Lech Wałęsa stated on Radio Gdańsk that he did not consider Karol Nawrocki to be president. The erstwhile president made the change of position dependent on recalculation of the votes and talked about fraud. However, specified a dense charge requires evidence, due to the fact that questioning the head of the state strikes the assurance of Poles in the institution of the Republic.
Wałęsa questions Nawrocki's presidency
Lech Wałęsa was asked on Radio Gdańsk to measure the year of Karol Nawrocki's presidency. He replied plainly that he did not consider him president. As WP News reports, the erstwhile president stated that he would change his head after recalculating the vote. due to this miscalculation, Wałęsa called the situation fraud.
That's the heaviest caliber charge. However, he was not supported by evidence in the message cited, which would let falsification to be considered a fact. In a democratic state, procedures can be requested, protests can be submitted and doubts raised. On the another hand, suspicion must not be turned into a judgement given before a microphone.
State office over individual dispute
Wałęsa has the right to an acute political assessment. As a erstwhile president, however, he should peculiarly realize the difference between the reluctance to a peculiar policy and the refusal to recognise a constitutional office. The presidency is not a private title given by predecessors. Its legitimacy results from the choice of citizens and the procedures of the state.
The dispute about Karol Nawrocki does not concern only 2 recognizable names. It touches respect for the institutions of the Republic. If individual claims that there has been an election fraud, they should present a concrete, verifiable basis. Otherwise, it strengthens chaos and the belief that the consequence of the vote applies only if it corresponds to the losing side.
Poles request certainty of rules
Trust in elections should be protected by transparency, control and fair consideration of reservations. It's the business of all political camp. Equally crucial is the work of public figures for words, especially those who themselves held the highest office in the state.
For Poles, the stake is specific: the stableness of the state and the certainty that common rules do not depend on the sympathy of erstwhile leaders. The President's criticism is part of freedom of speech. To undermine his mandate requires facts, not a declaration. The seriousness of the Republic must weigh more than individual political judgment.
Source: WP News
