CIVICUS discusses the results of Poland’s presidential election with Filip Pazderski, Programme Manager for Civil Society of the Stefan Batory Foundation, a civil society organisation that promotes democratic governance.

On 1 June, nationalist conservative Karol Nawrocki won Poland’s presidential runoff with almost 51 per cent of the vote, narrowly defeating liberal Rafał Trzaskowski. Nawrocki ran as an independent but was backed by the right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS) and endorsed by Donald Trump. His presidency is expected to challenge Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s pro-European Union (EU) government by vetoing reforms, potentially constraining civil society and human rights protections and bringing a continuation of anti-immigration policies.

What was the runoff campaign like?

The final stretch of the campaign deepened divisions, with both candidates mobilising their base while trying to supress their opponent’s turnout. Running for the ruling centrist-liberal Civic Coalition, Trzaskowski promised to rebuild communities and bridge divisions, and work on Poland’s security in cooperation with European counterparts. His opponents accused him of being willing to cede national sovereignty to the EU and allow mass migration in a plot allegedly orchestrated by Germany. He was also connected to a government criticised by many and a prime minister many dislike.

Trzaskowski’s campaign struck back with serious allegations against his nationalist conservative opponent. These included claims Nawrocki had been involved in hooligan violence, engaged in pimping in a past job as a hotel security guard and abandoned contractual care responsibilities he had pledged to fulfil for an older man in exchange for the ownership rights to a community flat the man possessed.

The election showed deep polarisation and quite high voter turnout, a sign of will for political change. Turnout was driven up by younger voters, with turnout lowest amongst older voters, who have usually supported two main political camps that have dominated politics for the past 15 to 20 years. This time many of them decided to stay home, particularly in the first round.

What drove Nawrocki’s narrow victory?

Voters aged 18 to 39 were the decisive factor, casting protest votes to express dissatisfaction with everyday politics and the state’s failure to provide adequate social services. Our research revealed young voters’ unhappiness with poor education quality, wages too low to afford housing and negative healthcare experiences. High living costs are also a particular burden for young people.

In the first round, disillusioned younger voters, feeling powerless and left behind by mainstream politicians, scattered their votes among fringe opposition candidates: Sławomir Mentzen of the far-right libertarian Confederation Party and Adrian Zandberg of the left-wing Together Party. Many of those in their 30s, frustrated by limited social mobility, lack of affordable housing and weak public services, also backed Mentzen, as a way of protesting against dysfunctional governance and unfair taxation.

The runoff transformed this dynamic, but only to some extent. Since only conservative candidates stayed in the vote, one more liberal and the second more nationalistic, young voters decided to show their dissatisfaction with the government – either its political agenda or ineffectiveness. As a result, young voters mobilised: 75 per cent of 18-to-29-year-olds and 72 per cent of 30-to-39-year-olds voted, overwhelmingly supporting Nawrocki. Since older voters either supported Trzaskowski or split evenly, this swing among young voters proved decisive for Nawrocki’s win.

Support from rural voters, Poland’s largest demographic, further strengthened Nawrocki’s position, offsetting Trzaskowski’s urban advantage. People in rural areas tend to have more traditionalistic worldviews and also be unhappy with a political establishment that has little to offer them.

How did disinformation influence the outcome?

Disinformation played a major role. Monitoring groups such as the Demagogue Association reported false claims targeting key candidates. These attacks, for instance, linked Trzaskowski to liberal philanthropist George Soros and German foundations and accused Mentzen of being too soft on Ukraine. The rhetoric of more far-right candidates clearly reflected Russian propaganda.

Pro-Russian and Eastern-linked accounts amplified anti-Ukrainian, anti-migrant and antisemitic content, questioned Ukraine’s legitimacy and promoted conspiracy theories, including claims that Germany was secretly sending illegal migrants to Poland.

What are the likely impacts of Nawrocki’s presidency?

Nawrocki’s victory ensures there will be continued cohabitation between a government led by a centrist-liberal prime minister and a president aligned with the right-wing opposition. The outgoing president, Andrzej Duda, also ran as an independent but had previously been affiliated with PiS, in power between 2015 and 2023. When his political camp lost power in the 2023 general election, he remained the most important obstacle to the Tusk government’s liberal agenda and the restoration of the rule of law.

Nawrocki’s strategic use of presidential veto power will likely block legislation further. Every aspect of Tusk’s liberal and pro-EU agenda will encounter presidential resistance, because Nawrocki will reject anything he perceives as conflicting with conservative and national values. He will try to prevent the implementation of progressive policies including on abortion rights and civil partnerships, and block judicial reform and accountability for the abuses committed during eight years of PiS rule. The ensuing policy paralysis could end up benefitting the Confederation Party.

Under Nawrocki, foreign policy may shift significantly. His guiding principle is to put Poland’s interests first, which means reinforced sovereignty and national pride, even if this requires weakening ties with neighbours. He will take a harder line on Ukraine, oppose deeper EU integration and lean towards the USA, offering unconditional support for Trump’s policies. In his narratives he may refer more intensively to politics of history, particularly related to relations with our neighbours, which may chill our relations with them.

What does this mean for civil society?

Despite limited formal powers, the president’s symbolic influence is significant. Should Nawrocki adopt his political camp’s rhetoric, this could deepen civil society divisions, privileging groups aligned with traditional and nationalist values while marginalising organisations that promote human rights, minority rights and women’s rights. These groups may again face accusations of pushing foreign or EU-backed agendas, as they did under PiS rule, creating a hostile climate and possibly restricting freedoms of association and expression, particularly for excluded groups.