Recent years in Polish politics have been a period of many changes and controversy. 1 of the key issues that sparked many discussions and emotions was the unlocking of the National Reconstruction Plan (KPO). This is simply a subject that has been the subject of many speculations and analyses, as well as a reason to criticise the erstwhile government, which has repeatedly emphasized its fight for Poland's independence. Was unlocking the KPO a real benefit for the country or was it political manipulation?
Protection of Polish national identity
The erstwhile government, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, set the goal of fighting for the sovereignty of Poland, and protecting Polish national identity. This communicative has frequently contradicted the EU's efforts to assimilate migrants and advance blurring of national identity. For many observers, this was an action worthy of recognition, highlighting Poland's independency from external pressures. However, decisions made by the government on the KPO issue cast fresh light on this narrative.
Many critics point to the fact that Poland will not receive the full amount from the KPO, which means the failure of billions of PLN. The reason for this is the deficiency of the capacity to usage the full envelope at a certain time.
It is worth a closer look. Firstly, it should be noted that the earlier government emphasized the fight for Poland's sovereignty, putting it first. For many, this was an action worthy of recognition, which emphasized Poland's independency from external pressures. However, the fact of blocking funds from the KPO raises questions about the consequences of this action. Was it truly an action for the good of Poland, or was it more related to political interests?
The time aspect cannot be ignored either. At a time erstwhile another EU countries are already utilizing these funds to make infrastructure, education or ecology, blocking funds from the KPO may lead to a failure of chance to make full usage of these funds. Should political interests always prevail over the economical and social interests of the country?
EU blocking of KPO funds
Finally, there is an argument for political differentiation in the European Union (EU). The blocking of funds from the KPO by the EU could have been treated as a kind of protest against Polish policy, especially on the issue of the regulation of law (the authoritative position of the EU).
Donald Tusk, a key figure in Polish politics, had the chance to accelerate the unlocking of funds from KPO, which could be beneficial to the improvement of the country. However, his actions seem to propose something else. alternatively of focusing on actions for Poland, for years he focused mainly on attacking the Government of Law and Justice (PISA) and complaining about breaking the regulation of law in Poland.
Donald Tusk's decisions and actions can be understood from a political perspective. Firstly, his actions may be interpreted as an effort to gain support in the European Union, where the regulation of law in Poland is simply a hot topic. Attacks on the government in Poland, in the context of EU standards, can be seen as an action for EU interests.
Were Poland's interests always first?
Were Poland's interests always first? Did Donald Tusk's actual actions, which focused mainly on criticism of the government of PIS, benefit Poland? At a time erstwhile Poland needed financial support and fast unlocking of funds from the KPO, the leader of the Civic Coalition (KO) focused on another matters.
It is worth noting that the final unlocking of funds from KPO occurred after the change of power, not as a consequence of real changes in Polish politics or the regulation of law. The deficiency of crucial changes in laws or actions indicates that the unlocking of funds was the consequence of political games alternatively than a real improvement in the situation in the country, including the regulation of law.
In addition, the deficiency of crucial changes in Polish politics or the regulation of law, while at the same time unlocking funds, may prove any inconsistencies. If EU funds were to be linked to compliance with certain standards and principles, why were they unlocked erstwhile no crucial changes took place in these areas?
Finally, it is worth noting that specified a situation may prove the interference of abroad politicians in Polish politics. Decisions on European funds should be primarily an interior issue of the country, not a consequence of force or external interference. Controlling the process from the outside can rise many questions about the sovereignty of the country and its ability to make its own decisions.
Involvement of abroad politicians from the EU in Polish policy
Unlocking the funds from the KPO in the absence of crucial changes in the regulation of law may rise many questions and concerns. Did it truly service the interests of Poland, or was it more part of the political game and strategy of the fresh ruling formation? This question remains open, but it is worth considering whether decisions on European funds should be more linked to the interests of the country or, rather, external influences and political strategies.
The decision to unlock funds from the KPO and fulfil alternatively of milestones, only 1 pebble, i.e. to remove the PiS from power, leaves many questions unanswered. Was it truly a step in Poland's interest, or was it more a consequence of political agreements and manipulation? For Poles, it is crucial that political decisions are made in the interests of the country and its citizens, not as part of a political game.
Unlocking funds from KPO is an example of political manipulation
Ultimately, unlocking funds from KPO can be seen both as an chance to make Poland, but besides as an example of political manipulation. Only time will show whether this pebble will actually contribute to building a solid foundation for Poland in the coming years.
It should be admitted that the word "milestones" is an elaborate phrase, especially in the political context. It appears to have been created by the EU and then repeated respective times by the current ruling coalition. Were they truly milestones in Poland's development, or alternatively a political chess piece, where KPO funds were a tool for political blackmail?
It should besides be stressed that the very fact that the funds from the KPO were unlocked after the change of power raises many questions. Was the decision to unlock funds truly dictated by concern for the improvement of Poland, or was it more likely to show its effectiveness by the fresh ruling formation?
Summary
All this leads to questions as to whether Poland truly became a full associate in the European community, or is it inactive functioning as a country whose activities are controlled from the outside?
Does Poland truly stand on a solid foundation, or does it inactive gotta fight for its independency and sovereignty? These questions stay open, but they are surely worth putting themselves in the context of unlocking funds from the KPO and political manipulations that may have been behind them.
