In 2015, Poland experienced a significant decrease in democracy. The Law and Justice Party (PiS), under Jaroslaw Kaczyński’s leadership, secured victories in both the presidential and parliamentary elections. In a matter of months, the government acted to diminish the power of the Constitutional Tribunal, tighten its grip on public media, and boost its sway over the judiciary. According to many scholarly definitions, this represented a classic example of democratic erosion.

However, Poland did not turn into another Hungary.

In October 2023, however, opposition parties spearheaded by Donald Tusk won against PiS in parliamentary elections and control shifted. The European Union started to rebuild collaboration, then Poland’s path changed.

Poland’s democratic decline could be reversed due to the preservation of essential accountability mechanisms, such as civil society, competitive elections, and EU external pressure, despite the weakening of institutions. This positions Poland as a crucial example for comprehending not only how democracies decline but also how they endure.

The Circumstances That Enabled Regression

Poland didn’t abruptly become exposed in 2015. The foundation was already established.

Initially, political polarization had been increasing for years. Conflicting views of Poland, like liberal, pro-European compared to nationalist and conservative, solidified into identity-driven divisions. This shows that polarization diminishes cooperation among elites and heightens the chances of institutional conflict. In Poland, this implied that when PiS came into power, it had little motivation to adhere to institutional standards.

Secondly, populism was crucial. PiS positioned itself as the representative of “true Poles” opposing corrupt elites and outside interference. This aligns with traditional definitions of populism as a moral conflict between “the virtuous populace” and “the degenerate elite”. Upon gaining power, this narrative framed institutional changes as democratic corrections instead of power seizures.

Third, flaws in institutional design facilitate swift actions. Poland’s framework enabled a parliamentary majority to implement extensive reforms without strong veto powers. This indicates that democratic decline is more probable when leaders can overpower horizontal accountability entities such as judicial systems.

Ultimately, economic and social issues were significant. Although Poland saw economic growth following its EU membership, inequality, and regional differences remained. Such circumstances frequently enhance backing for populist parties that guarantee redistribution and national safeguarding.

The “Who, What, and When” of Democratic Decline

The decline of democracy in Poland was quite tangible. It occurred via tangible actions by recognizable individuals.

Right after gaining power in late 2015, PiS dismissed judges appointed by the former government and replaced them with its own selections. President Andrzej Duda appointed these judges overnight, circumventing standard protocols. This effectively incapacitated the Constitutional Tribunal, eliminating an important safeguard against executive authority.

In July 2017, PiS enacted legislation enabling the government to reduce the retirement age for Supreme Court judges. This drove our numerous senior judges and enabled the government to select substitutes. The Ministry of Justice increased its influence over judicial disciplinary actions, exerting pressure on judges who resisted reforms.

In early 2016, PiS enacted laws that allowed the government to directly oversee appointments in public media. State television more frequently showcased pro-government viewpoints, restricting diversity and influencing public conversation.

With ongoing judicial reforms, the European Court of Justice determined that Poland’s system for discipling judges breached EU law. In December 2025, European courts reiterated that the reforms of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal violated EU legal standards. The EU likewise retained funds, linking financial assistance to adherence to the rule of law.

These actions correspond with what academics refer to as “stealth authoritarianism,” the employment of legal tools to erode democracy internally. Poland did not eliminate elections. It undermines the frameworks that give significance to elections.

How Backsliding Avoided Collapse

Even with these changes, Poland never entirely transitioned into authoritarianism. Three types of resistance clarify the reasons.

Polish citizens did not stay idle. Starting in 2016 and extending into the late 2010s, widespread demonstrations emerged in reaction to changes in the judiciary. Protesters supported the autonomy of the judiciary and wider democratic principles. Ongoing civic engagement can discourage democratic decline by increasing the political consequences of authoritarian actions. Poland conforms to this trend.

In Poland, opposition parties were not eradicated, unlike in more established autocracies. Elections stayed contentious. This was significant in October 2023, when a diverse opposition alliance overcame PiS. The calm transfer of authority showed that vertical accountability, through elections, remained effective.

The EU had a significant external impact. By means of legal decisions, financial stipulations, and political influence, it increased the expenses associated with ongoing regression. Although PiS frequently portrayed EU involvement as external intrusion, the tangible impacts were significant.

An Instance of Reversible Decline

Poland’s experience illustrates that the decline of democracy isn’t necessarily a linear progression. Indeed, institutions were undermined and breached. However, the system maintained sufficient integrity to permit correction.

This is important beyond Poland. Globally, democracies are facing challenges. The V-Dem Democracy Report indicates that an increasing number of countries are shifting toward autocracy rather than democracy. In this situation, Poland presents something uncommon. Proof that regression can be halted and even undone.

However, that result is not assured. It relies on engaged citizens, contests for office, and both domestic and international institutions that are ready to resist.

Poland didn’t evade authoritarianism merely by chance. It accomplished this because opposition was still feasible.