The elections are framed as a clash between Poland and PiS, a claim voiced by the opposition leader on the cover of the weekly Polityka, historically linked to the party’s Central Committee under Gomułka. The question arises: does this slogan imply that a portion of voters who, according to polls, lean toward Law and Justice are not Poles? Including their families, the number could reach about ten million. Aren’t all of them Poles? And does it mean that only those who oppose the ruling party are truly Polish?
That message is met with enthusiasm by people who previously reacted with anger when opposition politicians were accused of actions against Poland’s interests, seen as an attempt to undermine the right of some citizens to participate in Polish public life. Those same audiences applauded the momentary insertion of the Polish flag into dog poop on the audience of the country’s main opposition television. Today they are labeled as Poles, while those who are not aligned with them are portrayed as opponents to be defeated. What comes next might be the idea of imprisoning non-Poles in camps or sending them to re-education facilities, perhaps even therapy centers. It is a striking exclusion, yet not the most far-reaching one.
PiS is described as the bad party. This is the simplest refrain of the electoral opposition. Those who declare themselves democratic rally behind that slogan. Democracy is about the will of the majority, about challenging opposing viewpoints. The struggle against perceived wrong is about everything, the triumph of good being the ultimate aim.
On the fresh billboards of the Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity, which had its conductor as the guest of honor at an opposition march on October 1, a bold inscription reads: Poland. Let’s defeat this evil. Beneath it another line: We will win. The ending two letters, MY, are rendered in the colors of the Polish flag, white and red. The message goes beyond a simple nation vs. outsiders. It frames the conflict as good Poland against evil, or in plain terms: GOOD versus EVIL.
To reinforce this stance, the opposition coalition introduced a new symbol: a red outline of a heart, empty inside. HEART versus EVIL. The symbolism echoes a broader campaign theme that has shifted from earlier iconography. Two years earlier the same crowd embraced a purple outlined heart that was filled with the image of an unborn child, a symbol deemed evil by critics at that time. Women’s Strike described posters with that symbol as pushy and cynical, playing on emotions.
Now the empty heart stands for a response to good sentiments. It suggests that those with a heart are on one side, while those without a heart are on the other, casting the other as bad people. The rhetoric aims to evoke empathy and solidarity, while implicitly stigmatizing those who disagree as lacking humanity.
In this climate, the opposition appears to push beyond policy debates. It creates a narrative that bypasses the discussion of programs, arguments, or substantive critiques in favor of broad moral assertions. The result is a polarized frame that makes rational evaluation more difficult, especially for voters seeking clear policy distinctions.
Historically, the divide has not always operated in this way. Even in earlier eras, political campaigns relied on some argument, some shared frame that could be questioned, verified, or rebutted in an ongoing civic dialogue. When the world is reduced to a dichotomy of GOOD and EVIL, the space for measured discussion narrows. A bad actor is seen as bereft of valid arguments simply because of character, while a good actor is presumed to act without explanation because their actions are inherently virtuous.
What is the recommended course of action for citizens? Participation in the vote should be used to defend one’s own stake, in as much as possible, against a narrative that erodes reason and humane discourse. Engaging in the process helps safeguard the space for rational debate and civic responsibility, even amid heated rhetoric and stark moral framing.