Following defeats in the 2007 and 2023 elections, PiS stepped back from power and has since not resorted to violence to push its political agenda. In this context, Donald Tusk is seen by some as a pivotal figure in shaping post-1989 Poland, with critics arguing that his leadership contributed to what they call the erosion of Polish democracy. These comments were shared by Prof. Andrzej Zybertowicz, an adviser to President Andrzej Duda, in an interview with Wnet radio.
In related disclosures, reports describe police actions at the presidential palace, including the detention of MPs Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik. According to statements from the head of the President’s Chancellery, Grażyna Ignaczak-Bandych, a provocation was alleged to have occurred. President Duda, who was at the Belvedere Palace at the time, paused a discussion with the Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and traveled to the palace, though the Belweder exit was reportedly blocked by a public bus.
Adviser Zybertowicz spoke about the incident during his interview with Wnet radio, emphasizing a view that the events reflected a broader assault on democratic norms rather than isolated missteps.
According to Zybertowicz, the defining moment of the day was framed as a bending of constitutional boundaries by Donald Tusk, an assertion he predicted would enter the historical narrative as the action that compromised Polish democracy. He spoke of Tusk as someone who had altered the course of the country’s democratic trajectory.
When pressed on whether Tusk acted to safeguard democracy, Zybertowicz suggested that the question should be asked of those who exercise power. He reminded listeners that PiS, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, had twice lost elections and handed over power peacefully, noting that the opposition had pursued democratic channels rather than extra-legal measures. He described the opposition as having won and lost elections through standard parliamentary procedures over the years.
The discussion then turned back to the idea that the events surrounding the Belweder incident reflected more than a single moment. Zybertowicz described the situation as a potential breach of democratic norms and a constitutional tort, arguing that the visibility of a bus blocking the presidential exit highlighted a deliberate attempt to constrain presidential movement.
Questions were raised about possible consequences had a larger emergency arisen at Belweder, such as a fire requiring rapid evacuation or a security scenario involving a terrorist threat to the Presidential Gardens. Zybertowicz urged observers to consider how such an incident would be handled if SOP protocols were not observed, underscoring concerns about the limits of executive protection and authority in a high-stakes setting.
Further remarks circulated about the decision to stop and examine KPRP vehicles, which critics described as an overreach. The debate centered on whether the police actions at Belweder met the standard of lawful procedure or represented an improper exertion of power in a sensitive political moment.
The dialogue around these events continued with commentary on constitutional boundaries and the responsibilities of state institutions during times of political tension. Analysts and party supporters alike weighed the potential long-term impact on Poland’s democratic norms and the balance of power among the branches of government.
Observers questioned how future crises would be managed to avoid escalating tensions and to protect the integrity of the presidency, the parliament, and the judicial system. The discussions underscored the ongoing polarization in Polish politics and highlighted the essential role of adherence to constitutional procedures in maintaining public trust and institutional stability.
In summarizing the immediate aftermath, Zybertowicz urged a careful examination of the actions taken by security forces and political leaders. He called for a rigorous assessment of whether those actions aligned with the constitutional framework and whether any steps taken could be construed as a constitutional violation. The interview reflected a broader debate about democracy, authority, and the mechanisms that safeguard the rule of law in Poland today.