Gdula: I fear the government has lost its will to make changes [talk]

Jakub Majmurek: You announced your departure from the fresh Left. Do you regret engaging in politics? The time you spent first in Spring and then fresh Left was lost?

Maciej Gdula: No, I don't see it that way. The period during which I was active in politics active respective successes: the creation of Spring, the return of the left to parliament in 2019, the dismissal of the Law and Justice in 2023. I'm not saying I'm the author of these successes, but I was part of the processes that led to them.

What would you mention as your individual success?

I managed to build a fewer relationships and strengthen any valuable people in politics. For example, Magdalena Dropek, who presently supports Katarzyna Kotula, among others, in the creation of a law on partnerships which is crucial to the left. Kamila Trepka, who present is 1 of the authors of the Act on Social Construction – he collaborated on its creation first with Minister Kukucki, present works with Tomasz Lewandowski. In Krakow, 2 of my close associates, Grzegorz Garbolinski and Tomasz Leśniak, became councillors, and Maria Klaman Vice president of the city.

And I guess this last case is the main reason for your conflict with the fresh Left?

Yeah, that's the main reason. In my opinion, accounting me for bringing in a fresh individual in politics, who is left-wing, succeeding in Krakow, creating a good squad with Misza3ski, is simply a mistake.

The organization can be heard: we supported Miszalski, we helped him win, we should get a vice president for it, through Gdula the organization has nothing from engaging in the support of Miszalski.

This is the imagination of the organization as a cooperative, which cooperatives form and only they are to have profits from it, so only cooperatives can be appointed to crucial positions. This is simply a problem for all parties, not just fresh Left.

I believe that power must be utilized to grow the staff and social base, to open up to people who want to co-create reality in Poland. Maria Klaman is specified a individual to me. A organization that doesn't understand, I don't think there's a future.

Activist groups besides criticize the fresh authorities of Krakow, convincing that they have a somewhat rebranded policy known from the times of Majchrowski's presidency.

It is the voice of activists associated with the environment of Łukasz Gibala, who has long wanted to become president of Krakow, and last year lost again – this time with Alexander Miszaliski.

I trust city activists like Tomek Leśniak, who works in a coalition with Miszaliski and fights to guarantee that the city does not sale municipal housing so that it builds more and conducts pro-social housing policies. Is this coalition able to accomplish everything the left could want for in Krakow? surely not, but more than could be achieved present in any another arrangement.

So the main reason you threw your ID was due to the fact that Maria Klaman became the vice president of Krakow, not any well-deserved fresh Left activist?

I would say that these were mainly claims by Włodzek Czarzaste, not the full organization – although any local activists were actually not satisfied with specified a development.

The conflict with Marshal Blackman pushed you out of the party?

I don't think it's a large secret. It's not just about the conflict around Maria Klaman. Let us look at the cast of positions in the government after the European elections – it clearly shows that the organization is becoming very unified and that it is being furnitureed present by Vladimir Czarzasty, with the aid of activists of the erstwhile SLD. This can besides be seen after changes in position – a departure from authoritative bifractivity and 2 presidents to one. Anna Maria Żukowska announced that Czarzasty would apply for a fresh word as chairman. In my opinion, he has a immense chance to defeat all possible competitors.

I don't see a place for myself in specified a centralized party. The large force of the left was its interior pluralism, cooperation of 3 currents, Spring Biedronia, SLD and Together. Today, the faction of Spring is in clear conviction, and Robert Biedron fundamentally withdrew from national and organization politics, focusing on European issues. Together, he is in opposition.

But can't the organization blame you for mediocre results in Krakow in 2023 and 2024? In 2023, alternatively of 2 seats, Nowa Lewica took 1 in Kraków district, and you were jumped by Daria Gosek-Popiołek.

As for me and Daria, there was a mechanics that we observed in many places in Poland: a female from the second place jumped a man from the 1st. This was besides the case in the election to the Małopolskie Seymik in 2024, where Magda Dropek had a nearly double better score than Ryszard Śmiałek from the 1st.

The problem is not that the 2 have better results than the only ones, but at all the mediocre results of the left. Daria and I utilized to say in the run that we're not fighting each other, but together for at least 2 tickets. It did not work, but the fact is that since 2023 not only in Krakow Nowa Lewica has recorded worse results. I'm not narcissistic adequate to presume it's my fault. Meanwhile, no 1 had any consequences for the organization authorities.

The problem was not your deficiency of activity in Krakow as an MP? That frequently happens erstwhile you talk to the residents of the district.

I have a very different impression, because, for example, the inhabitants of Krakow who voted for the Law and Justice were very responsive to my presence on the streets. The allegations that Members are not very present in the "region" are a conventional way of fighting in organization structures. I have a clear conscience erstwhile it comes to my commitment to politics in 2019-23 – regionally, organization and seismo.

Among the things that the fresh Left has succeeded, you have not listed a share in Government of Tuska. Is this success or defeat?

To answer that question, we request to consider what would be an alternate for this government. And it was the regulation of the Law and Justice with the Confederacy. So I think it's not so much to discuss whether it was worth going into this government, but what the government became in relation to what it was expected to be, what it promised.

And how do you justice that? From the position of the Ministry of Science, where were you vice minister?

The Ministry of discipline has managed to do any things I am very happy with. For example, a 30% increase in discipline that wasn't for the Law and Justice. There was more money for the National discipline Centre, for the Polish Academy of Sciences – these are in my opinion large successes. The success was besides the preparation of the institution's politician law on the Polish Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately, the current squad in the ministry actually withdrew from it, due to the fact that the task it proposed is making only cosmetic changes.

The bill you're talking about has met with quite a few criticism from the PAN circles.

She raised opposition of the most privileged people in the Polish Academy of Sciences – presidents and members. It's about 300 people. In turn, 8,000 employees of the Polish Academy of Sciences, who are actually active in the creation of science, referred much more favourably to the project, which gave them a greater influence on the Academy. For me, the fact that this bill is stuck and the government is withdrawing from it is proof that this government is no longer a government of change. present it's possibly obvious. For me, erstwhile I walked into the government, it wasn't.

But what precisely would make this bill better?

The most crucial was democratisation. The general assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences was to be attended by directors of institutes. This would rejuvenate this organ and bind the assembly to the institutes. In addition, the illusory supervision of the Polish Academy of Sciences, which the Prime Minister holds, was replaced with the supervision of the Ministry of Science. This would improve the financial policy of institutes without violating their technological autonomy.

What didn't you do in the Ministry of Science?

I'm certain to finish the process of preparing fresh rules for the evaluation of science, and there's no time. And in the broader plan, I besides failed – which may besides be due to my limited influence on coalition-level politics – to build cooperation between the various coalition members. Let me give you an example for which I paid a advanced price, in the form of very harsh criticism on the left.

In the Ministry of improvement and Technology, a task of fresh solutions for construction was created. It provided for the simultaneous adoption of the Social Construction Act and credit of 0%. In the ministry, the substance was worked out, but a public discussion began as to whether to combine both of these solutions. I then took the floor, defending the idea: let's pass a 0 percent credit – with which I do not agree as a method of financing construction – to rapidly pass the Social Construction Act.

Instead, we got a year of disputes in the Credit Subsidies Coalition, and the Social Building Act is inactive missing. I mean, she went to the Sejm recently, but if we had agreed then, she would have been there a year ago [after the interview, on Wednesday, 9 July, the bill was adopted by the Sejm – the cars].

Only before the social housing built by this bill, a 0 percent credit would again blow up a bubble in the real property market, pushing out any people who would otherwise be able to buy an apartment. possibly it's better not to have a bill, but not to pump prices again?

For me, it is more crucial to have a social housing bill, to appoint funds for it, not to brag about the fact that we have blocked credit subsidies at the expense of disputes in the coalition. Unfortunately, this coalition is getting worse as a whole, constantly arguing about something: about credit 0 percent, about partnerships, about a rotating marshal, etc.

Maybe the problem is that due to its cordonic, very diverse character, the current coalition is incapable to make any coherent programme, an thought for Poland?

Not in the program, but in recognizing the interests of the coalition forces. Unfortunately, present it is dominated by thinking: if I push through something, I will profit from it and lose my partners; but if I block something to a coalition partner, he will lose it and I will gain it. This zero-one reasoning has not only given emergence to the dispute over construction. Just as Nowa Lewica and part of Poland 2050 saw their chance to block the credit of 0%, so the PSL in blocking partnerships. Unfortunately, I've lost my close thinking: we're a coalition, we work together, we go to far-reaching compromises, but we supply any things that we then brag about together.

More than for the debt defense, you got 0 percent for your speech on the Ideas NCBiR, a centre set up by the National Centre for investigation and Development, to conduct investigation on the AI, and its chief, prof. Piotr Sankowski. Sankowski was replaced by prof. Grzegorz Borowik, which sparked protests of the technological community. You defended the change in Ideas in a way that was considered highly awkward. Why did you even talk on this substance erstwhile AI was not part of your area of competence in the ministry?

From a sense of solidarity towards the government and its decision. I did not mean to measure prof. Sankowski or his successor, I do not know them. The key change in the Ideas NCBiR was structural, not personal. Ideas NCBiR was established as a company to commercialize investigation results, we wanted to transform it into a investigation institute. And in my opinion, it was a good change that was defended. If the state funds research, the appropriate form is the investigation institute – for example, an AI institute from the Polish Academy of Sciences – alternatively than a company. The ideas of the NCBiR took immense money as a firm promising implementation and did not deliver these promises. She had negative financial results.

At the same time, Minister Wieczorek had to invitation Sankowski again to cooperate. The public understood so much from all this that the fresh government made the incorrect decision, withdrew from it and seemingly did not realize the meaning of AI, unlike the Law and Justice.

I agree that this could have been better done. But in substance, the ministry was on the side.

Where did the thought of the Left get the Ministry of discipline come from? Was that something you wanted, or did you get this relief due to the fact that you failed to educate or health?

Science involves education, development, investment in the future, so naturally it is part of the left agenda. surely the left would not take a hotel which is not in its area of interest, where it cannot bring its competences.

Darius Evening as Minister of discipline was a good choice?

I can only talk well of Dark Evening as my boss. We worked well together, he was very open to fresh ideas, hardworking. He did not have a mentality that is common in politics: we regulation so as not to offend anyone so that no 1 sticks to us to be calm. Not only did he arrange money for science, but he besides did hard things. He worked very well with the technological community.

But it ended in a disaster: they resign after articles describing a possible conflict of interest in relation to the employment of their wife and the disclosure of signal data, indicating a violation of law at the University of Szczecin.

Those were related issues. The evening was not afraid of change, so many people looked at it crookedly. In any areas, there may have been greater caution and sensitivity, but I think Evening paid the price for its courage. The organization has defended him for a long time, unlike me – and I besides see the process of harmonising the party.

The fact that you left with Evening was due to the evaluation by the organization of your work at the ministry or the intraparty games?

An Evening resignation was utilized to settle with me – that's how I see it.

The Ministry of Evening managed to present any coherent left-wing discipline policy project?

Yes, although these are not things that would be easy to break into wider public opinion. However, they found a affirmative consequence among scientists. The environment was affirmative about our ideas of changing the evaluation rules, on simplifying the system, mitigating the criteria, including didactics, the social importance of the cognition produced. The second crucial issue is the emphasis on popularisation, on the fact that the dissemination of cognition is as crucial as its production, that it makes the public aware of what scientists do. This went in full contrast to the Govin project, which was based on a imagination of discipline centered on itself and providing innovation to the economy, allowing its social context.

It was besides very crucial that any of the money for social construction was to go to dormitories. Evening began with a word of tenure by taking affirmative account of the voice of students from Poznań on the Jowit dorm. It all consists of a very coherent, though not necessarily generating a social excitement vision.

Returning to the evaluation: your critics have accused you that Gowin has introduced substantive, nonsubjective criteria for assessing the work of scientists, free from academic quasi-feudal arrangements, and you want to undo this to defend scientists producing simply mediocre science.

The Govin strategy had its beneficiaries who protested. However, they were not many and peculiarly strong voices. all time you want to make changes, there's criticism. That is why it is easy in politics to recognise that the safest thing to do is not to change anything – and I fear that the government, after months of delaying changes after the presidential election, completely lost its will to do them.

In the Ministry of Science, did you gotta postpone any post-election shifts?

For example, a task to liquidate Copernicus Academy, created in 2022. It was known that Duda would veto him. The government mostly accepted the presumption that it should not be given Duda besides many opportunities to veto, due to the fact that it will politically strengthen him. In my opinion, this was a mistake, due to the fact that if Duda vetoed a fewer crucial laws for our voters, it would show them how crucial the change in the Presidential Palace is and the elections could be different.

It was a joint decision of the full coalition? Did Tusk decide?

In my opinion, it was Tusk's decision, but it's not certain knowledge, it's my speculation. I even someway realize the reasoning behind it, another veto would make a sense that the government has no origin and nothing works out for it.

How do you measure the fresh management of the Ministry of Science, headed by Marcin Kulasek?

The fresh squad has set out to guarantee that there is no conflict, even at the expense of no real change. It must be admitted that it is very consistent in this policy.

And how would you mostly justice the actions of the Left as part of the government?

Some things have been achieved. Like widow's pension or the Social Building Act.

Which, like you said before, is gone.

It is written, accepted in the ministry, it is adequate to vote on it [i.e. – the bill was passed last Wednesday – ed]. We besides wrote a law on partnerships.

Which will not be, due to the fact that first Nawrocks will veto her, and secondly, in the fresh arrangement, she will surely not agree to her PSL.

If we presume that, there will be no bill. This government must realise 1 thing: if it does not settle any issues, the most public settlement will not request the Law and Justice, but its constituents.

Isn't that the moment?

The voters were inactive waiting for the presidential election. erstwhile I look at the lyrics of liberal journalists and opinion leaders today, they are even more radically criticizing the government than right-wing opinion leaders. It is impossible to regulation effectively with the full right wing camp and its own public opinion against each other. specified a war on 2 fronts must end in defeat – and the government is active today.

The Left has an thought of narrative, why is it in this government, what are left-wing ministers doing in it?

That was the idea, but I don't know if we've been able to get through it. This communicative preached: the Left cares about the improvement and safeguarding of citizens' material interests in the government, which includes both the activities of the Ministry of discipline on dormitories and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy on minimum wage.

Which is frequently met with opposition from the remainder of the government.

The execution is different, you asked about the narrative.

Who's fresh Left organization for today?

For people who anticipate issues specified as abortion or partnerships to at least be raised on a political level, there is simply a force protecting the social flank of the government, caring for public services.

Your question besides refers to another question: Is the left from preaching attachment to values or ruling? In my opinion, the large mistake of Biedron and Czarzasty was that in 2023 they did not exploit the possible of this question erstwhile fresh Left entered the government and Together did not. At the time, it was possible to build a strong identity of the fresh Left in a contra until Together.

Should we have thrown him out of the parliamentary club?

I think so. Instead, they deceived themselves and the public that there was an agreement between the fresh Levite and the 1 together that was actually gone.

Was it the blame of the Together, which from the beginning did not intend to enter the government or the coalition that was incapable to meet Zandberg's conditions?

The key was the leadership's disposition Together, who treat politics as an area of display of values and a situation where they regulation but cannot implement their agenda in 100%, is unacceptable to them. This is simply a good attitude to set up a channel on YouTube, but it is not suitable for real politics.

Together, he argues that they did not want the coalition to implement 100% of their programme, but demanded, for example, a reasonable budget for social construction or wellness protection.

I'm afraid even if these conditions were met, Zandberg would have found another reason not to join the government in the end. Together, it is simply a organization taking a very comfortable position of commentator, who does not take real work for governing.

A good run and Zandberg's score don't show that together he's getting into the needs of the electorate?

I know that in many environments on the left, little than 5% of Adrian Zandberg is excited in the presidential election. I do not share it – something else, if it were 12 percent, then Zandberg could be considered right. Today, unfortunately, this consequence shows that in 2 years' time we will have a replay of 2015: the launch of 2 left-wing letters, no of which will cross the threshold.

You don't believe in the anticipation of a different left-wing community getting along before the election?

If Vladimir Czarzasty is again the president of the fresh Left, the chances are slim. If there is to be a broad agreement on the left, not only with Together, but besides with Magda Biejat, if the left is to scope for valuable people from think tanks and NGOs, then it needs a fresh leadership.

At the same time, whoever will be president of the NL is simply a force pushing the organization distant and together are very strong today. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the left has a chance of strong parliamentary representation only if it is united. Fantasies that any force on the left is able to replace the SLD or the emerging fresh Left have been repeatedly verified. There is simply a sense of triumph after the election today, but if it takes off on its own, they will face a very hard fight for a threshold that does not should be successful.

Is there 1 emotion or thought that could unite all left-wing environments in Poland today?

The European Union in a fresh world.

The EU's emotion isn't a small boomer-lander now?

The Union is inactive an crucial point of mention for Poles, something that is associated positively. At the same time, people see the planet changing and the place in Europe, and they request to be told this change. For example, that it is at Union level that we can fight for improvement and security: about housing, drug security, regulation of American large techs.

The fresh Left will last at all as a stand-alone subject for the next election? Is there an interior will for that, no force to be on the common lists of KOs?

Before the next election, there may be a “scared coalition” in which fresh Left and KO will be included in 1 list. This is supported by the electoral system, which gives the organization itself collecting 5% of the votes by far little mandates than it could have if its candidates had won 5% within 1 large list.

What are the moods in fresh Left after the presidential election? How does the organization view continuing to stay in government?

Depends on who we ask in the party. Those who have open jobs in different departments rationalize it: difficult, it happened, we work further. Those who are more in the margins are very disappointed with this consequence and mostly have a feeling that politically things are not going well. Partial pits even feel that the government is depressing and that a decisive fresh beginning is needed.

Perhaps, since it is so hard for the left to fight for their demands in the government, it is crucial to consider getting out of it.

For the past year and a half, we have been proving how crucial it is that we can push through certain issues in this government and that the coalition itself is simply a value. Exiting the government would be a rejection of our full strategy after October 15. Zandberg would then triumph, saying, “You see, I was right from the beginning!”

Of course, Tusk can do something to prevent the government from continuing. But as long as it doesn't happen, it's worth trying to do something about it.

What would Tusk gotta do so that the Left could say: it's crossing our borders? due to the fact that for now, the Left continues in government, which, in many cases, at the head of migration, is increasingly going to the right.

There are 2 things for me: a brutal austerity policy for austerity and criticism of the European Union.

Do you think the Tusk government has any chance of not giving up power in the next election?

The specified fact that the reconstruction takes Tusk for so long shows that he did not have a plan B in case of Trzaskovsky's defeat. If reconstruction is to make sense, it must bring a sense that the government has come to grips, not that it shuffled again to reshare its seats. If the government does not want to lose the next election, it must return its voters the pride that they voted for it – present I do not see how this would happen.

But a lot can happen. There's a way to communicate with Nawrock. You can regulation without changing your laws. I do not know whether the Tusk Government is capable of specified a fresh opening, protracted negotiations on reconstruction do not give large hope.

Honestly, if I were Tusk, I'd be on my way to Aleksandra Kwasniewski. due to the fact that if individual can save the current majority, then Kwasniewski as the Prime Minister of the "Government of Defence III of the Republic of Poland".

**

Maciej Gdula – sociologist, doctor habilitated social sciences, worker of the Institute of Sociology of the University of Warsaw. From December 2023 to January 2025 Deputy Minister of discipline in the Government of Donald Tusk, associate of Parliament of the 9th term. He deals with social explanation and social classes. Author of a widely commented survey It's a good change in the city. Neo-authoritarianism in Polish politics from the position of a tiny city. He published, among others: Lifestyles and Class Order in Poland (2012), together with Przemysław Sadura, New authority (2018).