To Save Democracy, Here’s a Playbook That Works

Summary

Summary of “To Save Democracy, Here’s a Playbook That Works”

Episode Details:

• Title: To Save Democracy, Here’s a Playbook That Works
• Podcast: The Opinions
• Host: The New York Times Opinion
• Release Date: April 2, 2025

---

Introduction

In the episode titled “To Save Democracy, Here’s a Playbook That Works,” hosted by David French, a columnist for The New York Times, the discussion centers around the threats to constitutional order in modern democracies, drawing parallels between the United States and Poland. French brings in Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius, a law professor and author from Poland, to delve into Poland’s experience with right-wing populism and its robust response to defend democracy.

---

The Rise of the Law and Justice Party

At [00:14], David French expresses his concerns about the Trump administration’s impact on America’s constitutional integrity and introduces the topic of how other nations, particularly Poland, have navigated similar threats.

Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius explains the emergence of Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS) in [01:32], highlighting the complex conditions that facilitated their rise to power in 2015. She notes, “There were many conditions which actually allowed Law and Justice to rise to power... refuges crisis, the discussions also about the future and security in Europe were on the rise” [01:47]. The Law and Justice Party, characterized as a right-wing populist movement, capitalized on these conditions to secure an unprecedented third term, marking the beginning of significant political shifts in Poland.

---

Attack on Rule of Law

French inquires about the specific moments that signified the erosion of constitutional norms under PiS. Grabius references the refusal to publish Constitutional Tribunal judgments as a critical turning point:

“They started right away with first inviting into the building of the Constitutional Tribunal three judges who were actually unconstitutionally appointed... the government just refused to put the signatures there. So the judgments have been not published at all, which meant they were not binding.” [03:10]

This act was a blatant defiance of the rule of law, signaling a systematic undermining of judicial independence. Grabius emphasizes the gravity of these actions, stating, “This is something unbelievable, something that should have never happened... proved what the intents to do and how it operates” [04:53].

---

Mobilizing the Pro-Democracy Movement

French observes that unlike in the United States, phrases like "rule of law" can effectively mobilize citizens in Poland. Grabius outlines a three-pronged approach that galvanized the pro-democracy movement:

1. Independent Judges’ Outreach: Judges and prosecutors abandoned traditional courtroom roles to engage directly with citizens. Grabius remarks, “They were traveling all over Poland, meeting with citizens... explaining what's happening and how it translates into their lives” [06:22].

2. The Free Courts Foundation: A small group of lawyers initiated strategic legal actions and media campaigns to challenge the government’s overreach. She describes their efforts as unprecedented in scale and impact [06:22].

3. Role of the Ombudsman: Professor Adam Bodnar effectively communicated the constitutional crisis in accessible language, bridging the gap between legal intricacies and public understanding [06:22].

These elements combined to create a sustained, non-partisan movement focused on educating and empowering ordinary citizens about the importance of democratic principles.

---

The Role of Historical Context

Grabius highlights the significance of Poland’s historical experiences with fascism and communism in shaping its contemporary political landscape. At [12:03], she states:

“The experience of Communism and Stalinism play a crucial role... were used by the pro-democratic movement to stress once again that these were the values like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of press...”

This historical narrative not only fortified the pro-democracy movement but also provided a compelling framework for resisting authoritarian tendencies. However, Grabius also acknowledges that the PiS leveraged this history to foster nationalistic sentiments, arguing that Eastern Europe’s unique suffering under Soviet rule was often misunderstood within the broader European context [12:03].

---

Current Political Landscape in Poland

As of 2023, Poland has elected a centrist candidate, Donald Tusk, defeating the Law and Justice Party. However, Grabius warns that this victory is not the end of PiS’s influence. At [14:57], she notes:

“Law and Justice Party is still there. What is more, we have other populists, some claim, much worse than Law and Justice Party gaining votes.”

This ongoing presence of populist forces underscores the challenges in fully restoring and safeguarding the constitutional order, as the dismantling efforts by PiS have long-lasting effects that are difficult to reverse.

---

Sustaining the Movement and Support Networks

French probes into the endurance and resilience required to maintain such a movement. Grabius details the personal and collective strategies employed:

“They really had to create for themselves a kind of a support network... An enormous support coming from the very large part of the Polish society... support coming from our friends in Europe and also in the U.S. academics, lawyers, civil society.” [16:07]

The movement relied heavily on community building, international solidarity, and maintaining a sense of hope and purpose despite ongoing challenges. Grabius emphasizes the importance of not feeling isolated and having a structured support system to counteract feelings of helplessness [16:07].

---

Conclusion

In closing, Grabius expresses optimism about the resilience of democratic institutions:

“I truly believe in American judiciary and I hope it will also show its best when it's needed and I hope it will all turn into positive one day.” [18:38]

This sentiment encapsulates the episode’s core message: sustained, educated, and community-driven efforts are essential in defending and restoring democratic values against authoritarian threats.

---

Notable Quotes:

• David French ([04:44]): "Was that the key moment or were there other key moments that really crystallized in your mind that this is a crisis?"

• Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius ([06:22]): "There were three parts of this pro democratic movement... independent judges... Free Courts... the role of the ombudsman..."

• Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius ([12:03]): "The experience of Communism and Stalinism play a crucial role and was also used by the pro democratic movement..."

• Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius ([16:07]): "They really had to create for themselves a kind of a support network... support coming from our friends in Europe and also in the U.S. academics, lawyers, civil society."

---

This episode provides a comprehensive exploration of Poland’s struggle to defend its democratic institutions against populist challenges, offering valuable insights and a potential playbook for other nations facing similar threats.

Transcript

[Host]

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[David French]

I'm David French, a columnist for the New York Times. Watching the Trump administration over the last few weeks, I feel like I can confidently say that America's constitutional order is, is under attack. Given this reality, I've become curious about the response from other allied nations that have faced similar threats. Much of the west seems to be drifting towards right wing populism, but Poland has done the opposite.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

In Poland, a former PM may be stepping back to power. Initial results put Donald Tusk and his opposition allies ahead in the election. A blow for the governing populist party looking for an unprecedented third term.

[David French]

A country that had been flirting with the prospects of maybe giving up their democracy has decided not to go that way. I wanted to learn about the Polish experience. So today I'm happy to be speaking to Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius. She's a law professor and author in Poland. Her country elected a populist right wing government back in 2015 and she's part of the rule of Law coalition that fought back for democracy. She joins me today from Warsaw. Alexandra, thank you so much for joining me.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

Thank you very much for having me.

[David French]

Let's start with context. So the Law and Justice Party takes power in 2015. Could you describe what the Law and Justice Party is and what were the conditions that led to it taking power?

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

Well, up until now, the discussions continue of how did it actually happen that Law and Justice Party, which is a right wing for sure, populist movement and the political party, how did it happen that they came to power and took it in a way that later on translated into actually a full scale attack on the rule of law and constitutional order? There were many conditions which actually allowed Law and justice to rise to power. Back at that time, 2015, the refugee crisis, the discussions also about the future and security in Europe were on the rise. So it's quite still disputed why it happened, but it happen in a way that struck all of us at that time. And for sure, the democratic, pro, democratic, pro rule of law side, we were not aware of what's coming and we were also not prepared with the response towards this, what was then happening here.

[David French]

So I've heard the term constitutional crisis used to describe, you know, the conditions in the United States. But I've also heard similar types of terms being used to describe, say, the conditions in Poland when law and justice took over, that there was an Attack on the rule of. How did that unfold? When did you become aware that the rule of law was actually under threat in Poland, under Law and Justice?

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

I believe that right from the beginning, Law and Justice Party came up with the narratives that said something like Poland first. And also the narratives that very much stressed the notion of Poland is rising from its knees, which meant that actually now we won't be that much bound by the rules of the European Union and other democratic, democratic countries. Rules of conduct will be now the great proud nation. But I would say that they started right away with first inviting into the building of the Constitutional Tribunal three judges who were actually unconstitutionally appointed. Then the fact that the government of Prime Minister Mbeata Shudwa refused to publish the judgments of rightfully, at that time, rightfully operating Constitutional Tribunal. The judgments that the government didn't like, even though it was like a purely technical decision of the government just to publish these judgments, which is a legal obligation in Poland, they just refused to put the signatures there. So the judgments have been not published at all, which meant they were not binding.

[David French]

So was there a specific moment that crystallized everything in your mind or was it an accumulation of events? It sounds like there are echoes when you're talking about refusal to publish judicial decisions or judicial orders that sound like outright defiance of the rule of law. Was that the key moment or were there other key moments that really crystallized in your mind that this is a crisis?

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

I would say that this refusal to publish was striking to the extent I cannot perhaps really describe now. And even though it doesn't sound that serious.

[David French]

Right.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

This is just the lack of publication. But in a normally functioning democracy with the rule of law being respected, this is something unbelievable, something that should have never happened, something that really proved what the intends to do and how it operates. Was the start of the attacks on independent judiciary and on individual judges who stood bravely in defense of the rule of law and their judicial independence. So that was for sure like also the moment that defined, I believe, the further fight for the rule of law and the common effort that we undertook here in order to overcome what was.

[David French]

Happening so here in the United States. One of the things that we're told, and I think is actually true, is that when you use phrases like rule of law or when you say things like constitutional order that ordinary Americans kind of tune out, that is not something that really gets them motivated. Now, I'm a lawyer, it motivates me a great deal. But we're constantly told that these phrases don't motivate people. But it seems as if you were part of a movement in favor of democracy that actually did mobilize people at a grand scale. So how did you accomplish a large scale movement to restore the rule of law? This is not something that's happened yet here in the United States.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

Right. I believe there were three parts of this pro democratic movement, and they all work together, of course, but exactly as you said, they managed to translate this legalistic attitude and language into ordinary conversations with citizens of Poland. And first, this was the Independent Judges movement and judges and prosecutors associations that actually changed their attitude in a revolutionary way, meaning that they left their judicial gowns in the courtroom and went outside to meet people and to talk to them. They were traveling all over Poland, meeting with citizens, even in the smallest towns and villages. And they really devoted a lot of time and effort in order to tell the people what's happening and how. What's happening on this governmental level and policy level and the judicial level, how it actually translates into their lives, what consequences it may bring to their lives and to their personal situation. So these were brave independent judges that many of them paid enormous price, also personal price. Then there a very small foundation called Free Courts, composed of four brave lawyers who actually managed to do something that has no precedent. I don't know any other case of this kind and this scale. So these four lawyers gathered together, they mobilized enormous resources of social campaigns, of legal actions. They were representing the judges, they were going against the government in many strategic litigations. They were having media campaigns informing society about what's happening, what's going on. So this was the second element and the third element, extremely important, was the role of the ombudsman at that time. The role of the ombudsman, which is an independent constitutional organ. Professor Adam Bodnar was the ombudsman in the times of the Rule of the Law and Justice Party rule, which was actually a kind of a miracle happening that he was able to talk about the law and the constitutional crisis in a way that was also understandable for an average person. And he was extremely active. So I believe that all these elements, even though they seem all minor, because we are talking here about individuals rather than like a massive social movement, they really managed to make this change.

[David French]

You know, I'm so interested in that because it sounds like that one of the primary means of persuasion that you used was very patient public education going out to people. You know, in the United States, we might use a word like conducting a seminar, or some people might call it like a teach in where you go and you literally teach people about the stakes and the cause. So how long was this process? Again, you know, here in the United States, there's a lot of emphasis on doing things now, now, now. What can we do right away that makes change? But what you're describing seems like that real change actually took some time. Here.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

It took years, to be honest. Of course, the first moment of shock and actually realizing what's going on was not the moment for action, but this educational element and this going to small cities and towns by the judges and prosecutors. And this was happening all the time, I would say, for sure, five, six years. So it took an enormous effort and also by many of them, a personal price to pay. So this was a kind of, like the coordinated action, but the most important aspect of it. So changing people's mind as to how to vote in the next elections. Even though none of the judges or none of the prosecutors were always telling the people they met whom to vote for. Absolutely not. They were just saying, what are the values and the laws that are endangered by the current actions of the government?

[David French]

Yeah. That is one of the elements of the story that is most interesting to me is that this was not a. What we had called in the United States a partisan effort, where you're sending people out who are saying, vote for this specific candidate or this specific party. It really does seem like it was a public education effort on democracy itself, on the rule of law itself. And then the average citizens could make their own conclusions about what that meant in the ballot box.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

Absolutely. And I believe that these judges and these prosecutors and other lawyers who went on this mission. So to say that they really take the notion of their independence seriously, which means they were not allowed to tell anyone how to vote. They were really treating this as a kind of a mission and not political issue. And I think that people simply believed them. They believed them that what they are saying is true and is coming from a reality. Care about the state of democracy in Poland.

[David French]

So Poland is different from the United States in a lot of ways. But one of them is that Poland has had direct experience with fascist rule and communist rule within living memory that Poland has been through an ordeal that Americans can't really imagine. How much did that specific history play a role here? How much could the advocates for democracy call back to that experience and have it impact people? Now?

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

I think that this aspect also in the sphere of narratives, was one of the crucial ones. And I always think about Rod's novel, dystopian novel, the plot against America Here it stays only what it is, a novel something that has never happened in the US and hopefully will never happen. But in Poland, here and more broadly in central Eastern Europe, the experience of Communism and Stalinism play a crucial role and was also used by the pro democratic movement in order to stress once again that these were the values like the democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of press, of media, which were enormously attacked by the populist government. But this was the heritage that they were referring to very strongly to remind perhaps some how important it is and what we have achieved actually back then, 30 years ago, and how fragile these values and these rights and freedoms are. So that was for sure something important. On the other hand, this was also an argument that the government was referring to. And I think that they had a point here because one of the most important aspects of the narratives of the Law and Justice Party was that our suffering, central Eastern European suffering coming from Soviets and then from the Communism, has never become, and I share this view like a part of the DNA of the Western Europe that actually created the European Union. We have never been understood with what we were saying about this part of the European history. So it was also used in order to gain votes for this nationalistic feeling of not being treated the same way as other Europeans. So I think this was relevant in so many respects, and that's one of the really most important elements here.

[David French]

That's fascinating because an appeal to history is also part of the message of the right in the United States as well. And sort of an appeal to the sense that members of the American right have been neglected or overlooked in history or exploited is a very powerful part of the appeal. And I thought when you were just talking, you acknowledged the validity of some of these feelings. And I think that when you're combating right wing authoritarianism, it's very important to acknowledge that there are some kernels, some seeds that are of legitimate concern that sometimes blossom into these movements. So in 2023, Poland defeats the Law and Justice Party. A centrist candidate, Donald Tusk, comes to power. But it's. The story isn't over yet, is it? I mean, Law and Justice didn't just go away. What is the current status of Polish politics at the moment? What's the current balance of power in Poland between authoritarianism and the forces of democracy?

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

As you rightfully said, Law and Justice Party is still there. What is more, we have other populists, some claim, much worse than Law and Justice Party gaining votes. At the same time, the current government is facing an enormous challenge And I believe that this is one of the most important lessons to be learned that populists, while in power, they can really dismantle the very basic constitutional order to the extent that later on, even if they are defeated, is so difficult to overcome and to bring back and restore things in the right order seems almost impossible.

[David French]

Well, Alexandra, you've described a pretty long process here, and one that required a lot of sustained courage. In other words, month after month, year after year, getting out there in defiance and opposition to a populist government. How did you and the other members of this movement, how did you pace yourself? How did you sustain yourself? And also how did you protect yourself?

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

It was extremely challenging and difficult. Perhaps not for me personally, because for academics as myself, you can always hide and write books. Of course, you do not have any guarantees that the government that limits freedom of academic speech will allow them to be published. But we didn't get to this point luckily here. But these who were in the, I would say, forefront of this fight, they really had to create for themselves a kind of a support network not to feel this helplessness and hopelessness with every new development happening here. And I think it worked. There was also an enormous support coming from the very large part of the Polish society for the judges, for the prosecutors. And they really, they all the time, they stress it that that was crucially important to them, that they knew that they are not alone. Another very important aspect was the support coming from our friends in Europe and Also in the U.S. academics, lawyers, civil society. So this was like a network of who really believe that we will overcome the worst thing that could happen in such situation is the feeling of being isolated, of being not understood, even though that's dramatic. But I believe that you have this exactly the same feeling in the US that you have your co patriots, co citizens who think completely different. And one cannot understand how someone is allowing or is fine with the Constitution being attacked every single day. But it needs also this kind of, I would say, inner calm or preparation for more and more terrible things to come. I think it doesn't sound very optimistic.

[David French]

But I actually understand exactly what you're talking about. I understand it perfectly. You do have to steel yourself. You do have to prepare yourself for the next turn of the news cycle, the next development. Every day you see another attack on the rule of law, you see another attack on the Constitution, constitutional order. And it does require you to toughen up and for lack of a better phrase, to prepare yourself for what's coming. And what I hear you say, that is very, very powerful and so very true. You also have to find a community. It's hard to do this isolated and on your own.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

Absolutely. But I truly believe in American judiciary and I hope it will also show its best when it's needed and I hope it will all turn into positive one day.

[David French]

Wonderful. Thank you so much Alexandra for joining me.

[Alexandra Gliskaniska Grabius]

Thank you so very much.

[Host]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. This show is produced by Derek Arthur, Sofia Alvarez, Boyd, Bishaka Durba, Phoebe Lett, Christina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek and Annie Rose Strasser. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Saburo and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary, Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta, Christina Samulewski and Adrian Rivera. The executive producer of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Dresser.