However, if public opinion believes that the state has failed, the blame will fall primarily, if not exclusively, on those in power. Especially if a leading politician in the ruling camp says something that will be interpreted as a lack of empathy for the victims. Such a public opinion verdict would trigger a completely new political dynamic.
Today no one will say “you should have taken out insurance”
So far, we have only had a flood threat on a similar scale twice in the Third Polish Republic: in 1997 and 2010. In both cases it was an election year: in 1997 we elected the Sejm and the Senate, and in 2010 we elected the president. How did the flooding affect the dynamics of the campaign then?
It is often said that the 1997 floods, showing the state’s unpreparedness for similar disasters, significantly contributed to the loss of power of the SLD-PSL coalition. The Democratic Left Alliance was particularly hurt by the statement of Prime Minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, who, when asked about aid to flood victims, said that people should have taken out insurance.
Cimoszewicz added after a comma that the state “will of course help the flood victims”, but only the first part of his statement reached public opinion – and thus remained engraved in public memory. Did this cost the SLD the election? Cimoszewicz, defending his words years later, argued that the Alliance had seen the greatest increase in support in the areas worst affected by the floods – where people could see for themselves that, regardless of the head of government’s unfortunate words, the state had not left the disaster victims to fend for themselves.
In fact, in the districts covering former voivodeships – before the Buzek government’s local government reform – most affected by the floods, such as Wrocław and Opole, the Alliance’s support has clearly increased compared to what it obtained in 1993, both measured in percentage and in absolute numbers. And this despite the lower turnout in 1997 than in 1993.
However, the results of the 1997 elections were, overall, deeply paradoxical for the Alliance. The party lost power to the centre-right coalition AWS-UW, while at the same time increasing its support by more than 530,000 votes. The unification of the right under the AWS banner proved decisive; this formation was on the rise in 1997; if it had not been for Cimoszewicz’s unfortunate statement, the SLD would probably have won more votes, but it is impossible to say whether this would have been enough to stop the AWS’s march to power. In 2010, neither the Smolensk catastrophe nor the subsequent major flood, which coincided with the start of the presidential campaign, were able to halt the PO’s growing trend, clearly weakening its strength.
Regardless of the impact that Cimoszewicz’s words had on the Alliance’s loss of power in 1997, politicians drew conclusions from them: today, no one would say publicly in the context of a flood that “they should have taken out insurance”. Politicians already know that in a natural disaster situation, citizens expect compromise and basic empathy from politicians.
The opposition has difficulty finding its way in a crisis situation
This can be seen in the government’s response to the current crisis. The Prime Minister and key ministers are on the ground, working with the relevant services, trying to send a message to the public: we are doing everything we can to combat the element and its effects, and we will not hesitate to use any tools at our disposal for this purpose. Prime Minister Tusk assures on his portal account that the government has also decided to declare a state of natural disaster – which shows the public that the situation is being treated with all due seriousness.
So far, on a political and communication level, it is difficult to say that the government has made any significant mistakes. PiS has a bigger problem finding its way in the crisis situation. On Saturday, the party organised a “Stop the Pathological” protest. The turnout was low, and in most media the topic was completely covered by information from the regions struggling with the element. By organising a protest accusing the government of building a dictatorship and trying to “liquidate the Polish state”, the party runs the risk that even some of its voters will believe that the Nowogrodzka party has lost its public audience. The same accusations can be levelled at the president, who decided not to cancel the harvest festival he was organising on Sunday.
In the district, the candidate from Sovereign Poland ran. PiS politicians try to argue on the same website that if something works in the flood protection infrastructure, it is due to eight years of PiS rule, and if something does not work, it is the fault of KO.
With a few exceptions, such as Prime Minister Morawiecki, who managed to write on social media that “only united will we defeat the element” – the United Right, in the face of the tragedy, presents itself as a total opposition, as well as as a total money-grubbing group trying to make a party profit from the tragedy. Even given how strong the polarisation is in Poland and how dependent the hardline PiS electorate seems to be on content demonising the current government, it is hard to believe that such a message would particularly help PiS politically.
The dynamics could still reverse completely
At the same time, the political dynamics could completely change. Unfortunately, the crisis situation is still far from over; southwestern Poland will probably face it by the end of the week. Then it will become clear whether and to what extent the largest urban centres in the region – Opole and Wrocław – will be at risk, and what the final scale of destruction and losses will be. If it turns out to be significantly greater than expected, Tusk’s words from last weekend that there is no reason to panic may become very old.
The final verdict on how the government handled the disaster will be made by the public only in a few weeks. Then it will become clear what kind of help was provided to the affected areas and their inhabitants, whether no one was really left alone and what the flood victims can realistically count on from the state.
PiS will analyse all decisions made by the government administration – from the voivodes upwards – in order to find facts that will allow it to construct a narrative proving the government’s incompetence. Regardless of PiS’s current weakness and confusion, it would be very dangerous politically for Tusk’s government if public opinion were to be convinced by this narrative. Combined with all the coalition’s problems, this could trigger political dynamics with consequences that are difficult to predict today – which could bring very tangible losses to the government camp in the period ending with the presidential elections.
