Latest news with #CivicPlatform
Euractiv
6 days ago
- Business
- Euractiv
Tusk unveils major cabinet reshuffle amid coalition crisis
WARSAW – Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced a long-awaited cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday, removing key ministers and consolidating key portfolios in a move aimed at stabilising his embattled coalition government. The reshuffle follows the presidential election defeat of Civic Platform candidate and Tusk ally Rafał Trzaskowski, as well as slumping poll numbers that have emboldened junior coalition partners. The centre-right Poland 2050 party pushed for the creation of a deputy prime minister post, while the Polish People's Party (PSL) even suggested replacing Tusk with its leader and defence minister, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz. These demands were ultimately dismissed. Although Tusk insisted that the overhaul would not alter the coalition's 'major goals' since taking power in 2023, the changes mark a clear shift in direction. Justice Minister Adam Bodnar, the architect of Poland's EU-approved rule-of-law plan, is set to leave the government. Although he was praised for unlocking EU cohesion and recovery funds that had been frozen under the PiS-led administration, Bodnar has faced mounting criticism over the slow pace of judicial reform. He will be replaced by Waldemar Żurek, a vocal critic of the judicial changes introduced during the PiS era, who is expected to continue the reform agenda. Tusk also announced that the number of ministries would be reduced from 26 to 21, stating that the goal was to build 'not the biggest government, but the best one.' Two new 'super ministries' were also announced: an energy ministry, which will be led by Miłosz Motyka (PSL); and an economy ministry, which has been added to the portfolio of Finance Minister Andrzej Domański. Despite the shakeup, public confidence remains low. A poll by SW Research for Onet found that 40% of Poles believe the reshuffle will do little to improve the government's image. (cs, de)
Bangkok Post
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Forgetting what democracy is for and all about
On June 2, I got a sense of history coming full circle in the Polish town of Sopot, on the Baltic Sea just a few kilometres from the Gdańsk Shipyard. Sharing a stage at the Plenary Session of the European Financial Congress with Lech Wałęsa, the legendary trade unionist who led the 1980 Solidarity strike at the Lenin Shipyard and later became Poland's first post-communist president, I felt I was witnessing the end of an era. To be sure, Mr Wałęsa is sprightly at age 81. He speaks animatedly, his signature moustache bristling. But his spirit seemed subdued, and the Polish bankers, financiers, and business elites who filled the room seemed downright stunned. Just hours before, the country had learned that the far-right populist Karol Nawrocki -- a historian, former boxer, and political outsider -- had won Poland's presidential election, narrowly defeating Warsaw's cosmopolitan, progressive mayor, Rafał Trzaskowski of Civic Platform. Mr Wałęsa had posted a stark message on social media that morning: "Goodbye Poland." But since then, the outcome has been contested, with Poland's controversial Supreme Court reviewing a flood of complaints about uncounted votes, mostly for Mr Trzaskowski. Although it was my first trip to Poland, the situation felt eerily familiar. Like post-Brexit Britain and the United States over the past decade of Donald Trump's political dominance, here was a country split down the middle. Mr Nawrocki had scraped through with a razor-thin margin -- 50.89% to 49.11% -- in an election decided along painfully recognisable lines: education, geography, gender, and an ever-widening cultural gulf. Frustratingly for liberals, the allegations levelled against Mr Nawrocki -- past hooliganism, street brawls, and implication in prostitution and fraud -- appear to have confirmed his "authenticity" and bolstered his support among some segments of the electorate. The fight for the presidency was but one front in a broader political struggle that emanates from the Solidarity movement itself. At the centre of the confrontation are two titans of Polish politics: Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, and Prime Minister Donald Tusk, the head of Civic Platform and a former president of the European Council. Mr Kaczyński, a veteran kingmaker, casts himself as a defender of the workers and trade unionists who have been "betrayed" by liberal reforms, globalisation, and the European Union. Mr Tusk, his longtime rival, has emerged as the face of a pro-European, democratically committed Poland. The feud is as much personal as it is political. Mr Kaczyński once worked under Mr Wałęsa, before turning against him, and Mr Wałęsa endorsed Mr Tusk's successful 2023 prime ministerial bid. Moreover, Mr Kaczyński blames Mr Tusk -- with no evidence -- for the plane crash that killed his twin brother, then-president Lech Kaczyński, in 2010. Poles will proudly tell you that it was Solidarity, not the fall of the Berlin Wall, that really lifted the Iron Curtain. How, then, did a country once so united by Mr Wałęsa's Solidarity movement become so polarised and splintered? Mr Wałęsa, originally an electrician from Gdańsk, captured the world's imagination as the ultimate "working-class hero", as depicted (and mythologised) by filmmaker Andrzej Wajda in Man of Iron and Man of Hope. In 1983, just after being released from prison, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his potent yet peaceful "campaign for freedom of organisation in Poland". His triumph -- ultimately against the Communist regime itself, in 1989 -- demonstrated not just the power of the common man, but the strength of coalition-building. He had brought together workers (blue- and white-collar), intellectuals, religious conservatives, and liberals. At its peak, Solidarity boasted ten million members -- one-third of the working-age population -- vividly illustrating the power of grassroots mobilisation and civic participation. It gained widespread legitimacy because it was deeply democratic, rather than bureaucratic. In an era of cherry-picked histories, there are many competing explanations for why the Solidarity consensus fragmented. Mr Kaczyński and his ilk blame Mr Wałęsa's personality. Depicting the former president as autocratic, narcissistic, or irrelevant, they accuse him of squandering Polish freedom by cutting secret deals with the old regime. Others see the right-wing nostalgia for "sovereignty" and identity as the "post-traumatic" disorder of a scarred nation that has been repeatedly bullied into statelessness by outsiders. And still others treat the alliances that Solidarity established as an anomaly -- a fleeting moment of unity in the face of a common enemy. But perhaps the real problem lies elsewhere. Whether it was influenced by the "neoliberal moment" of the 1980s or the practical need to curry favour with Western powers, the Solidarity movement did pivot abruptly to the economic orthodoxy of "shock therapy". As a result, "the Polish revolution" became more about private property than popular participation. True, Poland's post-communist economic record has been remarkable. With 30 years of uninterrupted growth, it was the only EU country to avoid recession in 2008-09. But the full social costs of this economic transformation have been underappreciated. After the so-called Balcerowicz Plan -- named for the Polish economist and early democratic-era finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz -- had ushered in radical free-market reforms, inequality soared alongside growth. While privatisation and deregulation lifted GDP, the same processes also fractured the body politic. On July 1, after allegedly reviewing allegations of voting irregularities, the Supreme Court upheld the election result, clearing the path for Mr Nawrocki's scheduled inauguration in August, even as the fate of Poland's Third Republic hangs in the balance. Mr Wałęsa helped usher in Poland's democratic era, but as he recently conceded: "We did one thing wrong. We forgot about the people." Poland today is a battleground -- between the legacies of communism and capitalism, between liberal democracy and populist nationalism, and between memory and manipulation. What is at stake is not only Poland's soul, but the European project and democracy itself. Mr Wałęsa, both exalted and embattled, reminds us that history is often cyclical, and that the revolution must never forget whom it is for. ©2025 Project Syndicate Antara Haldar, Associate Professor of Empirical Legal Studies at the University of Cambridge, is a visiting faculty member at Harvard University and the principal investigator on a European Research Council grant on law and cognition.
Observer
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Observer
Forgetting what democracy is for
On June 2, I got a sense of history coming full circle in the Polish town of Sopot, on the Baltic Sea just a few miles from the Gdańsk Shipyard. Sharing a stage at the Plenary Session of the European Financial Congress with Lech Wałęsa, the legendary trade unionist who led the 1980 Solidarity strike at the Lenin Shipyard (as the Gdańsk Shipyard was then known) and later became Poland's first post-communist president, I felt I was witnessing the end of an era. To be sure, Wałęsa is sprightly at age 81. His spirit seemed subdued, and the Polish bankers, financiers and business elites who filled the room seemed downright stunned. Just hours before, the country had learned that the far-right populist Karol Nawrocki — a historian, former boxer and political outsider – had won Poland's presidential election, narrowly defeating Warsaw's cosmopolitan, progressive mayor, Rafał Trzaskowski of Civic Platform. Wałęsa had posted a stark message on social media that morning: 'Goodbye Poland.' But since then, the outcome has been contested, with Poland's controversial Supreme Court reviewing a flood of complaints about uncounted votes, mostly for Trzaskowski. Although it was my first trip to Poland, the situation felt eerily familiar. Like post-Brexit Britain and the US over the past decade of Donald Trump's political dominance, here was a country split down the middle. Frustratingly for liberals, the allegations levelled against Nawrocki appear to have confirmed his 'authenticity' and bolstered his support among some segments of the electorate. The fight for the presidency was but one front in a broader political struggle that emanates from the Solidarity movement itself. At the centre of the confrontation are two titans of Polish politics: Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, and Prime Minister Donald Tusk, the head of Civic Platform and a former president of the European Council. Kaczyński casts himself as a defender of the workers and trade unionists who have been 'betrayed' by liberal reforms, globalisation and the EU. Tusk, his longtime rival, has emerged as the face of a pro-European, democratically committed Poland. The feud is as much personal as it is political. Kaczyński once worked under Wałęsa, before turning against him, and Wałęsa endorsed Tusk's successful 2023 prime ministerial bid. Moreover, Kaczyński blames Tusk – with no evidence – for the plane crash that killed his twin brother, then-president Lech Kaczyński, in 2010. Poles will proudly tell you that it was Solidarity, not the fall of the Berlin Wall, that really lifted the Iron Curtain. How, then, did a country once so united by Wałęsa's Solidarity movement become so polarised and splintered? His triumph – ultimately against the Communist regime itself, in 1989 – demonstrated not just the power of the common man, but the strength of coalition-building. He had brought together workers, intellectuals, religious conservatives and liberals. At its peak, Solidarity boasted ten million members – one-third of the working-age population – vividly illustrating the power of grassroots mobilisation and civic participation. It gained widespread legitimacy because it was deeply democratic, rather than bureaucratic. In an era of cherry-picked histories, there are many competing explanations for why the Solidarity consensus fragmented. Kaczyński and his ilk blame Wałęsa's personality. Depicting the former president as autocratic, narcissistic, or irrelevant, they accuse him of squandering Polish freedom by cutting secret deals with the old regime. Others see the right-wing nostalgia for 'sovereignty' and identity as the 'post-traumatic' disorder of a scarred nation that has been repeatedly bullied into statelessness by outsiders. And still others treat the alliances that Solidarity established as an anomaly – a fleeting moment of unity in the face of a common enemy. But perhaps the real problem lies elsewhere. Whether it was influenced by the 'neoliberal moment' of the 1980s or the practical need to curry favour with Western powers, the Solidarity movement did pivot abruptly to the economic orthodoxy of 'shock therapy.' As a result, 'the Polish revolution' became more about private property than popular participation. True, Poland's post-communist economic record has been remarkable. With 30 years of uninterrupted growth, it was the only EU country to avoid recession in 2008-09. But the full social costs of this economic transformation have been underappreciated. After the so-called Balcerowicz Plan – named for the Polish economist and early democratic-era finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz – had ushered in radical free-market reforms, inequality soared alongside growth. While privatisation and deregulation lifted GDP, the same processes also fractured the body politic. On July 1, after allegedly reviewing allegations of voting irregularities, the Polish Supreme Court upheld the election result, clearing the path for Nawrocki's scheduled inauguration in August, even as the fate of Poland's Third Republic hangs in the balance. Wałęsa helped usher in Poland's democratic era, but as he recently conceded: 'We did one thing wrong. We forgot about the people.' Poland today is not just a bellwether. It is a battleground – between the legacies of communism and capitalism, between liberal democracy and populist nationalism, and between memory and manipulation. What is at stake is not only Poland's soul, but the European project and democracy itself. Wałęsa – a figure both exalted and embattled – reminds us that history is often cyclical, and that the revolution must never forget whom it is for. Antara Haldar The writer is Associate Professor at the University of Cambridge and a visiting faculty at Harvard University
Euractiv
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Euractiv
Parliamentary speaker to swear in Polish president-elect despite doubts
Polish parliamentary Speaker Szymon Hołownia will swear in President-elect Karol Nawrocki on 6 August after the Supreme Court validated his election win on Tuesday, even though legal challenges and allegations of vote irregularities remain. Nawrocki, a conservative candidate supported by the ruling PiS party, won the runoff election held on 1 June. He defeated Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who represented Prime Minister Donald Tusk's Civic Platform coalition. After the election, numerous reports emerged of vote-counting errors at various polling stations, raising concerns about the integrity of the result. The Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, which upheld the election's validity this week, is not recognised as an independent court by many international tribunals, experts, judges, and the current government. Critics point to the fact that judges in this chamber were appointed by the politicised National Council of the Judiciary, created under controversial 2017 reforms by the PiS government. Despite these concerns, Hołownia has decided to proceed with the inauguration. 'There are doubts regarding the status of the Supreme Court's Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber. There are no doubts about whom the Polish people elected,' he wrote on X. 'That's why I will (...) administer the presidential oath to Karol Nawrocki.' He also stressed that any vote irregularities 'must be thoroughly investigated by the prosecutors'. Justice Minister and Prosecutor General Adam Bodnar of Tusk's Civic Platform was asked whether Hołownia might refuse to swear in Nawrocki. Bodnar said he is inclined to send a letter detailing 'all the procedural irregularities that occurred (in the Supreme Court's decision)'. 'What Speaker Hołownia decides to do with it will be entirely up to him,' Bodnar added, without commenting on what he would do in Hołownia's place. (Aleksandra Krzysztoszek, Barbara Bodalska |
Times
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Times
Poland's PM Donald Tusk strikes defiant tone after winning confidence vote
Poland's beleaguered prime minister has won a confidence vote, shoring up his position after a right-wing populist opponent took the presidency. Donald Tusk struck a defiant tone in parliament and insisted that his government would not yield by 'so much as a millimetre' amid conjecture that his already fractured coalition might disintegrate after the election. Tusk, who returned to power 18 months ago, had his ambitions for liberalising social reforms and a wholesale clean-out of the public sector repeatedly frustrated by the outgoing President Duda, who is close to the nationalist opposition. The prime minister's centre-right Civic Platform party had high hopes of breaking the blockade by getting Rafal Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw and an ally of Tusk, elected president in Duda's place. Yet Trzaskowski's lead in the polls evaporated and he lost to Karol Nawrocki, another opposition figure, who has vowed to intensify Duda's veto tactics after he takes office in August. • Who is Poland's new president? The defeat leaves Tusk's coalition at risk of being unable to present any significant legislation without it being rejected by Nawrocki. That has in turn led to calls for Tusk to stand down and call an early election instead of serving out his remaining two and a half years as premier. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the most powerful figure in the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, has urged Tusk to make way for an interim cabinet of technocrats who would hold the fort until voters elect a new government aligned with the Nawrocki presidency. Yet Tusk resolved to fight on, using a vote of confidence in his own leadership to compel his coalition partners to reaffirm their loyalty. 'I don't know the meaning of the word 'capitulation',' he told MPs. 'There is no talk of it.' Fielding more than a hundred questions during a debate that dragged on for more than six hours, he announced that he would reshuffle his cabinet next month and hinted that he would abolish a number of ministries to fix what he described as a 'dysfunctional structure' in the administration. 'There is no political earthquake, but let's be honest: we face two and a half years of very hard, serious work under conditions that are unlikely to improve,' Tusk said. He suggested that his government's image problems had stemmed as much from understating its successes and a 'festival of lies from the opposition' as from its struggles to enact the promises it had made to the electorate: 'Perhaps we have overdone it with the belief that the truth will defend itself.' • How Poland's new president will halt the march of liberal reforms During the ensuing debate, PiS MPs lined up to accuse Tusk of losing control of the public finances and mismanaging projects of national prestige such as a container port near Szczecin and the country's nuclear research reactor facility. Radoslaw Fogiel, an influential PiS MP, told The Times that the confidence vote had been 'irrelevant' and 'nothing more than political theatre' intended to distract voters from the presidential election defeat. 'Donald Tusk's government has record-low approval ratings, has failed to deliver on most of its promises, does not respond to the aspirations of the Polish people, and is focused solely on fighting the opposition,' Fogiel said. Michal Wojcik, a former deputy justice minister, told Tusk's coalition benches: 'You are the Huns of Polish politics. You, like those nomads who invaded Europe many centuries ago, destroyed and pillaged, but lost. The Hun empire fell because it came into contact with the forces of democracy.' Ultimately, however, Tusk carried the day by 243 votes to 210, implying that all of the MPs in his coalition had remained by his side.
