It would be hard to find a more vivid contrast. “Tearing down the walls of hatred between Poles, between men and women, and between different social groups—that is a task I am ready to take on,” said Karol Nawrocki after receiving his certificate of election as President. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Donald Tusk, defeated in the same election, declared in Parliament: “Someone from PiS was holding a sign saying: ‘You won’t imprison us all’. Probably not—but we’re working on it, rest assured.”
Exactly a year earlier, when Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally triumphed in the European elections in France, President Emmanuel Macron announced the need to test whether he and his political allies still held a mandate to govern. He dissolved the parliament and called snap elections. He was under no obligation to do so—after all, European elections are far from the most decisive.
A year later in Poland, in a far more emotionally charged election, Karol Nawrocki emerged victorious. But Tusk chose not to follow Macron’s example.
Instead, he opted to check… whether he had won the election a year and a half ago. That, in essence, was the meaning of the confidence vote. The coalition partners theatrically confirmed that they held a majority—in 2023—and jubilantly chanted “Donald Tusk!” as if they had just won again, despite current polling showing quite the opposite. Rarely has hypocrisy been demonstrated more clearly.
A Conciliatory Nawrocki Wants to Be President of United Poland
Listening to the first post-election speeches by the president-elect and the prime minister, one might have thought it was the former who was the seasoned statesman, and the latter the inexperienced upstart.
Karol Nawrocki, who secured the strongest democratic mandate possible in the Polish system—drawing support even from the radical right—delivered a speech marked by reconciliation. He thanked all who had participated in the election, regardless of whom they voted for, saying this demonstrated the Polish people’s readiness to “take responsibility for their future.”
Despite being targeted by a torrent of insults and slander during the campaign, Nawrocki addressed his rival’s voters directly, assuring them that he would also be their president—“the president of united Poland.” He emphasized that “hatred cannot be the alternative to ineffective governance” and called for “tearing down the walls of hatred” and conducting a civilized national conversation about shared goals, development, and security.
He pledged to present a plan to end social hatred and proposed that national security serve as the common ground for unity: “because everyone deserves to feel safe.”
He struck a similarly unifying tone on foreign policy, stressing the need to speak with one voice: “Poland is our mother. One does not speak ill of one’s mother abroad,” he said. “I want to build a Poland where there is room for everyone who loves, or at least respects, our country,” he concluded, expressing hope that his presidency would be a “new chapter in Polish politics.”
Żakowski Calls for Tusk’s Resignation After Defeat
That same day, Donald Tusk—whose party’s candidate failed to win—spoke in Parliament. The defeat went beyond the second-round result. In the first round, a strong showing by Adrian Zandberg of the left, who is in opposition to Tusk, underscored the scale of the loss.
Following the first round, anti-PiS columnist Jacek Żakowski publicly called for Tusk’s resignation, saying the outcome was a red card for his government. “Polls showed yellow cards as support dropped, but now we have a red card—clearly,” he said on Tok FM. Why should Tusk step down? “Forty percent of votes going to candidates from the ruling coalition is a disaster. In a normal democracy, the prime minister would resign. If we don’t want to see a President Nawrocki and a Prime Minister Mentzen—or worse—in two years, the government’s strategy must radically change and reconnect with the emotions that led to victory in 2023.”
Tusk Can’t Jail Everyone—But He’ll Try
Tusk, meanwhile, clung to a narrative of continuity. “The presidential election results do not diminish our mandate in any way. The election does not alter the constitutional order. We face 2.5 years of full mobilization,” he said. He not only acted as though nothing had happened, but made defiant pledges in areas where he had clearly lost public trust. Instead of proposing change, he doubled down on anti-PiS rhetoric and vaguely promised intensified legal actions against his political opponents.
“I am fully aware that many of the things we dreamed of have yet to be achieved. But let me emphasize: these investigations were never about revenge or retribution. They represent a serious commitment by the Polish state to hold perpetrators of abuse accountable. No crime, theft, or lie will be swept under the rug. None,” he declared—refusing to acknowledge that voters had just rebuked the abuses of his own government.
Rather than moderating his tone in response to young voters turning away from his illiberal policies, Tusk even escalated his rhetoric:
“Some of the people who were just here in this chamber—and perhaps still are—will soon face justice. I recall one emotional moment when prosecutors took action against wrongdoers, and someone from PiS held a sign: ‘You won’t jail us all.’ Probably not—but rest assured, the process is ongoing.”
Despite the defeat of his party’s candidate by one supported by President Andrzej Duda, Tusk lashed out at the incumbent president:
“This is not about politically motivated arrests. It’s about the fact that we live in a politically divided, difficult reality. Few expected—here or abroad—that a country would emerge where the president shelters individuals pursued by the justice system in his palace. Poland was absolutely exceptional in this regard.”
To MP Dariusz Matecki—wrongfully imprisoned for two months and later released even by judges from the “Iustitia” association—Tusk remarked: “Sit down, please—no offense, of course.”
Nawrocki Emphasizes Unity—Tusk Avoids Ornate Speeches
The two speeches also highlighted starkly different attitudes toward Polish history, tradition, and national identity. At the Royal Castle, Karol Nawrocki declared:
“We are in a place of great significance—where so much has happened. The power of Poland, our independence, the rebuilding of our sovereignty. But the Castle is also a symbol of the nation’s suffering and division. Today, shaped by centuries of history, we can joyfully gather here and say: we are in our shared, free, and independent Poland. A country that has endured much—and still has much to achieve. This is our common homeland.”
It turns out the historical perspective Nawrocki brought as head of the Institute of National Remembrance translates well to the presidential stage.
Tusk, himself a historian by training, avoided historical references altogether:
“This is not a day for lengthy, flowery speeches. Today, given the political context, what we need is clarity—an understanding of where we stand.”
And where do we stand? On foreign policy, Tusk offered dubious claims:
“I am very proud that we concluded and signed a treaty with France. For the first time, a major power—a nuclear one—has committed to full mutual defense in the event of an attack. We’re finalizing a similar agreement with the UK. Contrary to PiS propaganda, our cooperation with the U.S.—in both defense and economic matters—is at a historic high.”
This first clash of two political styles offers a telling preview of what may lie ahead in Polish politics—unless Tusk finds a new formula for his leadership.