In a debate organised by the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., attended by Matt Boyse and Peter Doran of the Foundation for defence of Democracy, the subject of democracy in Poland and controversy related to its functioning was discussed.
The event was moderated by Jim Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. The discussion focused on analysing the political situation in Poland, including issues of objectivity and consistency in the assessment of the democratic system. Boyse and Doran just published a study entitled “When Democrats regulation undemocraticly: an example of Poland” (When democrats govern undeemocraticly: the case of Poland).
Jim Carafano noted that Poland is now at the centre of attention, as a key NATO ally and a country of large importance for the stableness of Europe. He stressed that “Poland is as crucial to NATO present as West Germany was in the 1950s and 1960s.”. In his opinion, the debate on democracy in Poland is frequently utilized for political purposes, which leads to manipulation of communicative and a deterioration of the quality of public debate.
Matt Boyse stressed that despite accusations against the erstwhile government of authoritarian tendencies, Poland remains a democratic state.
“Poland is simply a democracy – has it always been contested? Yet, the communicative continues to return that it is heading towards autocracy," he said.
Boyse pointed out that specified communicative was peculiarly strong during the 2023 election campaign, erstwhile political opponents of the Law and Justice government accused him of authoritarian tendencies, while at the same time utilizing controversial methods to take power.
Peter Doran pointed to worrying events following the 2023 elections, which he felt could be described as a "retaliatory policy".
“Six days after the election, armed police entered public tv buildings, removing journalists and editors. It was not a smooth transition process – it was a policy of revenge“ He said.
In his opinion, the argument about the necessity of "dismantling authoritarianism" served as a fresh power for actions which in themselves rise democratic doubts.
Doran besides highlighted the dual standards applied by global institutions, in peculiar the European Union.
"While the erstwhile government was harshly criticized for the improvement of the judiciary and EU funds were being withheld, a fresh government that did not actually reverse these reforms immediately received access to the funds" – he noted.
According to the debate participants, 1 of the reasons for Donald Tusk's political success and his supporters was the skillful control of media narrative. As Doran noted:
“Law and Justice lost control of the narrative, and Donald Tusk and his supporters skillfully created an image of the fight against authoritarianism”.
Boyse highlighted the wider problem of defining democracy in the 21st century.
"The concept of democracy is stretched and interpreted present in a way that leads to the exclusion of conservative political forces from mainstream public debate" He said.
According to Boyse and Doran, the deficiency of consistency in the assessment of European countries remains a key problem.
"Why can any EU countries introduce restrictive media regulations and Poland be punished for that? Why was Poland presented as an authoritarian state while in the Democratic rankings it ranked higher than another EU countries?" – asked Boyse.
Doran pointed out that the European Union's policy towards Poland was based on political preferences, not on an nonsubjective assessment of the situation.
"The EU has halted funds for Poland under the regulation of law and justice, but immediately unlocked them erstwhile Donald Tusk took over, despite not making any crucial changes" – he noted.
Conclusions: What are the prospects for Poland?
According to the panelists, the debate on democracy in Poland should be conducted in a more nonsubjective way and without political manipulation.
"We must avoid simplified divisions between 'good democrats' and 'bad autocrats' – the situation is much more complex" – concluded Boyse.
Doran stressed that the main nonsubjective of the report, which he and Boys prepared together, was to inform against the consequences of politicising democracy.
“We are not raising the red flag, but yellow – we are informing that Poland may be heading in the incorrect direction” – he said.
Foundation for defence of Democrats (FDD) This is an American think tank dealing with abroad policy and national safety research, especially in the context of threats to democracy and free marketplace systems. The FDD focuses on analyses of terrorism, countering authoritarianism, economical sanctions and US defence strategies and their allies.
Founded after the September 11, 2001, the organization has strong links with defence experts, erstwhile diplomats and global safety politicians. She is known for her reports and analyses of threats from authoritarian regimes specified as Iran, Russia and China. It besides includes initiatives to support democracy in Central and east Europe and to build the resilience of NATO countries to external influence.
FDD frequently collaborates with American think tanks specified as the Heritage Foundation or the Hudson Institute, and its analyses are cited by the media and political decision-makers around the world.
