The article exposes how Poland’s political elite use X and other social media for petty displays, eroding genuine debate and respect for state institutions.
Poland’s Politicians and Infantile Tactics
The piece opens by labeling the contemporary mode of politics as “infantile,” noting how serious discussions are reduced to emotional performances, exemplified by the attention given to Szymon Hołownia’s feelings amid his potential resignation.
The author criticises the personal focus that has overtaken public debate, citing the Ministry of Justice as a case in point where the minister’s actions become the sole subject of journalistic intrigue.
The Role of X in Shaping Public Discourse
Venturing into social media, the critique claims that parties across the spectrum both condemn and adopt an infantile use of X, with politicians warning that ceasing activity would render them politically obsolete.
Journalists now rely on fleeting social media posts for material, while serious political analysis increasingly sprouts from these posts, turning a platform formerly seen as a tool into a primary source of information.
Social Media’s Impact on Political Substance
Online platforms have pushed politics from a pedestal onto everyday life, creating an environment where likable or disliked figures are judged by instant emotional reactions, and serious debate is impoverished.
The author argues the shift towards emoticons and viral content symbolizes a broader decline in political seriousness.
Populism and the Persistence of Infantile Politics
Populism is identified as a continuation of infantilisation, playing out on a larger stage in the United States, Western Europe, and Poland, where leaders echo the American myth and repeat lies until accepted as truth.
Both academic perspectives and the author’s observations stress that while ordinary citizens tolerate deceit when politicians are involved, public trust erodes asymmetrically.
Institutional Friction and the Crisis of Governance
The article details how disputes between the President and the Prime Minister—each focused on re‑election and upcoming elections—damage the state’s prestige in international arenas.
Critics illustrate that such conflicts, justified by constitutional ambiguities, are detrimental to national authority and public cohesion.