He is widely known, yet not tied to politics or to supporting Civic Platform in a broad sense. His appearance on the KO lists could be read by voters as a sign of desperation, a forced bid to anchor the ticket with familiar names in order to lift standing, suggests Bogusław Wołoszański’s entry into the PAN sociologist Prof. Hendrik Domanski’s analysis of the election landscape.
wPolityce.pl: Journalist Bogusław Wołoszański, accused of cooperation with the security apparatus of the People’s Republic of Poland, could become a vocal force for Donald Tusk’s coalition on the KO lists, or perhaps a liability?
Prof. Hendrik Domanski: It appears he might weigh down the ticket more than raise Civic Platform’s ratings. Wołoszański is well known but not seen as a political figure or a supporter of Civic Platform in general. In this light, his placement on the lists might be perceived by voters as a sign of urgency from Donald Tusk, a compelled search for recognizable figures to tout on KO’s slate in hopes of boosting poll numbers.
In essence, there is little justification for including Wołoszański based on voters’ perceptions of who is worth supporting. The tactic of forcing a candidacy appears to be its own motive rather than a strategic choice.
Such a choice places pressure on the PO in the eyes of its electorate, and more broadly on undecided voters as well.
More broadly, the electorate under consideration remains persuadable. Wołoszański is not a figure who commands enthusiasm. He does not belong to the ranks of celebrities or the artistic or cultural spheres. In such a climate, candidates who lack a solid rationale for participating in elections can still draw in voters.
Wołoszański could become a burden to the PO because of his ties to the security services of the People’s Republic of Poland. His reaction to the accusations matters; he responded in a way that suggested not only cooperation but also, as a candidate of Donald Tusk, a dismissal of the allegations as provocative and exaggerated. That stance can feel disrespectful to history and to the voters themselves.
Should a potential politician answer differently?
One approach could be to frame the accusations as a political attack from opponents of the party, and to treat the allegations as an issue to be dismissed. That would be a way to acknowledge past concerns while maintaining a stance that avoids personalizing the matter as a private record. Still, this might be read as confirmation that the issue is of limited relevance to the candidate’s current platform.
These considerations suggest that the Wołoszański candidacy is unlikely to bolster the PO’s standings and may even harm them, particularly among skeptical voters.
Is there any parallel with Michal Kołodziejczak?
There is a sense that Kołodziejczak’s inclusion could serve a different purpose, though perhaps not to the same extent as Wołoszański. The potential collaboration between the two could be seen as a distraction from Wołoszański’s own profile, though it could also complicate the public perception of both figures and the party, making it harder for either to gain credibility.
Some observers view this pairing as a tactical move that might backfire—an attempt to redirect attention away from one controversial figure by presenting another. Whether this strategy would be effective remains uncertain and arguably questionable.
Regarding Kołodziejczak, the overall impact remains mixed. The start on the KO lists is arguably more favorable to Kołodziejczak personally than to the party as a whole. If both appear on stage together within one campaign, this could undermine the credibility of both Wołoszański and Civic Platform rather than strengthening either side.
What then explains the seemingly desperate turn by Donald Tusk?
From some viewpoints, the move appears less strategic and more impulsive, an attempt to reach for a familiar, though controversial, name in the hope of swaying a segment of the electorate that values recognition over policy. The Kołodziejczak example—an individual who previously expressed contradictory views about the Platform—adds weight to the assessment that the tactic may be driven by urgency rather than a well-formulated plan.
It is worth noting the inclusion of Adam Bodnar in this discussion. Bodnar is openly associated with the opposition; as ombudsman, he has frequently commented on Civic Platform’s activities. His participation on the Civic Coalition stage does not carry neutrality in the eyes of many observers. However, Bodnar is a more straightforward case to justify than Kołodziejczak or Wołoszański, simply due to the different context surrounding his role and history.
Taken together, these observations suggest that the current lineup on KO carries more risk than reward for Civic Platform. The strategy seems to hinge on drawing attention from a crowded political field by leveraging recognizability, yet the probable reaction from voters could be tempered by concerns about past affiliations and the lack of a clear policy-based rationale for some candidates. The broader takeaway is that such candidacies might fail to translate into lasting electoral gains for the party.
Source: wPolityce