The first year of cohabitation between President Karol Nawrocki and Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government suggests that conflict at the highest levels of power is no longer a temporary political episode but is increasingly becoming a permanent feature of the Polish state. It is having a growing impact not only on the pace of decision-making and institutional relations, but also on national security, foreign policy, and the way Poland is perceived by its international partners and investors.
READ MORE
To what extent are these tensions driven by political differences and personal ambitions, and to what extent are they embedded in the constitutional system itself? Does Poland still pursue a single strategic direction, or is it beginning to send more than one message to the world?
These questions are explored in the report A Year of Coexistence or Confrontation?, prepared by the Public Affairs analysts at SEC Newgate, an international strategic advisory firm specializing in Corporate Affairs and Public Affairs. The report combines political, regulatory, and geopolitical analysis. Alongside the perspective of the Polish team, it includes commentary from SEC Newgate experts and partners in Belgrade, Berlin, Brussels, Budapest, Kyiv, London, Milan, Paris, Prague, Sofia, and Washington, as well as political science insights from Professor Jarosław Flis.
Two Palaces: Conflict Embedded in the Logic of the System
One of the report’s central arguments challenges the common assumption that political conflicts arise only between opposing political camps.
SEC Newgate’s analysis leads to a less intuitive conclusion: political conflict does not require two opposing sides—it requires only two presidential palaces.
The history of Polish cohabitation demonstrates that some of the most damaging conflicts have emerged between politicians from the very same political camp. State institutions begin to operate according to their own logic of rivalry – one that can prove stronger than personal relationships, party loyalty, or even shared political objectives.
The report argues that current tensions should not be viewed solely through the lens of day-to-day political disputes. They also have a structural dimension. Poland’s constitutional model, with two strong democratically legitimized executive centres – particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security – naturally creates competition over influence, representation, and leadership.
The authors also highlight another important mechanism: the intensity of political conflict is increasingly shaped not only by the leaders themselves but by their broader political ecosystems – including presidential and governmental offices, advisers, party structures, media, and institutional networks. While political leaders may seek to reduce tensions, their surrounding environments may simultaneously reinforce the logic of escalation.
Security Is No Longer Above Politics
The report’s second major focus is foreign policy and national security – areas identified by the authors as the most vulnerable to conflict under conditions of cohabitation.
Since the outbreak of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, national security has remained one of the few areas of relative political consensus in Poland. The report suggests, however, that this period may now be coming to an end.
Intelligence services, defence policy, relations with the United States, European cooperation, and policy towards Ukraine are increasingly becoming not only strategic issues but also elements of day-to-day political competition.
According to the authors, this marks a fundamental shift in the functioning of the state. Security is no longer insulated from political conflict; instead, it is becoming one of its principal arenas.
In practice, disputes are no longer limited to questions of constitutional competence. They increasingly concern strategic issues such as: Who represents Poland abroad? Who builds relationships with the U.S. administration? Who leads dialogue with European partners? And whose foreign policy ultimately becomes the policy of the Polish state?
One State, Multiple Messages?
The report also argues that Poland has, at times, begun to appear as a country pursuing parallel foreign policy approaches towards the United States, the European Union, Ukraine, and European security.
This does not mean that Poland formally operates under multiple state strategies. However, it does create the risk that international partners perceive the country as one in which competing centres of influence and divergent political narratives operate simultaneously.
At a time of war, changing transatlantic relations, and intensifying geopolitical competition, predictability has become one of the state’s most valuable assets – no less important than its economic or military capabilities.
Poland’s Political Dispute Under International Scrutiny
The international perspective presented in the report confirms that Poland remains one of the key countries in Central and Eastern Europe and an important actor in the debate on European security. At the same time, SEC Newgate’s analysts note that international partners are increasingly focused not only on the direction of Warsaw’s policies but also on the country’s ability to maintain coherence in its actions despite growing internal tensions.
The Stakes: The State’s Capacity to Act
The SEC Newgate report also demonstrates that prolonged political conflicts rarely end with the complete victory of one side. The history of cohabitation more often leads to fragmentation within political camps, weakening of state institutions, and a gradual erosion of the government’s capacity to govern effectively.
Ultimately, the report raises a question that goes beyond the current political dispute: will cohabitation continue to serve as a mechanism for balancing political power, or will it begin to undermine the state’s strategic effectiveness at one of the most demanding geopolitical moments of recent decades?
DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
