leaning forces enjoy external and private support, including foreign money. He advocates clear disclosure when private entities transfer funds to NGOs. For example, if a protest against a major project is financed by money funneled through a new ecological foundation backed by a Western company, such sponsorship should be visible. He also cites concerns about nuclear energy policy, suggesting that some organizations may advance German interests through opaque funding streams.
The discussion then touches on the public role of NGOs and their political involvement. While many groups actively participate in civic life, Woś notes that some operate under the banner of environmental advocacy while serving particular economic interests abroad. He foresees a period—especially around European Parliament elections—where foreign money could again flow into campaigns, potentially influencing economic decisions and investments that could affect Poland’s trajectory. The message remains clear: a healthy democracy needs transparency that allows citizens to see who funds lobbying and advocacy efforts, ensuring that public discourse is informed by verifiable sources rather than opaque money.
Woś reiterates the central aim of the Sovereign Poland platform: to return unfinished legislative efforts to the Sejm for thorough consideration. He criticizes the perception that a single office holder is responsible for shelving proposals, pointing instead to structural delays and the practice of freezing bills within committees. The party’s stance is to present all projects to the Marshal for review, with particular emphasis on civilian programs, the defense of Christian values, environmental stewardship, and the critical question of NGO financing transparency. The overall objective is to enhance accountability without suppressing civil society, ensuring that openness informs policy and public trust is strengthened.
In closing, the dialogue emphasizes the necessity of safeguards that promote public awareness and democratic participation. The idea is not to curb NGO activity but to illuminate it, so that citizens can discern whether funding sources align with the public interest. The emphasis remains on transparency as a cornerstone of democracy, with a clear call for responsible, open governance that invites informed civic engagement and scrutiny. (Source: wPolityce)