My blog

A time of plague always gives support points to the rulers. People then look for support and salvation from everywhere and an increase in trust in them is something natural.

Duda's advisors noted that after the declines at the beginning of the year, after the outbreak of the epidemic, the president's support bars exceed 50% and the chance provided by the coronavirus to win in the first round cannot be missed. Therefore, although the whole world is closing, canceling, banning everything that can be closed, canceled and banned, a state of natural disaster will not be introduced in Poland, because this would automatically involve canceling the elections.

Duda's advisors probably think something like this: if the epidemic hits Poland with a much greater force than today, we will have no choice, we will introduce a state of emergency, the elections will be automatically postponed and no one will remember that we senselessly defended the date of May 10. And if the virus does not attack too strongly - we will go ahead with the elections.
Can this strategy be effective? In my opinion – no. On the contrary, this strategy guarantees Duda that his ending term will be his last.

There are three election scenarios: the first is a state of natural disaster declared before May 10 and elections postponed until 90 days after its end, the second is elections held on May 10 during the epidemic and the third is the coronavirus subsides before May 10.

In the first scenario, people will vote when some time has passed since the end of the epidemic. Duda will indeed be perceived by a large part of society as a leader who led us through the cataclysm and support for him will probably be greater than before the outbreak of the epidemic. However, I think that another mechanism will be activated. The same one that occurred in the case of the Prime Minister of Great Britain after the Second World War. Winston Churchill, the great and undisputed leader who saved the islands from the Nazi invasion, had huge support of his people, and yet he lost the first elections after the war. Not because people stopped worshipping him, but because they wanted to forget about the war and simply needed a change.

In the second scenario, the vote will take place in the conditions of the prevailing epidemic. In this scenario, the president has the undisputed greatest support, and it is such that he is elected in the first round. However, in order to win, those who support him must vote for him. It is obvious that in the situation of the epidemic, people will rather stay at home, voter turnout will be very low, and the fundamental question is: who will stay at home "more": those who support Duda or those who oppose him. In my opinion, although there will be more of those who support him, the percentage of them who will stay at home will be higher than among those who do not support him. This is due to the fact that Duda's voters are more afraid of contracting the virus than his opponents.

In the third scenario, elections are held just after the coronavirus has subsided. The president has even higher support than in the first scenario, but people want to forget about the epidemic and want change even more than in the first scenario. In this scenario, despite high support, Duda loses.

So what should President Duda do to save his second term, since he loses in all three possible scenarios? In my opinion, he should make a statement more or less like this: "Compatriots. In light of this terrible epidemic that has attacked our world and our country, I am introducing a state of emergency. The presidential election is canceled, and from now on I will put all my energy into fighting the virus." Such an approach by the president would not, of course, ensure his victory - regardless of the election date, nor would it cause me to vote for him. However, I would think that he behaved like a true president.