In this episode of “The Opinions,” the Times Opinion columnist David French explores how Poland managed to turn the tide against right-wing populism and restore constitutional order.
Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
David French: I’m David French, a columnist for The New York Times. Watching the Trump administration over the last few weeks, I feel like I can confidently say that America’s constitutional order is under attack.
Given this reality, I’ve become curious about the response from other allied nations that have faced similar threats. Much of the West seems to be drifting toward right-wing populism, but Poland has done the opposite.
News clip: In Poland, a former P.M. may be stepping back to power. Initial results put Donald Tusk and his opposition allies ahead in the election. A blow for the governing populist party, looking for an unprecedented third term.
News clip: A country that had been flirting with the prospect of maybe giving up their democracy has decided not to go that way.
I wanted to learn about the Polish experience, so today I am happy to be speaking to Aleksandra Gliszczynska-Grabias. She’s a law professor and author in Poland. Her country elected a populist right-wing government back in 2015, and she’s part of the rule of law coalition that fought back for democracy. She joins me today from Warsaw.
Aleksandra, thank you so much for joining me.
Aleksandra Gliszczynska-Grabias: Thank you very much for having me.
French: Let’s start with context. So the Law and Justice Party takes power in 2015. Could you describe what the Law and Justice party is and what were the conditions that led to it taking power?
Gliszczynska-Grabias: Well, up until now, the discussions continue of how did it actually happen? The Law and Justice party, which is a right-wing, populist movement and political party, how did it happen that they came to power, and took it in a way that later on translated into actually, full scale attack on the rule of law and constitutional order? There were many conditions that actually allowed Law and Justice to rise to power. Back at that time, 2015, the refugee crisis, the discussions about the future and security in Europe where on the rise.
So it’s still quite disputed, why it happened. But it happened in a way that struck all of us at that time. And for sure, the pro-democratic pro-rule of law side, we were not aware of what was coming and we were also not prepared with the response towards what was then happening here.
French: So I’ve heard the term constitutional crisis used to describe the conditions in the United States, but I’ve also heard similar types of terms being used to describe, say, the conditions in Poland when Law and Justice took over, that there was an attack on the rule of law. How did that unfold? When did you become aware that the rule of law was actually under threat in Poland under Law and Justice?
Gliszczynska-Grabias: I believe that right from the beginning, the Law and Justice party, came with the narratives that said something like, “Poland first,” and also narratives that stressed the notion of “Poland is rising from its knees,” which meant that actually now we won’t be bound by the rules of the European Union and other democratic countries. The rules of conduct will now be the great proud nation.
But I would say that they started right away by inviting into the building of the Constitutional Tribunal three judges who were unconstitutionally appointed. Then, the fact that the government of Prime Minister Beata Szydło refused to publish the judgments at that time, of the rightfully operating constitutional tribunal, the judgments that the government didn’t like — and even though it was a purely technical decision of the government just to publish these judgments, which is a legal obligation in Poland, they just refused to put the signatures there. So the judgments have not been published at all, which meant they were not binding.
French: So was there a specific moment that crystallized everything in your mind, or was it an accumulation of events? It sounds like there are echoes when you’re talking about refusal to publish judicial decisions or judicial orders that sound like outright defiance of the rule of law. Was that the key moment or were there other key moments that really crystallized, in your mind, that this is a crisis?
Gliszczynska-Grabias: I would say that this refusal to publish was striking, to the extent I cannot perhaps really describe now. And even though it doesn’t sound that serious — this is just the lack of publication — but in a normally functioning democracy with the rule of law being respected, this is something unbelievable. Something that should have never happened. Something that really proved what the government intends to do and how it operates. That was the start of the attacks on the independent judiciary and individual judges — those who stood bravely in defense of the rule of law and their judicial independence. That moment, I believe, defined the further fight for the rule of law and our common effort to overcome what was happening.
French: So here in the United States, one of the things that we’re told and I think is actually true is that when you use phrases like “rule of law,” or when you say things like “constitutional order,” ordinary Americans kind of tune out. That is not something that really gets them motivated. Now, I’m a lawyer; it motivates me a great deal, but we are constantly told that these phrases don’t motivate people. But it seems as if you were part of a movement in favor of democracy that actually did mobilize people at a grand scale. So how did you accomplish a large-scale movement to restore the rule of law? This is not something that’s happened yet here in the United States.
Gliszczynska-Grabias: Right. I believe there were three parts of this pro-democratic movement and they all worked together. But, exactly as you said, they managed to translate this legalistic attitude and language into ordinary conversations with citizens of Poland. First, this was the independent judges movement, and judges and prosecutors associations that actually changed their attitude in a revolutionary way, meaning that they left the judicial gowns in the courtroom and went outside to meet people and to talk to them.
They were traveling all over Poland, meeting with citizens even in the smallest towns and villages. They really devoted a lot of time and effort to tell the people what’s happening and how what’s happening on this governmental level, policy level and judicial level, how it actually translates into their lives and what consequences it may bring to their lives and their personal situation. So these were brave independent judges, and many of them paid an enormous price and personal price.
Then there was a very small foundation called Free Courts, composed of four brave lawyers who actually managed to do something that has no precedent. I don’t know any other case of this kind and this scale. These four lawyers gathered together, and they mobilized enormous resources for social campaigns and legal actions. They were representing the judges. They were going against the government in many strategic litigations. They were having media campaigns informing society about what’s happening, what’s going on. So this was the second element.
And the third element — extremely important — was the role of the ombudsman at that time, which is an independent constitutional organ. Prof. Adam Bodnar was the ombudsman in the times of Law and Justice party rule. It was actually kind of a miracle that he was able to talk about the law and the constitutional crisis in a way that was also understandable to an average person. And he was very extremely active. So I believe that all these elements, even though they seem all minor — because we are talking here about individuals, rather than a massive social movement — they really managed to make this change.
French: I’m so interested in that because it sounds like one of the primary means of persuasion that you used was very patient public education, going out to people. In the United States, we might use a word like conducting a seminar, or some people might call it a teach-in, where you go and you literally teach people about the stakes and the cause. So how long was this process? Again, you know, here in the United States there’s a lot of emphasis on doing things now, now, now: What can we do right away that makes change? But what you’re describing seems like that real change actually took some time here.
Gliszczynska-Grabias: It took years, to be honest. Of course, the first moment of shock and actually realizing what’s going on was not the moment for action. But, this educational element and going to small cities and towns by the judges and prosecutors — this was happening all the time, I would say, for sure, five, six years. So it took an enormous effort, and also by many of them a personal price to pay. So this was a kind of coordinated action. But the most important aspect of it was changing people’s minds as to how to vote in the next elections, even though none of the judges or none of the prosecutors were telling the people they met whom to vote for. Absolutely not. They were just saying, “What are the values and the laws that are endangered by the current actions of the government?”
French: Yes, that is one of the elements of the story that is most interesting to me. This was not what we would call, in the United States, a partisan effort where you’re sending people out who are saying, “Vote for this specific candidate or this specific party.” It really does seem like it was a public education effort on democracy itself, on the rule of law itself. And then they, the average citizens, could make their own conclusions about what that meant in the ballot box.
Gliszczynska-Grabias: Absolutely, and I believe that these judges and these prosecutors and other lawyers who went on this mission, they really took the notion of their independence seriously, which means they were not allowed to tell anyone how to vote.
They were really treating this as a kind of mission and not a political issue, and I think that people simply believed them. They believed them that what they were saying was true and was coming from a real care about the state of democracy in Poland.
French: So Poland is different from the United States in a lot of ways, but one of them is that Poland has had direct experience with fascist rule and Communist rule within living memory, that Poland has been through an ordeal that Americans can’t really imagine. How much did that specific history play a role here? How much could the advocates for democracy call back to that experience and have it impact people now?
Gliszczynska-Grabias: I think that this aspect, in the sphere of narratives, was one of the crucial ones. I always think about Roth’s dystopian novel, “The Plot Against America,” here. It stays only what it is — a novel, something that has never happened in the U.S. and hopefully never will. But here in Poland, and more broadly in Central Eastern Europe, the experience of Communism and Stalinism play a crucial role. It was also used by the pro-democratic movement in order to stress once again that these were the values, like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of press, of media, which were enormously attacked by the populist government.
But this was also the heritage that people here strongly referred to — to remind others how important these values are, what was achieved 30 years ago and how fragile these rights and freedoms remain. So that was, for sure, something important. On the other hand, this was also an argument that the government was referring to. And I think that they had a point here. One of the most important aspects of the narratives of the Law and Justice party was that our suffering, central Eastern European suffering — coming from Soviets and then from Communism — has never become, and I share this view, a part of the DNA of Western Europe that created the European Union. We have never been understood with what we were saying about this part of the European history. So it was also used to gain votes for this nationalistic feeling of not being treated the same way as other Europeans. So I think this was relevant in so many respects, and that’s one of the most important elements here.
French: That’s fascinating because an appeal to history is also part of the message of the right in the United States as well, and sort of an appeal to the sense that members of the American right have been neglected or overlooked in history, or exploited, is a very powerful part of the appeal. You acknowledge the validity of some of these feelings, and I think that when you’re combating right-wing authoritarianism, it’s very important to acknowledge that there are some kernels, some seeds that are of legitimate concern that sometimes blossom into these movements.
So in 2023, Poland defeats the Law and Justice party. A centrist candidate, Donald Tusk comes to power, but the story isn’t over yet, is it? I mean, Law and Justice didn’t just go away. What is the current status of Polish politics at the moment? What’s the current balance of power in Poland between authoritarianism and the forces of democracy?
Gliszczynska-Grabias: As you rightfully said, the Law and Justice party is still there. What is more is that we have other populists — some claim much worse than the Law and Justice party — gaining votes. At the same time, the current government is facing an enormous challenge, and I believe that this is one of the most important lessons to be learned: that populists, while in power, can really dismantle the very basic constitutional order to the extent that later on, even if they are defeated, it’s so difficult to overcome. And to bring back and restore things in the right order seems almost impossible.
French: Well, Aleksandra, you’ve described a pretty long process here and one that required a lot of sustained courage. In other words, month after month, year after year, getting out there in defiance and opposition to a populist government.
How did you and the other members of this movement pace yourselves? How did you sustain yourself? And also how did you protect yourself?
Gliszczynska-Grabias: It was extremely challenging and difficult. Perhaps not for me personally, because for academics like myself, you can always hide and write books. Of course, you do not have any guarantees that the government won’t limit freedom of academic speech or allow them to be published. But we didn’t get to this point, luckily. But those who were in the forefront of this fight, they really had to create for themselves kind of a support network, not to feel helplessness and hopelessness with every new development happening. And I think it worked.
There was also enormous support coming from a very large part of the Polish society for the judges and prosecutors. And they really, all the time, they stress that that was crucially important to them; they knew that they were not alone. Another very important aspect was the support coming from our friends in Europe and also in the U.S. — academics, lawyers, civil society. So this was like a network of people who really believed that we’ll overcome.
The worst thing that could happen in such a situation is the feeling of being isolated, of not being understood, even though that’s dramatic. But I believe that you have exactly the same feeling in the U.S.; you have your co-patriots, co-citizens who think completely differently, and one cannot understand how someone is allowing it or is fine with the Constitution being attacked every single day. But you also need, I would say, an inner calm or preparation for more and more terrible things to come. It doesn’t sound very optimistic, but ——
French: No, I actually understand exactly what you’re talking about. I understand it perfectly. You do have to steal yourself. You do have to prepare yourself for the next turn of the news cycle, the next development. Every day you see another attack on the rule of law. You see another attack on the constitutional order, and it does require you to toughen up and, for lack of a better phrase, to prepare yourself for what’s coming. And what I hear you say — that is very, very powerful and so very true — you also have to find a community. It’s hard to do this isolated and on your own.
Gliszczynska-Grabias: Absolutely. But I truly believe in the American judiciary, and I hope it will also show its best when it’s needed. And I hope it will all turn positive one day.
French: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Aleksandra, for joining me.
Gliszczynska-Grabias: Thank you so very much.
Thoughts? Email us at [email protected].
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Carole Sabouraud. Original music by Pat McCusker and Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Michelle Goldberg.
David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator. His most recent book is “Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.” You can follow him on Threads (@davidfrenchjag).
The post To Save Democracy, Here’s a Playbook That Works appeared first on New York Times.
