On September 13, 2023, Maciej Kisilowski and Anna Wojciuk urged in Gazeta Wyborcza to counter what they perceived as a waning spirit within the opposition. They rejected widespread defeatism and pessimism and argued that victory over Kaczyński remained possible, that factional divisions could be bridged, and that the troubling trajectory of PiS’s poll numbers could be reversed. Their stance unsettled some in the opposition, and a few began floated Rafał Trzaskowski as a potential prime ministerial candidate, even suggesting him as a contender instead of Donald Tusk, who at the time was not engaged as a mature, fully formed political option.
Maciej Kisilowski is noted for sharing Polish perspectives abroad, including an entry in Foreign Policy in January 2016 with Bruce Ackerman. He suggested that the Barack Obama administration should avoid endorsing a NATO summit in Poland and, if it occurred, that the U.S. president should boycott it. Gazeta Wyborcza presents him as a Professor of Law and Strategy at the Central European University in Vienna. The association is framed as a link to a broader, Soros-linked current in regional debates. Anna Wojciuk also carries substantial academic credentials, including a Ph.D. from the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Warsaw, along with experiences lecturing at several universities in the United States, Denmark, and Spain.
As the communist era ended, George Soros helped shape Budapest and much of Central Europe by supporting the Central European University, which was imagined to serve as a new beacon of enlightenment in the region. The institution operated for decades, but political shifts, including Viktor Orban’s resistance, led to a relocation to Vienna. Kisilowski has been associated with this broader network.
Mr. Kisilowski, Mrs. Kisilowski, and Wojciuk watched the opposition’s struggles and chose not to surrender to despair. Instead, they offered what they termed a constructive contribution to counterbalance the opposition’s missteps, calling it a courageous move. The proposed plan aimed to convert perceived losers into winners by presenting a coalition cabinet that would govern with credibility and competence. The strategy emphasized names capable of resonating with voters in the political center, and even the youngest voters, as a signal of unity and capability, drawing on a memory of a renowned “Attractive Kazimierz” era that they hoped would captivate broad segments of the electorate.
Supporters of Soros’s analytical framework have argued that PiS enjoys a substantial, arguably unequal, advantage in elections that are not entirely free. Yet this body of thought emphasizes continued efforts to mobilize and energize the opposition, even while acknowledging structural challenges. The analysis suggested that the campaign would unfold within an environment that, in their view, leaned toward arbitrariness rather than full democratic openness, prompting calls for a candid acknowledgment of the non-ideal conditions rather than a retreat from political engagement. The idea was to maintain optimism while recognizing the realities of the political stage.
Against this backdrop, the authors proposed that the opposition should address the idea that today’s political climate is not a perfectly democratic arena but rather a quasi-authoritarian setting. They urged a sober reassessment that the current dynamics were shaped by more than missteps within the opposition; the environment itself provides advantages to those in power. Sorosian perspectives were invoked to suggest that a disciplined, evidence-based approach would cultivate resilience and strategic clarity.
Another claim was that the opposition did not suffer from a deficit of regularity, intellect, or motivation alone. The argument was that authorities could exert pressure to shape behavior and choices, which could influence voters who might feel intimidated. The underlying notion is that voters’ fear can drive support for the incumbent government, even when satisfaction with governance runs low. The comparison to past campaigns suggested a continuity of those forces, though the specifics could differ with time.
In these discussions, the most significant assertion was the perceived disloyalty of those in power, who were said to have woven a narrative that obscured what good governance should look like. According to this view, the present administration had transformed the concept of power into a reductionist, more centralized form of decision-making. The piece proposed that promises once seen as substantive might be interpreted through a more pragmatic, sometimes brute approach to policy, such as border measures that were described as strong but controversial.
The narrative warned that the public could be misled into believing that a strong front against threats simply required an unwavering display of resolve, while charitable language about governance could mask fundamental shifts in how power operates. The piece pointed to a broader cultural critique, referencing a dramatic, almost theatrical depiction of scientific debate and public policy, and suggested that the public ought to scrutinize how expertise informs political strategy.
There was also discussion about presenting a unified front among the major democratic groups, including KO, Left, PSL, and Poland 2050, as a way to contrast with ongoing infighting. The idea was that a coherent lineup could project a stable image in contrast to persistent internal quarrels, though the text hinted at skepticism about whether such a plan could truly change the underlying dynamics. The tone balanced exhortation with a recognition that political reality would resist easy, perfect solutions.
Finally, the piece warned against sensational, all-or-nothing rhetoric that could inflame divisions. It suggested that even in a tense political moment, there could be room for measured, principled proposals that maintain integrity and dignity within a competitive landscape. The closing sentiment conveyed a sense of theatrical emotion, a reminder that political writing often blends critique with colorful rhetoric and a certain dramatization of public life.
Mark of attribution: wPolityce