Poland is sliding back towards populism. Democrats elsewhere should heed our mistakes
Less than two years have passed but this enthusiasm has disappeared without trace. The Law and Justice-backed candidate Karol Nawrocki won the presidential election run off in June with 50.89% of the vote, securing the admiration of Donald Trump in the process. Days before Nawrocki's swearing in on Wednesday [6 August] a new poll suggested that almost half of voters would like the prime minister, Donald Tusk out. The ruling coalition is wobbling. Tusk's liberal democratic government may turn out to be nothing more than an intermezzo, a pause between rightwing populist governments.
After more than a decade of living, in a global sense, with the new wave of populism, we can see a pattern of missed opportunities of which Poland is just one example. In countries ruled by new populists, voters often come to feel disappointment and anger. In recent years, liberal candidates, carried by a tide of opposition, have ousted the populists: before Tusk managed it in Poland there was Joe Biden in the US, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Zuzana Čaputová in Slovakia. The victories of these politicians seemed briefly like beacons of hope for the post-cold war liberal democratic consensus.
But rebuilding after populists vacate office can resemble a daily struggle in the political mud. A victorious election campaign is not the same as a definitive victory. The war against populists is a permanent one, and a global one, amplified by digital media.
Post-populist rule is all the more difficult because populist governments leave behind a legal minefield. In Poland, countless legal decisions and acts in force were intended to undermine liberal democratic institutions. Dismantling them constitutionally and restoring the rule of law takes time and energy. It also requires looking back to the past rather than focusing on the future as the new government addresses its predecessors' mistakes. In Poland and Brazil, this has stifled any ambitions to offer an exciting roadmap for the years ahead. Inevitably, any initial euphoria is quickly followed by public frustration and the rise of another challenge from the rightwing populists.
Since the anti-communist Solidarity movement in the 1980s, Poland has been a crucial laboratory in the battle for democracy. After returning to power in 2023, Tusk faced a dilemma: should he completely distance himself from his predecessors' agenda or flirt with their legacy? Tusk chose the second option. He maintained the populists' programme of direct financial support for families with children. He continued with the construction of a mega transport hub, a flagship project for the previous government that he had previously attacked as wasteful. It is especially striking that he has failed to liberalise Poland's abortion laws, which were tightened by the populists. Echoing the nationalists' rhetoric about migration and defence of national borders has led to Poland reimposing checks at its borders with EU neighbours Germany and Lithuania, despite all three countries being in the Schengen area.
Letting the national populists set the political tone for him is driving Tusk's failure. The defeat of his presidential candidate, Rafał Trzaskowski was followed by a collapse of support in the polls. The absence of an inspiring vision, or even a sense of what Tusk stands for, is painful to witness.
If parliamentary elections were held today, Poland's rightwing populists would be emphatically returned to power, probably with an even more radical nationalist programme. Abroad, Tusk may be admired as a staunch defender of democracy. At home, he has become one of the most unpopular politicians in the country.
Call it the Gorbachev syndrome: beloved internationally, but reviled domestically. Tusk's ratings slump can be blamed on a whole set of unfulfilled promises, poor messaging and a poor presidential campaign. He is also affected by the global tendency to reject establishment politicians. To many Polish voters, especially younger ones, Tusk, who has been active in Polish politics for more than 25 years and was prime minister from 2007 to 2014, seems like part of a tired old elite whose time has come to step aside.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
Safeguarding democracy requires something liberal democrats have so far lacked: an imaginative conception of what the future should look like. Here, Tusk and Lula disappoint, just as Čaputová and Biden did before them. The message is lacking, but the medium is challenging too. So far, rightwing populists are winning on the battleground of new and social media.
It is not the only example, but the Polish case clearly demonstrates the folly of fighting elections purely on the defensive. It is too little and too narrow. Liberal ambitions must extend further than preventing populists from coming to power or removing them from it.
Elections have to be understood as a chance to rebuild democracy, and to do so in tune with the new media environment. Without a forward-thinking approach, the liberal intermezzo will remain just that: a brief interval between acts in a longer populist play. Democrats must learn this lesson – contending with populism means not only confronting the past, but also offering a compelling vision for the future.
Karolina Wigura is a Polish historian and co-author of Post-Traumatic Sovereignty: An Essay (Why the Eastern European Mentality is Different). Jarosław Kuisz is editor-in-chief of the Polish weekly Kultura Liberalna and the author of The New Politics of Poland: A Case of Post-Traumatic Sovereignty
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
2 minutes ago
- The Sun
Brussels will ‘punish' Britain for not following its demands as PM's deal pushes UK into clutches of EU, economist warns
BRUSSELS will dole out punishments to the UK for not adhering to its demands, a top economist warns. Eurocrats are pushing Britain into the clutches of the customs union and single market without the ability to make our own rules, Catherine McBride says. The revelation comes after the UK and the EU agreed a new framework back in May on post-Brexit trading arrangements on areas such as farming, defence and trade. The expert insists that new documents outlining the EU Commission's full demands from the reset will see the continent take "retribution" through our current trading relationships. She says this will strip the UK of any ability to foster the latest farming techniques or even import food from non-EU countries. McBride says that the EU Commission will have control all over the UK's agriculture and industrial imports - and also affecting our independent trade policy with the rest of the world. McBride, in a Briefings for Britain article, writes: "The UK government has effectively given the EU a free pass to penalise or, more likely, fine the UK for any transgression. "The EU will be the lawmaker, the policeman and the Judge – there will be no jury." She even echoes comments from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who said that Sir Keir Starmer was ready to make us the EU's "gimp". When Britain voted to leave the EU it left the single market, customs union and also left the freedom of movement arrangements. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel last night said: 'The stark cost of Labour's EU surrender plan is on full display. 'Keir Starmer and his cronies have bent the knee to Brussels at every turn, and no matter the price the British public will have to pay, and now the EU is coming back for more. 'The Conservatives will always defend the democratic will of this country, and won't let Labour give up anymore of our hard earned sovereignty without a fight.' A Labour source said: 'The report is riddled with nonsense claims. "If the Shadow Foreign Secretary wants to talk about surrender, let's look at how she designed a post-Brexit migration system that was supposed to be controlled, but led to record levels of net migration. "Labour is resetting our relationship with the EU - delivering a new deal that protects jobs, lowers bills, and strengthens our borders." A Government spokesperson said: "Since 2020, British traders and shoppers have faced red tape, rising prices and delivery delays. We set out to fix this with a new partnership with the EU that will add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy. 'We will always act in Britain's national interest and have been clear there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.'
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Confusion over Labour electric car grants blamed for sales slowdown
Confusion surrounding Labour's electric car grant scheme has been blamed for a slowdown in sales as drivers wait to find out which vehicles will qualify. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said sales of electric vehicles rose by just 9pc in July compared to a year earlier. That was far lower than the 35pc average growth seen over the first six months of 2025, and it was the second-worst month notched up so far this year. Tuesday's figures also showed that Tesla, Elon Musk's electric carmaker, continues to struggle. Sales were down 60pc compared to a year earlier. Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the SMMT, blamed the market malaise on uncertainty around the electric vehicle (EV) grant scheme announced last month by Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary. He said: 'July's dip shows yet again the new car market's sensitivity to external factors, and the pressing need for consumer certainty. 'Confirming which models qualify for the new EV grant, alongside compelling manufacturer discounts on a huge choice of exciting new vehicles, should send a strong signal to buyers that now is the time to switch.' The £650m grant scheme will knock up to £3,750 off the cost of buying an EV, with the money paid to manufacturers. But when it was announced three weeks ago, the Government said manufacturers would only find out if their vehicles qualified once they had submitted paperwork to officials. Guidance shared with the industry said eligibility will depend on factors such as the carbon emissions that go into a vehicle's production, with a 30pc weighting given to where the car is assembled and 70pc to where the battery was made. Those who score poorly may only get a smaller grant of £1,500 per car, while all carmakers must prove they have signed up to 'science-based' net zero targets to qualify in the first place. The rules mean vehicles shipped to Britain by Chinese brands such as BYD are unlikely to be eligible because of their home country's high dependence on burning coal for power. Beijing has previously warned the UK Government against excluding Chinese manufacturers from the grants scheme, saying it would 'resolutely safeguard' its EV industry. Last week The Telegraph revealed that the rules may also catch out some brands that make cars in European countries such as Poland and Slovakia using Chinese batteries. On Tuesday, the Government said the first four cars confirmed to be eligible for discounts were the Citroën ë-C3, ë-C4, ë-C5 and the ë-Berlingo. Those models will receive the lower £1,500 grant. That may be because models including the ë-C3 rely on batteries made by China's SVOLT. The Transport Secretary said: 'With the first four models approved today and more to come over the next few weeks, this summer we're making owning an electric car cheaper, easier and a reality for thousands more people across the UK.' While Tesla continues to struggle in Britain, rival BYD is enjoying surging sales. SMMT figures show registrations in the UK rose more than fourfold to 3,184 in July. The Chinese manufacturer has been mounting a concerted sales push in the UK, marketing models including its compact city car the Seagull. Tesla, meanwhile, continues to feel the effects of Mr Musk's alliance with US president Donald Trump. Critics say the billionaire's decision to run the president's department of government efficiency (Doge) meant he lost focus just as competition was ramping up. His move into politics has also turned off many drivers on the political Left.
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Arms race fears as Putin says Russia is no longer bound by missile treaty
Russia has declared that it no longer considers itself bound by a self-imposed moratorium on the deployment of nuclear-capable intermediate range missiles, a warning that potentially sets the stage for a new arms race as tensions between Moscow and Washington rise again over Ukraine. In a statement Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry linked the decision to efforts by the U.S. and its allies to develop intermediate range weapons and preparations for their deployment in Europe and other parts of the world. It specifically cited U.S. plans to deploy Typhoon and Dark Eagle missiles in Germany starting next year. The ministry noted that such actions by the U.S. and its allies create 'destabilizing missile potentials" near Russia, creating a "direct threat to the security of our country' and carry 'significant harmful consequences for regional and global stability, including a dangerous escalation of tensions between nuclear powers.' It didn't say what specific moves the Kremlin might take, but President Vladimir Putin has previously announced that Moscow was planning to deploy its new Oreshnik missiles on the territory of its neighbor and ally Belarus later this year. Asked where and when Russia could potentially deploy intermediate-range weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that it's not something to be announced in advance. 'Russia no longer has any limitations, Russia no longer considers itself to be constrained by anything,' Peskov told reporters. 'Therefore Russia believes it has the right to take respective steps if necessary.' 'Decisions on specific parameters of response measures will be made by the leadership of the Russian Federation based on an interdepartmental analysis of the scale of deployment of American and other Western land-based intermediate-range missiles, as well as the development of the overall situation in the area of international security and strategic stability,' the Foreign Ministry said. The Russian statement follows President Donald Trump 's announcement Friday that he's ordering the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of Dmitry Medvedev, who was president in 2008-12 to allow Putin, bound by term limits, to later return to the office. Trump's statement came as his deadline for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal in Ukraine approaches later this week. Trump said he was alarmed by Medvedev's attitude. Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council chaired by Putin, has apparently sought to curry favor with his mentor by making provocative statements and frequently lobbing nuclear threats. Last week. he responded to Trump's deadline for Russia to accept a peace deal in Ukraine or face sanctions by warning him against 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia' and declaring that 'each new ultimatum is a threat and a step toward war.' Medvedev also commented on the Foreign Ministry's statement, describing Moscow's withdrawal from the moratorium as 'the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy.' 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with,' he wrote on X. 'Expect further steps.' INF treaty abandoned in 2019 Intermediate-range missiles can fly between 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,400 miles). Such land-based weapons were banned under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Washington and Moscow abandoned the pact in 2019, accusing each other of violations, but Moscow declared its self-imposed moratorium on their deployment until the U.S. makes such a move. The collapse of the INF Treaty has stoked fears of a replay of a Cold War-era European missile crisis, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent in the 1980s. Such weapons are seen as particularly destabilizing because they take less time to reach targets, compared with intercontinental ballistic missiles, leaving no time for decision-makers and raising the likelihood of a global nuclear conflict over a false launch warning. Russia's missile forces chief has declared that the new Oreshnik intermediate range missile, which Russia first used against Ukraine in November, has a range to reach all of Europe. Oreshnik can carry conventional or nuclear warheads. Putin has praised the Oreshnik's capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds up to Mach 10 are immune to being intercepted and are so powerful that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack. Putin has warned the West that Moscow could use it against Ukraine's NATO allies who allowed Kyiv to use their longer-range missiles to strike inside Russia.
