This was the third consecutive presidential debate organized by TV Republika—and yet another demonstration that professionalism, pluralism, and respect for viewers can go hand in hand. As politicians agreed during the “Political Summary of the Week” program, Republika provides fair conditions and a space for substantive discussion. It is unfortunate that not all candidates chose to take advantage of this opportunity.
Trzaskowski Did Not Attend
Rafał Trzaskowski, the candidate of the Civic Coalition, did not participate in Friday’s presidential debate organized by TV Republika. His absence prompted unequivocal commentary from the guests on editor Adrian Stankowski’s program. In their view, this showed a lack of respect for a significant portion of the Polish public.
“This demonstrates a lack of respect for the citizens on the part of Rafał Trzaskowski. It shows that if he were elected president, he would not represent all Poles, only a select group (…). This proves that such a debate is meaningful. Rafał Trzaskowski was afraid,”
said Andrzej Kobylarz of the Free Republicans.
Kobylarz emphasized that the debate was open and broadcast by a station whose audience was eager to hear from all the candidates—including those typically supported by mainstream media.
“TV Republika’s viewers are Polish citizens who wanted to learn about his views, but he denied them that opportunity,”
he added.
Expertly Conducted, Respectfully Organized
Participants in the program highlighted not only the importance of the event itself but also its high organizational and substantive standards. This was no accident—all three debates hosted thus far by TV Republika have been conducted with respect for the candidates’ teams, equal speaking time and format, and without political pressure.
“My first association with yesterday’s debate is the word ‘substantive.’ It was of great value to voters, who must make an informed choice,” said Piotr Król, MP from the Law and Justice party (PiS).
According to him, the debate gained recognition from viewers, who appreciated its high quality and stayed engaged throughout.
“Holding the attention of viewers for three hours is a considerable achievement. It may have met a genuine social demand,” he explained.
Stanisław Kostulski from the Razem (Together) Party also noted that such debates “serve the Polish people,” as they allow voters to critically assess the candidates.
“In their campaign spots, candidates say all sorts of things (…). But when it comes time for a debate, it’s an opportunity to verify candidates against the facts,” he emphasized.
The Debate Revealed Gaps in Knowledge
A strong opinion was also expressed by Piotr Bakun from the Nonpartisan Local Government movement. He pointed out that the expert and precise format of the debate quickly revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.
“This debate exposed hypocrisy, as well as knowledge gaps, particularly in the case of Marshal Szymon Hołownia. He did not understand basic concepts. He often uses obscure terminology, but during the debate he struggled to respond,” Bakun noted.
He also expressed disappointment with the candidates who refused to participate in the debate.