Artur Bartkiewicz: This Is Not the Time to Change the Constitution. Karol Nawrocki Is Mistaken.

The current political climate in Poland is far from conducive to the fundamental changes required for a constitutional moment. While President Karol Nawrocki may express a desire for constitutional reform, his actions and the prevailing political landscape actively undermine any possibility of achieving such a monumental task. The very definition of a "constitutional moment" implies a period of profound systemic shifts, where the existing governance model proves inadequate, and a broad, cross-spectrum societal consensus emerges to guide the nation's future direction. In Poland today, we are witnessing the antithesis of such unity.

The deep polarization between the two dominant political camps, Civic Platform (KO) and Law and Justice (PiS), has created an environment of animosity rather than consensus. These parties view each other not as political rivals but as existential threats to Poland's well-being. Compounding this division is the ongoing conflict between the President and the government, characterized by frequent vetoes that far exceed those of his predecessors, even during periods of cohabitation. Under these circumstances, initiating a debate on constitutional change would inevitably devolve into political squabbling, failing to address the substantive issues at hand.

Furthermore, President Nawrocki's apparent preference for a presidential system, as discussed by Artur Bartkiewicz in Rzeczpospolita, is deeply concerning. Such a system, unlike Poland's current parliamentary-cabinet model, operates on a "winner-takes-all" principle, which risks exacerbating societal divisions rather than fostering unity. In a parliamentary system, a majority governs, but in a presidential system, a strong minority can dominate, potentially marginalizing diverse voices and perspectives. Therefore, any talk of constitutional change must be deferred until Poland can achieve a level of political maturity and consensus that currently seems distant, prioritizing stability and functional governance over potentially divisive reforms.