The 2025 presidential election is approaching the final. After the first round, in which Grzegorz Braun, leader of the Confederation of the Polish Crown, obtained a 4th result, the politician decided to usage his position to exert ideological force on 2 major candidates – Karol Nawrocki (supported by the Law and Justice) and Rafał Trzaskowski (supported by KO and Lewica).
Braun has put 7 questions to them, including policy towards Ukraine, immigration, Green Deal, vaccination and exhumation in Jedwabne.
Only Nawrocki answered. The deficiency of consequence from Trzaskowski and the critical analysis of Nawrocki's consequence by the Confederacy made the full event a political test of value. This is more than a rhetorical charge – it is an effort to impose an agenda by the utmost wing of the political scene.
What did Braun want to know? Review of questions
The 7 questions by Grzegorz Braun were not simply requests for program declarations. These were frontier demands, clearly ideological, and in utmost places in the tone. Concerning:
- Prohibition of sending Polish soldiers and military equipment to Ukraine.
- The condemnation of flagism, the exhumation of victims of the Volyn massacre and the stopping of “the Ukrainianization of Poland”.
- Refusals to participate in the EU migration pact and to block immigration altogether.
- Breaking up with the EU Green Deal.
- Prohibition of forced vaccination, abortion, euthanasia and "medical experts".
- COVID-19 pandemic settlements – institutions, politicians and officials.
- Exhumation in Jedwabne, rejection of judaic claims and cessation of the Hanukkah bypass at the Presidential Palace.
Although presented as questions, they are de facto political demands defining Braun's hard ideological identity. They hit centre, pro-European, pluralistic and liberal policies on many levels.
Answer by Karol Nawrocki – trying to balance
Karol Nawrocki, erstwhile president of the IPN, answered Braun's questions by sending 10 points. any of the answers straight referred to questions, others were general, and others – according to the Confederacy – were completely lacking in Braun's intention.
Ukraine and Flagship
Nawrocki stressed that he did not agree to send Polish troops to Ukraine. He declared his willingness to sign a law penalising flagism and the alleged "Volyn lie". He announced the dependence of good relations with Ukraine on the consent to exhumation of victims of genocide in Volyn.
It is an answer that is part of the historical policy pursued by the IPN and patriotic and conservative environments. The declaration of exhumation shall coincide with the long-term demands of the end environments.
Green Deal and Migration Pact
Nawrocki announced "one-sided termination of the migration pact" and the Green Deal. He presented them as "a blocking economy, agriculture and wallets of Poles".
It is simply a clear bow towards the agrarian and Eurosceptic electorate, coincident with the rhetoric of the PiS in the final phase of the campaign. However, his declaration is more political than legal – the president does not say EU policies.
Vaccination, life and pandemic
The PiS candidate declared to defend life “from conception to natural death” and considered vaccinations outside the mandatory calendar as “personal choice”. He defended the regulation of the Law and Justice during the pandemic, although he stressed that he was "not a supporter of closing churches and forests."
This is simply a balanced line: defending the government without full recognition with its controversial decisions. However, Braun expected radicalism, not nuances.
Silk, reparations, ideology
Nawrocki emphasized that he would defend the good name of Poland, listing controversial figures – Grabowski, Gross, Engelking. He did not straight address the exhumation in Jedwabne or judaic claims. On the another hand, he pointed out that he was in favour of reparations from Germany.
The reaction of the Confederation of the Polish Crown – more accusations than praises
Braun's organization has only positively assessed any of Nawrock's declaration – those concerning Ukraine, the migration pact, Green Deal and abortion. However, it was stressed that many of the answers are general or ignore key points.
The allegations included:
- silence on the transfer of military equipment to Ukraine,
- the deficiency of condemnation of “the Ukrainianisation of Poland”,
- too mild an attitude towards vaccination and pandemic,
- omission of euthanasia,
- no declaration on Silk and judaic claims.
In the final conclusion, Braun's organization wrote dramatically: “BOZE, take care of Poland all!”. It's not so much a disappointment as a complete distance to both candidates.
The silence of Rafał Trzaskowski – political pragmatism or avoidance?
Trzaskowski did not answer Braun's questions. The Confederacy considered this to be a clear position – "no would answer any questions asked".
In fact, a deficiency of consequence may have respective reasons:
- Avoid confrontation with the communicative of the far right – to not legitimize its language.
- Campanist pragmatism – ignoring provocation to focus on the center.
- Refusal to participate in the debatewhere questions are formulated by a politician with a past of utmost speeches.
It is politically understandable, though possibly risky – silence is read as weakness or contempt for voters outside their own electorate.
The full situation shows that the 2025 run is under strong polarisation and ideology of public debate. Grzegorz Braun – even though he did not enter the II circular – tries to impose his agenda, investigating the limits of national and ideological loyalty.
Karol Nawrocki tries to keep a balance – he does not want to alienate the centre voters, but besides hopes for votes from the right. Hence his answers are a hybrid: hard declarations intertwin with avoids.
Rafał Trzaskowski is silent – which may be a strategy of "silence of extremes", but besides risks leaving the field to his opponents.
Seven questions by Grzegorz Braun were more than a test. It is an ideological manifesto, which did not aim to dialogue, but to test the limits of acceptance for its political agenda. Nawrocki responded, but did not satisfy. Trzaskowski ignored what was considered a weakness.
Ws
