You got your democracy back. Now what? Poland confronts an illiberal hangover and the hard work of repair
Poland’s recent electoral shift removed an elected authoritarian force from power, but the new governing coalition now confronts a familiar dilemma: how to undo entrenched changes made during the previous era without abandoning legal democratic processes. The transition matters because measures put in place by the prior government—court stacking, a remade state media, and barriers to opposition participation—leave long-lasting institutional effects that are not easy to erase.
Poland’s illiberal trilemma: speed, legality, effectiveness
The new administration inherited a set of reforms and institutional maneuvers that reshaped the judiciary, public media, and political gatekeeping. The previous governing party used electoral success to install loyalist judges, transform state broadcasting into a partisan outlet, and create formal mechanisms that could block opposition figures from serving in government. Voters who backed change expected swift reversal of these moves, but political scientists studying the aftermath describe a constrained choice set.
One analytical frame put forward by scholars labels this constraint an “illiberal trilemma”: the public demands reforms that are rapid, legally sound, and effective, but achieving all three simultaneously is virtually impossible. Prioritizing speed can undercut legality; insisting on legal procedures slows reform; and emphasizing legality and speed can undermine comprehensiveness or lasting impact.
What the new government can and cannot undo
Expectations for quick fixes collided with institutional realities. Some changes enacted during the illiberal period were implemented by statute, others were enforced through personnel shifts and administrative control. Removing judges installed in contested processes, restoring independence to public media, and dismantling mechanisms that block opposition officeholders are complex tasks that typically require careful legal steps to avoid further constitutional conflict.
Scholars note that a government committed to restoring liberal democratic norms faces pressure from voters to act swiftly while also needing to follow legal channels. That tension explains why some reforms advance slowly: a deliberate, rule-bound approach is often the only way to ensure reforms endure without recreating the political conditions that originally enabled illiberal change.
Politics, expectations and the next phase for Poland
Political scientists who have tracked Poland’s trajectory emphasize that the political aftermath of an illiberal period often extends well into the next government’s tenure. Even when an electoral verdict replaces an authoritarian-leaning administration, institutional legacies—laws on the books, personnel in key posts, and altered administrative rules—can limit how fast a successor can restore prior norms.
Observers point to the difficult balance the new governing coalition must strike: deliver tangible reform to meet public expectations, preserve the legal basis of its actions, and do so in a way that produces meaningful and sustainable change. That balance means some reversals will be incremental rather than immediate, and some battles will require extended legal and political engagement.
- Key legacies left by the previous government include court appointments, control over public media, and formal mechanisms to impede opposition participation.
- The illiberal trilemma frames the practical constraint: reconciling speed, legality, and effectiveness is rarely achievable in full.
- Expect continued political debate and legal contests as the new coalition works through institutional repair.
Scholarly work and public debate now focus on how to manage this transition without undermining democratic norms in the name of repair. The challenge for Poland’s leaders and citizens is clear: reversing an illiberal turn requires patience, strategic legal work, and sustained political will—and even then, outcomes may take years to fully materialize.
