#83 - Can a Divided Nation Be Led by a Strong President?

Diverging Society

The recent presidential election in Poland has once again revealed deep divisions within the nation. The winning candidate, Karol Nawrocki, secured the presidency with just under 51% of the vote. His support came predominantly from rural areas (63.4%), voters with only primary education (73.4%), vocational education (68.3%), and those with secondary education (51.6%).

At first glance, it appears that a large portion of his supporters come from the bottom 50% of income earners. In 1990, this group held 26.5% of Poland’s total income. By 2023, that share had dropped to just 19.6%, while the top 10% saw their share more than double to 38.4%. I’ve written previously about growing wealth inequality, and I believe this trend is driving political unrest and the increasing appeal of extremist candidates—not just in Poland, but globally.

To illustrate the broader context, consider the United States. If median income had grown in line with GDP from 1975 to 2018, it would have increased from $42,000 to $92,000. In reality, it only reached $50,000 [1]. Rather than rising by 1.83% annually, average American salaries grew by just 0.4%. The lion’s share of economic growth was captured by the affluent. Poland, unfortunately, is following a similar trajectory, where the benefits of national success are concentrated among the privileged few.

Language of Hate vs. Language of Contempt

The economically disadvantaged often speak in ways perceived as angry or impolite. Many feel powerless and unfairly treated, and this sense of alienation fuels a worldview divided into “us” versus “them.” In response, they tend to favor strong, assertive politicians who offer them a symbolic sense of control and empowerment.

Conversely, politicians representing the educated and more affluent segments of society may be more polished and articulate, but their communication often carries a tone of superiority. This contempt isn’t always subtle—it is present in the language used on professional platforms, or even daily conversations. The irony is striking: while criticizing the “anger” or “incivility” of the economically frustrated, these same voices may openly ridicule or stereotype the political preferences of their fellow citizens. Such expressions—whether sarcastic LinkedIn posts or ironic dinner-table commentary—do not build bridges. They deepen alienation, harden group identities, and foster mutual distrust.

Notably, even though a significant portion of university-educated voters (37.4%) supported Nawrocki, their presence is often erased from public discourse. The silence isn’t just individual discretion; it’s shaped by a social environment that implicitly punishes deviation from the mainstream views of the educated class. When dissent is met not with dialogue but with quiet exclusion or public shaming, democracy suffers. A resilient society must allow its divisions to be acknowledged—openly, honestly, and without moral superiority.

Creative Conflict or Ruling Together

Most democracies today operate under a "winner-takes-all" model, with varying checks and balances. In the U.S., the president is powerful but constrained by Congress. In Poland, the president has limited executive power but can veto legislation and therefore play a significant role in shaping reforms.

These systems, built on competition, often create conflict between the ruling party and the opposition. When this dynamic escalates, it becomes fertile ground for the politics of hatred and contempt. But is there another way?

Switzerland offers an intriguing alternative. Its executive branch—the Swiss Federal Council—is composed of seven members who share power equally. This council reflects the political balance of the country, with representation from all major parties. Even when they disagree ideologically, they govern together. There is no single, dominant figure; even the presidency rotates annually among council members.

Of course, Switzerland has a long tradition of consensus-building, shaped by its geography and size. Its political culture is unique and may be difficult to replicate in larger more dynamic environments. Other examples of shared governance, such as Belgium or post-conflict Bosnia relate also to relative small countries.

Still, the idea of inclusive governance—of building bridges instead of reinforcing divides—is worth considering.

Final Thought

Much of the commentary surrounding the Polish election focused on the personalities of the candidates. But in doing so, we probably miss the deeper issue: rising inequality and the resulting political desperation of the underprivileged. Voters are not just choosing candidates—they are expressing frustration with systems that have failed to represent them.

Their votes may be less about faith in a particular leader and more about protest. Whether these leaders will truly serve their interests is another matter entirely. But ignoring the root causes of this political shift—economic exclusion, social contempt, and cultural division—would be a grave mistake.

If you like this post, please join the growing community of forward-thinking readers and sign-up to my newsletter. My weekly posts explore how individuals and organizations adapt and evolve. Gain evidence-based insights to boost resilience across domains.

Resources

1. Sunrise Stat (2025.06.03) - What the Median Income Could Be.