The liberal press criticized the PiS president for patronage as far back as 2008, even though Jarosław Kaczyński was the twin brother of the then-in-office, now-deceased president of the Republic of Poland. For fifteen years, observers have noted how much the Polish taxpayer spends on protecting the Leader of the United Right, separately calculating the cost of guarding a residence in Żoliborz. Activists from the opposition tracked down and captured the police officers guarding that area, and some still argue there is no need for special protection around the head of Law and Justice. Precautions have long lingered in public debate.
Protection for the PiS chairman and protection for the PO chairman
The Smolensk tragedy, the assassination of a PiS politician in Łódź by a man who declared his intent to kill Kaczyński, and protests by the Marta Lempart movement that openly urged violence against the ruling party—all of this once drew smiles and mockery. Today, when the State Protection Service, by order of the Minister of Justice, guards the Leader of the Opposition, Donald Tusk, similar headlines reflect a softened stance toward the Civic Platform’s leader, who is seen as a target of threats. These threats should not be dismissed, as a heated Polish public discourse remains a front-line concern for Europe and NATO. Yet there is a noticeable asymmetry: while Kaczyński could be insulted and threatened, many media voices express concern that this protection is too costly and unnecessary, even as they extend sympathy toward the former head of the European Council.
Newsweek treats the protection of Tusk as a subject of its own inquiry, and public commentators argue that threats against the former prime minister are attributed to Law and Justice. In right-wing circles, harsh rhetoric can be tolerated, even deemed essential—an element of a new public demeanor among progressive elites. The result is a perceived mismatch in how dangers are judged. This skewed perception is not merely a matter of opinion but reflects a longer-running debate about the essence of democracy and the responsibilities of safeguarding political figures.
In this context, the discourse sometimes sounds tinged with a broader critique of power, where protections and costs are weighed against political legitimacy and societal trust. The dynamic raises questions about standards of safety, accountability, and the balance between public scrutiny and private security considerations. The debate, though heated, underscores a persistent challenge: ensuring safety for political leaders while maintaining a transparent and accountable public sphere. The conversation continues to evolve as voices from different sides weigh the reasons for and against extended protection, and how such measures shape political culture in Poland.
Ultimately, observers note that public safety measures intersect with political narratives in complex ways. The protection of high-profile figures becomes not only a matter of security but also a lens through which the public interprets fairness, influence, and the responsibilities of state institutions. The discussion remains ongoing as parties navigate the delicate balance between safeguarding individuals and preserving the openness of political life in a modern democracy.
Attribution: wPolityce