Tusk, Nawrocki, and the Ballot: A New Crisis of Polish Democracy?
Poland’s 2025 presidential election ended with one of the narrowest results in the country’s post-communist history. Karol Nawrocki, backed by Law and Justice (PiS), won 50.89% of the vote, edging out Rafał Trzaskowski of the Civic Coalition (KO), who secured 49.11%. The slim margin—about 370,000 votes out of more than 20 million — inevitably sharpened public focus on any hint of irregularity. The ruling camp, led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, seized upon this narrow difference to launch what critics describe as a myth of ‘stolen elections’.
Is this a Polish mirror of a post-electoral dispute that happened in Romania not that far ago, or a desperate bid by Tusk’s fragile government to cling to power?
At the heart of the controversy are confirmed errors in precinct vote tallies. In cities like Bielsko-Biała, Kraków, and Kamienna Góra, official protocols wrongly assigned votes between candidates. The most glaring example: 160 votes cast for Trzaskowski were mistakenly credited to Nawrocki. Other similar cases surfaced, and tellingly, all verified errors favored Nawrocki.
The formal response has been unprecedented: some 50,000 election protests were filed with the Supreme Court, most based on templates promoted by Civic Coalition (KO) politicians. By law, the court must assess each protest and determine if irregularities could have influenced the outcome.
By late June, only a handful were deemed valid — but even in these, the court found no effect on the final result.
In Poland, vote counts are carried out by people nominated by each candidate’s electoral committee. Given that eight of thirteen candidates in the first round represented different right-wing anti-government candidates, KO politicians argue that the appointees manipulated the count in various precincts.
What are the facts, though? In several dozen precincts where statistical anomalies or protest claims pointed to unusual results, the court ordered recounts. These confirmed prior mistakes, invariably disadvantaging Trzaskowski. For some, this bolstered calls for a broader audit; for others, it underscored that human errors were isolated, not systemic. The ultimate judgment will rest on whether the totality of errors could have shifted the election’s outcome.
Adding to the drama are institutional tensions. The court’s Extraordinary Review Chamber — its authority contested by pro-government legal circles — is tasked with ruling on the election’s validity. Internal disputes over the chamber’s legitimacy caused procedural gridlock, with two judges suspended for obstructing cases by questioning their own legal mandate.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s final word, the election has become more than a contest between two candidates — it is a test of institutional trust and democratic resilience.
The National Electoral Commission (PKW) and the government have sought to calm tensions. PKW insists that the irregularities uncovered so far are isolated incidents with no bearing on the overall outcome. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government emphasizes that it does not seek to annul the election but aims to clarify legitimate doubts in order to restore trust in the democratic process. Tusk argues that any precinct suspected of should be reviewed—not just as a legal duty but as a moral obligation to voters.
Law and Justice (PiS) takes a starkly different stance. The party defends the integrity of the process and accuses the government of trying to delegitimize the result for political reasons. Jarosław Kaczyński portrays the government’s actions as an attempt to undermine a democratic verdict and rallies his supporters to defend Nawrocki’s presidential mandate. PiS frames the narrative as a fight against an alleged “theft of the election”.
Behind this clash lies a deeper struggle over institutional legitimacy and public confidence in the electoral system. Independent experts have pointed to anomalies in data from several hundred precincts, suggesting the need for closer scrutiny. Other experts responded to their analyses by questioning their methodology and conclusions. And while this debate goes on, the Polish law offers no provision for a nationwide recount — any such decision rests with the Supreme Court.
Until the court delivers its final ruling, Poland remains in a state of political suspense. What was meant to be a straightforward choice of head of state has become a test of democratic stability and the resilience of society in the face of polarization. Whatever the outcome, the 2025 election controversy is likely to cast a long shadow over the new president’s term and the balance between executive and legislative power.
Recount?
A former far-right politician, Roman Giertych — now a lawyer aligned with the liberal side of Poland’s political divide and for nearly a decade, a Civic Coalition politician — has called for the National Assembly, the joint session of the Sejm and Senate, to vote for a recess on August 6. This would prevent the presidential inauguration and allow Szymon Hołownia, the current parliamentary speaker, to temporarily assume the presidency while a recount could be conducted. Hołownia has rejected the idea. Like most coalition politicians outside the Civic Coalition — whether from the New Left, the Polish People’s Party, or his own Polska 2050 — he wants no part in escalating the dispute.
A survey conducted by SW Research for Rzeczpospolita asked Poles whether they believe the votes cast in the second round of the presidential election should be recounted. 49.1%, said yes, while 38.9% were opposed. The remaining 12% were undecided.
At the same time, recent polling highlights the depth of public disillusionment. In a survey published on 28 May by OGB, nearly 47% of respondents rated the government’s performance negatively, while just 33% expressed approval. This represents one of the sharpest drops in support for any Polish cabinet since 1989 — remarkably, in under two years of its term. Against this backdrop, the presidential race became a de facto referendum on the government’s record. Law and Justice, Confederation, and even elements of the anti-establishment left seized on this sentiment. The outcome: a fragmented yet clear rejection of the ruling coalition.
This is the context in which the calls for vote recount should be seen.
The Civic Platform—or its broader umbrella, the Civic Coalition—is a party built around a strong leader. Beyond Donald Tusk, who has led both the party and, at times, the government since the early 2000s, there are few figures capable of uniting the various wings of this fragmented political formation. Unlike Law and Justice, the Civic Coalition has struggled to cultivate a new generation of elites and leaders, and, to a large extent, failed. As a result, Tusk remains its main face and the leader whose words are not to be questioned. And what better way to reinforce this model than by invoking a foundational political myth? A myth of rigged elections?
This line of reasoning is not foreign to Polish politics.
More, more!
On 10 of April, 2010, a Tu-154M aircraft carrying a high-level Polish delegation crashed while attempting to land in heavy fog. All 96 people on board died, including President Lech Kaczyński, his wife, senior military commanders, high-ranking politicians and clergy. The delegation had been en route to a ceremony commemorating the Katyn massacre. In the aftermath, Poland was gripped by profound political and emotional turmoil.
Jarosław Kaczyński and PiS officially claimed that Lech Kaczyński—his twin brother—had been murdered in a conspiracy involving Donald Tusk and Vladimir Putin. This myth of betrayal and tragedy helped Kaczyński solidify PiS’s core electorate and forge a loyal party apparatus, just as Civic Platform was preparing for a second term in office with its first-ever president, Bronisław Komorowski.
Now, as electoral defeat looms over his own camp, is Tusk following the same path? All signs suggest he is.
A sense of election panic is spreading. Increasingly, prominent politicians — including Tusk himself — are echoing Roman Giertych’s theories to question the legitimacy of the newly elected president. The government figures are extrapolating the detected irregularity incidents into sweeping claims about nationwide fraud, shaking the foundations of state stability.
This new wave of polarization has culminated in Law and Justice calling for full mobilization on the day of Nawrocki’s inauguration, scheduled for early August. What will Donald Tusk do? By then, the government may decide that the presidency should be determined by force — whether institutional or street-level.
Still, all indications are that Karol Nawrocki will assume the presidency with his legitimacy intact. In Warsaw, the unnoficial gossip is that the U.S. Embassy has already made its position clear: “Nawrocki is the president.”
How did Poland end up with a Romanian-like scenario? The answer is clear. But a more pressing question remains: What does sovereignty mean to Polish political elites if they are so willing to sacrifice it at the altar of polarization, and short-term benefits?
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
