The article explores the consequences of the rule of the conservative and national-populist «Law and Justice» (PiS) (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc) in Poland. The focus is on the specifics of the political space and spectrum of political forces in Poland, the attitudes of voters, as well as the internal party structure of PiS itself. It is shown how the leader oriented and centralized intra-party system distinguished by the deep rootedness of paternalistic relations and the almost complete absence of intra-party democracy, which is little compatible with the image chosen by the party as “the only people’s force in the country.” The anti-elite discourse of PiS collides with the sacred role of senior officials and directly the chairman in the party itself. PiS is characterized by the priority of informal practices over official institutions and procedures; this is rooted in internal party life and is actively used by PiS also outside of it. Further, the article analyzes how the populist ideological aspiration pushes PiS to carry out a large-scale policy of transformation of Polish soci ety which includes the policy of exclusion, the policy of submission, instrumentalizing the country’s courts and state media; a policy of searching for enemies, cultivating in society an atmosphere of fear and mistrust; a policy of dogmatization, bringing social life to full compliance with the moral guidelines of the party, eradicating any pluralism of opinions; politics of public partisanship, integrating party structure and aspirations into co-opted public organizations and social movements. Finally, the article reveals how PiS, politicizing sociocultural issues and the environment, influences civil society with party and state resources, infrastructure and influence, seeking to monopolize social consensus, establish party agenda and, most importantly, replace the sociocultural elite with co-opted and allied to party. In this way, the article pays special attention to the analysisng of PiS’s youth policy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
T. E. Mirzadzhanov (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: