The second circular of presidential elections in Poland, held on 1 June, was assessed by the Organisation for safety and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as being carried out in a technically efficient way, but with serious problems concerning transparency, equal opportunities and independency of institutions.
The OSCE (ODIHR) reflection mission and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stressed that the elections were held under conditions of "deeper political and social polarisation".
As the OSCE study states:
"The second circular of presidential elections in Poland was intensely contested, and although fundamental freedoms were respected, long-term political and social polarization deepened between the rounds".
Although the day of voting went calmly and professionally, the key problems revealed themselves in 2 areas: Media functioning and combating misinformation and insufficient control of run funding. The OSCE pointed out the deficiency of effective regulation, mediocre enforcement and transparency of public institutions, which undermined citizens' assurance in the electoral process.
Media and disinformation
The OSCE stressed that the media environment during the second circular was "highly polarised" and "many media showed clear editorial bias that reinforced the confrontational campaign". This phenomenon limited voters' access to impartial information and made it hard to make informed choices.
TVP's public television, contrary to its mandatory neutrality, "often portrayed Mr. Nawrocki in a negative light, while Mr. Trzaskowski's accounts were mostly uncritical". tv Republika, on the another hand, "showed more clear prejudices, presenting Mr. Trzaskowski mostly in a negative light".
The tv debate held on 23 May proved to be a failure from a civic perspective. As stated:
"The only tv debate did not supply crucial content exchange. It was mainly utilized as a platform for common accusations, not as an chance to present programme differences".
Social media played a key role, but there was besides strong rhetoric and information chaos. The engagement of users grew – Trzaskowski and Nawrocki posts reached an average of 490 1000 and 505 1000 interactions per week. Unfortunately:
"The impact of platforms' consequence to notifications and escalations was very diverse... X had the lowest level of engagement of national stakeholders and the lowest consequence rate".
The biggest concern was the issue of sponsored political ads on Facebook. 2 anonymous profiles – “You Know How It Is” and “The Adult Table” – “paid a full of 136 video ads for about PLN 500,000, promoting Trzaskowski and attacking his opponents.” This was a larger amount than the expenses of the committees of the candidates themselves.
The NASK institution reported the case to the ABW with suspected abroad funding, but "the reaction of public institutions was delayed, inconsistent and untransparent". Meta's platform informed the OSCE that it did not block these campaigns due to the fact that "they did not violate community standards or national law".
The OSCE concluded:
"The merger of media polarisation and biased transmission, including from the public broadcaster, limited voters' access to impartial information and their ability to decently measure candidate programmes".
Campaign finances
The strategy of financing the electoral run in Poland, despite the existing rules, was considered insufficiently transparent by the OSCE and does not warrant the fairness of the process. Already at the beginning of the study chapter, we read:
"The provisions on run financing do not supply transparency, work or integrity".
The law did not require the publication of financial reports between turns. As a result, citizens had no cognition of committee spending at the most crucial point in the campaign:
"The law does not require financial statements, disclosure of comprehensive income... or expenses before the day of the first circular or between turn".
Both staff reported only larger donations: Trzaskowski declared PLN 7.6 million, Nawrocki – PLN 4.3 million, but most of the proceeds came from donations below the threshold, which do not should be reported.
However, the actions of 3rd parties — foundations, associations and civilian groups — were most criticised. The OSCE noted:
"A number of 3rd parties, including electoral observers and electorate-mobilising associations, campaigned for Trzaskovsky, without any disclosure requirements for sources of funding".
"The deficiency of regulation of 3rd organization campaigns, especially on the Internet, combined with deficiency of effective supervision and sanctions, further deepened existing legal gaps".
The State Election Commission, although formally liable for financial supervision, could not act during the campaign:
"GDPR is not entitled to take action against alleged violations during the campaign... which undermines the effectiveness of the rules."
The conclusions of the OSCE are clear: without improvement of electoral law, especially in the area of financial supervision, transparency of campaigns and citizens' assurance in elections will proceed to be questioned.
Summary
The presidential elections in Poland in 2025 showed that even with formal standards of freedom and organisational correctness, the democratic process can be importantly weakened by the deficiency of equality of conditions and effective organization safeguards.
The OSCE study leaves no doubt: the problem was not the logistics of the elections, but the systemic erosion of transparency and equal opportunities, peculiarly visible in the media and run financing. Both the bias of public and commercial broadcasters and the uncontrolled actions of 3rd parties financing the election run led to a situation where many voters could not number on reliable and complete information about the candidates.
As the OSCE points out:
"The combination of deficiency of rules, insufficient organization coordination and mediocre supervision has reduced the transparency and accountability of the electoral process".
It is simply a clear signal that the future elections in Poland – if they are to be called honest and democratic – must be preceded by a thorough improvement of electoral law, media strategy and supervision of policy financing.
Otherwise, formally free elections can mean little and little in practice.
