The right to exercise protest under threat? Between the rise of autocracy and democratic resilience in crisis-driven Poland

Abstract

The extraordinary situation caused by the pandemic resulted in the unprecedented limitations of freedom of assembly in Poland. By analyzing relationships between the ruling camp and protesters during the first wave of the pandemic in Poland, this article aims to evaluate to what extent the former respected the right to exercise protests. The analysis draws upon the method of cross-media source analysis, which involves the techniques of content analysis and thematic analysis. The news included in the source corpus comes from both state-owned partisan media (TVP1, TVP2, and TVP Info) and commercial media (Onet.pl, TVN24, RMF FM, and Rzeczpospolita). Source triangulation is necessary to compare views distributed by various media and determine the essential features of exercising the right to protest and respecting this right.
This research contributes to the studies on the role of contentious politics during democratic backsliding (the drift from neo- to quasi-militant democracies) by shedding light on the protest activity of sectional and promotional interest groups as well as anti-government protests organized ad hoc. Such an approach reveals the nature of differentiation in repressing the opposition, regarding the right to protest depending on the type of opponent. Sectional groups are exclusive, and their membership is motivated by the self-interest of the section of society they represent. Promotional interest groups offer membership to all and are inspired by moral concerns affecting society (not only its section).
The main argument is that the right to exercise protest was considerably limited during the first wave of the pandemic in Poland. The ruling party took advantage of the crisis to block protests to ensure public safety. Various sectional and promotional interest groups held fewer protests than in previous years, and they did not pose a significant threat to the ruling camp. Besides the decrease in social mobilization, the government repressed activists opposing any unconstitutional changes to the presidential electoral law and the organization of such elections. The government threatened its opponents, most of all participants of protests held ad hoc, with harsh repercussions, including detention and high fines.