A Legacy of Distrust and Division

The political landscape of interwar Poland was shaped by centuries of historical experience that left deep imprints on the national psyche. For over a hundred years prior to 1918, Polish territories had been partitioned among three imperial powers: Russia, Prussia, and Austria. This prolonged period of foreign domination created a political culture characterized by deep-seated suspicion toward centralized authority. During the partitions, this skepticism had served as a form of patriotic resistance, encouraging non-compliance with occupying governments and subtle sabotage of imperial administration.

When Poland regained independence in November 1918 after 123 years of foreign rule, the new government faced the monumental task of transforming this culture of opposition into one of constructive participation. The state needed to command the loyalty that Poles had previously reserved for their nation’s most sacred ideals rather than for any governing institution. This transition proved exceptionally challenging, as dissent had become ingrained as a virtue across all levels of society—from peasants wary of police authority to military officers skeptical of civilian government.

The Challenge of Unification

Creating cohesive state institutions presented extraordinary difficulties. Poles from different partition zones had developed under vastly different administrative systems, legal traditions, and cultural influences. Those raised under Prussian rule had experienced efficiency and discipline but limited political freedom. They often struggled to understand the more relaxed working habits of Poles from the Austrian partition zone, who had enjoyed greater autonomy under Habsburg rule. Meanwhile, those from the Russian partition zone had been subjected to the Byzantine inefficiency of tsarist bureaucracy with its characteristic corruption and arbitrariness.

Even experienced politicians faced adaptation challenges. Those who had served in Russia’s Duma or Germany’s Reichstag were accustomed to being marginalized opposition figures rather than constructive governing partners. This background did not bode well for the collaborative politics necessary in a democratic republic. The new Poland had to integrate these diverse political experiences into a coherent system while simultaneously rebuilding infrastructure, establishing borders, and creating economic stability amid postwar devastation.

Forging a Constitutional Framework

On February 10, 1919, Poland’s provisional constitutional assembly convened for the first time. The political spectrum reflected the nation’s diversity: right-wing parties were led by Wojciech Korfanty; the center was dominated by peasant parties, particularly Wincenty Witos’s Polish Peasant Party “Piast” ; while the left consisted mainly of three socialist parties. No single party commanded more than a quarter of the seats, and the first parliamentary session further fragmented political groupings through internal divisions.

Despite these challenges, the assembly managed to function effectively during the initial period, largely because the ongoing Polish-Soviet War necessitated granting extensive executive powers to Józef Piłsudski, the head of state and commander-in-chief. The parliament’s primary task became drafting a constitution for the reborn state, a process that would take more than two years of intense debate and negotiation.

The 1921 Constitution: Democratic Ideals and Practical Flaws

On March 17, 1921, Poland formally adopted its first republican constitution, modeled largely on that of France’s Third Republic. The document established a bicameral legislature consisting of a lower house with 111 members. The president would be elected by both houses for a seven-year term.

The constitution deliberately limited the powers of both the president and Senate, concentrating authority in the Sejm. This design reflected deep concerns about creating overly powerful executive institutions that might threaten hard-won democratic freedoms. However, the system created inherent instability because proportional representation produced a fragmented parliament where no single party could command a stable majority. Coalition-building proved exceptionally difficult as political divisions were based not on ideology but on sectional interests: conservative peasants seeking land reform had little common ground with conservative landowners; left-wing workers wanting lower food prices found themselves at odds with left-wing farmers who sought higher agricultural prices.

The Fractured Political Landscape

The first elections under the new constitution took place in November 1922 with an impressive 68% voter turnout. The results confirmed the fragmentation feared by constitutional designers: 31 parties gained parliamentary representation, with none securing more than 20% of seats. Most major parties obtained around 10% of seats, forcing them to form unstable parliamentary clubs and coalitions that could collapse over any single contentious issue.

The proportional system also benefited ethnic minority parties, with Jewish parties winning 35 seats, Ukrainian parties 25, German parties 17, and Belarusian parties 11. While these minority blocs did not vote consistently together, their numbers gave them potential influence beyond their representation, particularly on issues where the Polish parties were divided. This ethnic diversity added another layer of complexity to governance in a state where national minorities constituted approximately one-third of the population.

Crisis and Instability

Political tensions escalated dramatically on December 16, 1922, when Poland’s first president, Gabriel Narutowicz, was assassinated by a mentally unstable nationalist just five days after his election. This shocking event deepened political polarization and heightened the sense of instability. Four days later, the parliament elected Stanisław Wojciechowski as the new president, and General Władysław Sikorski became prime minister, temporarily stabilizing the situation.

However, governmental instability soon returned with a vengeance. The parliament rejected government budget proposals, and successive cabinets fell over minor issues—at least fourteen governments collapsed between 1921 and 1926. This chronic instability prevented effective long-term policymaking at a time when Poland desperately needed economic development, social reform, and security against external threats. The constant political squabbling gradually eroded public confidence in parliamentary democracy itself.

The Rise of Authoritarian Solutions

As parliamentary democracy faltered, public demand grew for a “strong government” that could transcend political divisions and provide effective governance. Only one figure commanded sufficient cross-party support and personal authority to answer this call: Józef Piłsudski, the revolutionary hero who had led Poland to independence. Disillusioned with partisan politics, Piłsudski had withdrawn from official positions in the early 1920s to his estate at Sulejówek, where he maintained influence through his writings, pronouncements on public affairs, and the mere fact of his symbolic presence.

Piłsudski enjoyed immense prestige within the military and respect across the political spectrum, from right-wing nationalists to left-wing socialists, and even among some minority communities. His self-imposed exile from daily politics only enhanced his reputation as a statesman above the fray of partisan squabbling. As government instability worsened throughout 1925 and early 1926, many began to look to Piłsudski as the only figure who could restore order and effective governance.

The May Coup and Democratic Breakdown

On May 10, 1926, after yet another government collapse, Wincenty Witos formed a new cabinet that appeared as weak and ineffective as its predecessors. Two days later, Piłsudski launched a military coup, leading several regiments toward Warsaw to demand the government’s dissolution. Initially, Witos considered compromise, but President Wojciechowski persuaded him to resist and mobilized loyal troops.

The ensuing three-day battle for Warsaw revealed the depth of support for Piłsudski. Many military units hesitated to fight against the revered commander, while others defected to his side. Left-wing parties supported the coup, and railway workers refused to transport government troops. After intense street fighting that resulted in hundreds of casualties, Wojciechowski and Witos resigned, paving the way for Piłsudski to establish an authoritarian regime that would endure until his death in 1935 and fundamentally alter Polish political development.

Cultural and Social Impacts

The political instability of Poland’s early parliamentary years had profound cultural and social consequences. The constant government changes created policy inconsistency that hampered economic development and social reform programs. Educational policies fluctuated with each new government, affecting how Polish history and citizenship were taught to the first generation growing up in an independent Poland.

The fragmentation of political life mirrored deeper social divisions that had developed during the partition period. Regional differences remained pronounced, with varying legal traditions, educational systems, and economic development levels persisting from the imperial era. The political system’s inability to bridge these divides through effective governance reinforced regional identities at the expense of national cohesion.

Ethnic minorities watched the political chaos with growing concern. The instability of Polish governments created uncertainty about minority rights protections, while the assassination of President Narutowicz demonstrated the virulence of nationalist extremism. This uncertainty would have tragic consequences in later years as European politics grew increasingly polarized.

Legacy and Modern Relevance

The failure of Poland’s first experiment with democracy offers enduring lessons about the challenges of democratic consolidation in post-authoritarian societies. The constitutional design, while democratically progressive in many respects, created inherent instability through its extreme proportional representation and weak executive. This institutional weakness was exacerbated by a political culture shaped by centuries of opposition to authority rather than constructive engagement with governance.

The May Coup established a tradition of military involvement in politics that would resurface at critical moments in Polish history. Piłsudski’s authoritarian regime, while initially popular, ultimately failed to create stable institutions that could survive beyond his personal leadership, contributing to Poland’s vulnerability in the face of Nazi and Soviet aggression in 1939.

Contemporary Poland continues to grapple with the legacy of this period. The tension between liberal democracy and authoritarian solutions, the challenge of integrating diverse political traditions, and the question of how to build effective governance amid deep social divisions remain relevant issues. The interwar experience reminds us that democratic institutions require not only proper design but also a supportive political culture and leadership committed to democratic norms—lessons that extend far beyond Poland’s borders to any society seeking to build lasting democratic governance.