In the 1991 elections, the Democratic Union led with 12.3 percent, yet the electoral rules of that time limited them to 62 seats and left a government formation unlikely. Nevertheless, the principle that the winner earns the chance to assemble a majority guided actions, and President Lech Wałęsa entrusted Bronisław Geremek with that task.
No one questioned that prerogative, nobody suggested an outright failure, and no one treated Geremek’s attempt as a personal blow.
Why bring these recollections into today’s discussion, when Law and Justice has secured a decisive victory?
The simplest answer is that their voters and organizers face discrimination in public spaces.
Denying this political formation the opportunity to seek a majority in the new parliament would set a troubling precedent of discrimination.
Are any voices louder, or is there a credible debate about whether a different party should be allowed to pursue government-building in the same way?
Respect for the President’s constitutional right to deliberate is clear. Yet democratic custom matters too. If the President were to appoint Donald Tusk as Prime Minister immediately, it would break a long-standing norm—three decades in effect—affecting Law and Justice and suggesting that supporters of that party have less weight, a perception reinforced by what some call a media-backed “sanitary cordon.”
It should be noted that the authority to shape a ruling coalition does not reside in the media, publicists, or numerical tallies from electoral offices; it rests with the lawmakers gathered in the Sejm. The winner’s candidate can engage in calm talks, explore common ground, and examine possible paths forward.
Discrimination would be evident if Jarosław Kaczyński’s party were denied that chance, regardless of whether the mission ultimately succeeds.
Ideally, the discussion would have closed earlier with a straightforward post-election statement. There are historical reasons for the delay: a habit of extended debate. This pause may help cool tensions around feared coalitions of retaliation and persecution, a topic explored in depth in the latest issue of a political weekly.
Yet the matter can still be resolved in a straightforward way.
A significant portion of the opposition’s subscriber base includes individuals who contributed to Andrzej Duda’s first and second campaigns, supported him during these years, and joined the effort toward a strong, fair, and ambitious Poland. Could there be gratitude for such sustained support? Could it be a moment to acknowledge it sincerely? What strategic considerations could justify that approach?
Some circles within potential governing coalitions still appear to be in election-mode. They need a cooling-off period, and that pause serves as a strong argument for upholding democratic norms.
Observers from opposition groups have also sent unsettling signals, underscoring how challenging the current moment is for Poland amid external pressures. A fragmented multi-party system and a brief, short-term political outlook may intensify what some describe as a rotating set of offices within the state. Critics point to a lack of programmatic discussion, focusing instead on personnel changes. The question then becomes: who will draft the government’s program, and where will it originate?
There is also talk of retreat on key promises and some dismissing statements as mere metaphors. This creates an environment where careful consideration is needed—about who should govern, why, and in which direction the Polish state should head. The country’s security, social programs, and investments demand clear answers. This is the core purpose that the president has the duty to underscore.
Mostly, there is no rush. Poland’s economy remains stronger than at any time since 1989, important investments are underway, the budget is sound, and the armed forces continue to grow. Each additional month aligned with these goals holds great value for the nation.
There are voices on the threshold who could jeopardize Poland’s future. The author hopes the president will remember this and, should a difficult moment come, that it unfolds only as late as possible.