Everyone wants to be the sharpest, grabbing the top job and letting events unfold after that because removing the Marshal or the Prime Minister is never simple.
When opposition figures declare that the process of forming a new government is flawless and that nobody will harm anyone, readers should read it differently. Those so‑called friends fear only being swallowed by the realities of power, despite loud talk about friendship, loyalty, and even affection. This climate fosters doubt about how positions in government and parliament are shared.
The notion of rotating offices may come off as a joke or a fixation on parity and symmetry. In politics, symmetry and its breaks matter; perhaps we should not expect a clean rule here either. If that were the case, it would be a mistake to treat rotation as mere language. It is both a sign of hope and a sign of mistrust.
Let us begin with hope. If seats in parliament or the cabinet rotated, it could prevent a total division of power and the hoarding of advantages for a single group over a long stretch. Today’s gains could be hard to reclaim tomorrow. A rotating setup might act as a stabilizer, reducing risks of splits, rifts, or betrayals. Those who are embedded in politics can defend their own positions with greater resolve and sacrifice than abstract principles, helping the coalition endure even by accident.
Yet distrust may loom larger than hope. The fear that parties will fail to honor a shared agreement lurks in the background. For instance, if Szymon Hołownia became chairman of the Sejm and Magdalena Biejat led the Senate, with Donald Tusk as prime minister and Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz and Krzysztof Gawkowski taking deputy roles, it would be a tall order to pull off without friction. Such a scenario risks creating a fragile balance that may crumble under pressure.
Any promises with Donald Tusk are understood by the Third Way, the New Left, and the Civic Coalition to be nonconforming and to require living with the idea that a day may come when results appear unpredictable. The specter of varying loyalties cannot be dismissed, and this applies to rotation as well as to other arrangements.
Rotation, in reality, often looks like a ruse or a pause. The central question is who will be the first to assume a given post. The next in line can warm up the engines or recharge the batteries as they wish, but they depend on the choices of those who might be replaced. They hold the only leverage they have where they can be easily called to account. Some may choose to retreat from front-line politics altogether.
Imagine a rotation that appoints a Sejm chair or a prime minister for a year or two. That person takes charge with the blessing of their faction, only to signal later that partners should find their own path. It may look like a breach of the rules, yet practical steps to remove such a leader threaten to destabilize the coalition, a risk the partners will not accept. The coalition mood remains somber, yet it persists.
The cost of building a coalition capable of removing a recalcitrant appointee would be high. It could require bargaining with parts of the opposition, and the sight of allies turning on each other would be ugly. The public face might stay calm, but the game would feel like a test after years of one-party dominance. The coalition would appear almost like a troubled family, clinging to unity despite strain.
If the Civic Coalition, the Third Way, and the New Left treat rotation as a serious option, many would call it a sham. The core question remains who would start in the top roles and how the others would respond. Everyone wants the bragging rights of being first, and then each mover may do as they wish because the removal of a top leader is never straightforward. Those who lead early can show the way to those who follow while guiding them through the nuances of the game.
It seems reasonable to assume that all parties are weighing the chance to be first in changing roles and looking for ways to persuade partners that this is merely a technical matter. That belief can complicate acceptance of a rotation plan, as fear of being outmaneuvered grows. Conversely, a lack of rotation also makes consensus harder, since it stalls potential change. The situation may unfold slowly, with partners watching each other and setting clever traps, while everyone wonders who will blink first and how far the others will go in pursuit of advantage.
[citation: wPolityce]