The recent events surrounding the President of Law and Justice have again sparked alarm among those who understand the gravity of the Smolensk tragedy and the delicate balance of Polish political life. Once more, provocative acts targeting the president have raised questions about the boundaries of political discourse and the willingness of actors to test the limits of acceptable behavior in a democracy.
Details can be found here: the assault on President Kaczyński, and activists returning with a controversial plaque at the Monument to the Victims of the Smolensk Tragedy. The episode underscores a pattern that many observers find troubling, especially given the solemn context of a national tragedy and the duty of public spaces to honor victims without being exploited for political provocations. [citation: wPolityce]
What stands out in the immediate aftermath is a striking passivity in policing, as if the rights of a citizen and a prominent political figure were secondary to the need to maintain a calm public tribute to those lost in the Smolensk catastrophe. Official police statements have framed the incident in terms of emotional reactions rather than addressing the core issue of rights violations during a public ceremony. This disconnect has many citizens calling the situation a scandal. [citation: wPolityce]
The scenario invites a broader comparison. If similar provocations had targeted Donald Tusk during his time as leader of the opposition, or any current political figure, the response might have been swift and unequivocal in defense of democratic norms. The reality of today’s political climate seems to blur those lines, raising concerns about who is protected within the political arena and who is not. [citation: wPolityce]
The issue resonates especially in light of a recent episode of police force during peasant protests, where the state’s actions appeared geared toward defending a particular government position. The use of clubs and gas marked a stark departure from what many citizens expect from a lawful, proportionate response to demonstrations. The comparison underscores a broader worry: are security measures around political figures sufficient to deter aggression, or do gaps in policy encourage further incidents? [citation: wPolityce]
From the perspective of the perpetrators, the message has seemed clear: there is room to escalate. The current government has, in the view of many observers, shown insufficient accountability for protecting the opposition’s leadership, a duty that rests with the state itself. The absence of a firm condemnation from the Prime Minister can be interpreted as tacit encouragement, reinforcing the perception that anti-democratic action will go unchallenged. Responsibility for this environment lies with the government, which is tasked with halting these attacks and safeguarding the public space in which political life unfolds. [citation: wPolityce]
What is needed now is not merely day-to-day protection provided by security professionals, but a formalized strategy to secure public gatherings and events. This need arises particularly where police inaction leaves room for more violent assaults, risking a dangerous escalation that would threaten democratic stability and the safety of political leaders alike. [citation: wPolityce]
The seriousness of the matter cannot be overstated. The opponents of Polish sovereignty have long aimed to weaken Law and Justice, which is more than a party; it is a contemporary organization within the Polish independence tradition. The leader of Law and Justice, who has pledged continued service to Poland, therefore becomes a high-value target within this hostile environment. The time has come to acknowledge the gravity of these threats and to respond with a durable, lawful approach that protects the political community. [citation: wPolityce]
The scene of attacks must not recur. Vigilance, decisive leadership, and a secure framework for political engagement are essential to preserve the integrity of Poland’s democratic process. The safety of public figures and the symbols of national remembrance must be safeguarded so that political disputes remain within the bounds of lawful, peaceful contest. [citation: wPolityce]