On Friday, six candidates from different parties met for a debate. Fewer than 50 people attended, most of them colleagues from the election committees. The interested residents of Bolesławiec could be counted on one hand. One listener asked the candidates a question: “I came especially from Jelenia Góra to listen to you,” he said. “Don’t you think that such low attendance at this debate is your personal failure? And that no one wants to listen to you anymore?”
The PiS candidate spoke first, claiming that the debate had simply been poorly advertised by its organizer, a popular social-media portal. He regretted that no young people had come, which may seem surprising because the portal had always been most attractive to young people.
The SLD candidate blamed politicians, though not those in the room but those from Warsaw. He admitted that politicians had never fulfilled anything, undermining their credibility and costing them voters’ sympathy.
The representative of Ruch Palikota immediately stressed that he himself could reach voters in ways other than putting up posters. He wondered whether the meeting could have been advertised better in some unconventional way, but did not offer one. He also concluded that although the debate was needed, it was not attractive from a media perspective.
The PO candidate admitted that he had thought for a long time about accepting the invitation to the debate because he would have preferred to meet voters directly. “I’m very sorry that the room is so empty,” he said. “I thought to myself, damn, there’s no point; I won’t win a single vote here. Only our friends and colleagues have come. I came out of respect for the initiative.”
The truth is that each candidate would have had a better chance of gaining new voters by handing out leaflets than by debating. A potential voter could ask a candidate they met questions in person and hear answers addressed specifically to them. There was no room for that in this debate.
Round one: how to fix everything in a minute?
At the beginning, each candidate answered questions that no party in Poland had yet managed to resolve. Inevitably, the answers were general and came across as pathetic. How can anyone answer in several dozen seconds a question about relieving the health service of debt (addressed to the PiS candidate), fixing education (addressed to the Ruch Palikota candidate), attitudes toward penalties for drugs (addressed to the PO candidate), or how to encourage young people to have children and raise them in the country (addressed to the SLD candidate)?
Then things got even worse, as the poor candidates were pressed to quickly explain how they would merge ZUS and KRUS, solve Poland’s energy problem, or increase the construction of motorways. The candidates answered in generalities, as they would have had to do otherwise by referring to their parties’ programs. Finally, the PO candidate said: “We are not MPs; we can promise anything here: motorways, excellent health care and perfect medical treatment. Those in power will decide anyway, and if any of us gets into the Sejm, we will make decisions together.”
Round two: everyone against the PO candidate
After a series of general questions, it was time for questions the candidates asked one another. Each could choose an opponent. The PiS candidate began by asking a PO member a question. “Why is a kilometre of motorway in Poland the most expensive in the world?” Jarosław Kaczyński’s party member asked his colleague from Tusk’s party. “I have no idea,” the Platform member replied briefly. “And where did you get the information that a kilogram of motorway is so expensive?” the PO candidate asked mistakenly, immediately correcting kilograms to kilometres.
The mistake brought a little amusement to the stiff debate. Unfortunately, the question from the Palikot candidate once again overwhelmed it with merciless seriousness. He asked how the PO member would define the concept of “state” and the word “civic” appearing in the party’s name. The PO candidate defined both terms according to the Polish dictionary, which did not satisfy the questioner at all.
The PO–SLD clash added a little drama. A Polish teacher versus a miner. The two men took mild jabs at each other and, perhaps surprisingly, the Polish teacher started. The Platform candidate asked the young SLD miner a question with which any teacher could stump a student. He asked about something he had taught when the student had been absent. The old teacher’s trick worked perfectly. “What is the relationship between the professional certification system and the length of education in Poland?” the Platform member asked, and probably no one in the room, including SLD boss Stanisław Chwojnicki, who was cheering for his candidate, had any idea what this certification was.
The SLD member had no chance of answering, but he was embarrassed. He counterattacked by asking the PO member his own question. “I was supposed to ask it of someone else,” the left-wing candidate admitted at the outset. “But now I’ll ask you. There is a PO campaign spot in which Buzek and Lewandowski promise to obtain PLN 300 million for Poland. That spot annoys me. How do you morally assess such electoral blackmail—telling people that if they do not vote for PO, the money will not be there?”
The PO member was unable to answer on behalf of Tusk, Buzek and Lewandowski, so he returned to the issue of certification, which interested him more, and explained it in greater detail.
Round three: you kiss me, and I’ll give you all this
At the end, the candidates were asked about future coalitions in the Sejm: which alliances they would be willing to enter and which they would accept. The PO candidate named PSL, SLD and Ruch Palikota, but decided that the fewer coalition partners, the better.
The SLD female candidate said decisively: anyone but PiS. The SLD candidate wanted to fraternize with the most pro-European party, which he identified as… SLD. He would nevertheless reach an agreement with PO and PSL. He said he liked Ruch Palikota, disliking only, for reasons unknown, the shirts associated with the party, and preferring Palikot to become more civilized. The SLD candidate was also favorably disposed toward PiS.
The PSL female candidate would agree to a coalition with any party, seeing no need to exclude anyone. Reconciliation was the most important thing to her.
The PiS candidate, without consulting the party president, declared that his party would have a majority in the Sejm and no coalition would be needed. He optimistically assumed that other parties would come to PiS, rising above ideological divisions. Pressed by the moderator for a clearer answer, he said he would lure people from other parties over to PiS.
The candidate from Ruch Palikota sided with PO and SLD. He also described himself as a supporter of total reconciliation.
In summing up the debate, the candidates said what they would do for the region and the city once they found themselves in the Sejm. The PiS candidate would strive to bring many investments to Bolesławiec and significantly increase the number of jobs. The Ruch Palikota member intended to improve the transport of heavy goods in the Sejm by abolishing fees paid by TIR owners. The PO candidate would improve education so that when two schools were merged, employees of one institution would not have to be dismissed at the expense of the other. He also wanted to fight to maintain the access road to the economic zone in Gromadka. The SLD candidate wanted to build another bridge over the Bóbr and renovate the road to Zgorzelec. His female party colleague would build a southern bypass leading from Jelenia Góra. The PSL candidate wanted laws to be created one at a time, which would halt the numerous changes to Polish legislation that currently complicate citizens’ lives.
When one of the candidates was asked how he felt, he replied jokingly: “I feel the way I look, which is great.” How do voters feel? The disastrous attendance at the debate should make future politicians aware of the gulf between them and voters.
Will this discourage candidates from staging artificial, media-oriented debates prepared more for the media than for ordinary people? Doubtful. If they could not refuse a small, politically insignificant portal whose debate was ignored by its own users, how will they resist the magic of TVN or TVP in the future?
Czy debaty wpływają na decyzje wyborców?
(information: Grażyna Hanaf)