Examination of Conscience: The Possible and the Fulfilled of the Polish Transformation

A Record of Fragments from the Last Conference Panel

Katarzyna Kolenda-Zaleska:  We will be discussing today in what way such a country like Cuba, when it will cross over into democracy, will be able to use our experiences.  We succeeded – we were able to avoid a war at home, an outpour of blood.  We are proud of our history, how we led our country to freedom, but it is worth thinking about what we were able to do, and what really did not work – where we made mistakes and how to avoid these mistakes. 

Lech Walesa:

Beginning this debate, I have to repeat what I already have said many times, ladies and gentlemen.  If someone had told me 50 years ago that I would await such times, that I would live in such a country, then really – I would not believe it.  But if someone convinced me by knocking out my teeth that, nevertheless, it would be like this – I would have been the luckiest person in the whole galaxy.  But when we have already walked this road to freedom and when I look at the gains and losses, on taking advantage of opportunities and those not taken advantage of – I am not fully satisfied.  Please remember, however, about our role at that time was to lead to the end of communism and to open up new possibilities.  To hand them over after the victory of the nation which it can advantage of.  After the victory, I had a choice:  to further play the leader and maintain the country in all possible ways – just as Lenin, Stalin, and Castro have done?  Or give the victory back to society and to a certain extent, personally become defeated?  With premeditation, I chose the latter.  But then the country was not ready, there were not any reform programs, or the right kind of personnel of experts.   

Katarzyna Kolenda-Zaleska:  Senator, what kind of mistakes could we avoid?

Stefan Niesiolowski:

To a large extent, I agree with what Mr. President had said.  I will. however, speak about two paradoxes.

Namely, it is the mid-sixties; the society is terrorized, a lack of hope; there is no hope for freedom.  But there is a feeling that someone has to start speaking about this.  Therefore, twenty year olds start creating organizations. 

During writing the rebuilding freedom program for Poland, we met with educated people – who know history, some even worked in pre-war Poland. 

And they told us:

“Boys, you have a point, but yet this is absolute nonsense.  How do you imagine this?  A free Poland – of course! But it will never happen.  You have the Soviet Union and the nuclear war.  Well, maybe in 100 years.  You will go to prison, you will be defeated, and you will ruin your life and your family’s as well.  Give it a rest, because you do not have a chance”. 

And they had a point.  We did not know how to answer the question:  „How can we win?”  We did not have the courage to even write that the Soviet Union will fall apart.  We only looked to the eastern border, that is, a democratic Poland will more or less follow the Austrian example.  It was the height of our dreams – a democratic and neutral Poland.  On one hand, today I live in Poland which belongs to NATO and the European Union, where all rights are respected, where there is a market economy, where there are no foreign armies; this is truly a phenomenon.  And when I pass by the Central Committee building everyday, I say a short prayer of gratitude that this had been successfully accomplished at all.  I always emphasize that I am a child of fortune.

There is also another paradox:  we already thought that in the eighties that the fall of communism would solve all of our problems.  The most important was being given back the power by the communists, because the rest seemed like a simple child’s game, for a society free from torment had to show how a country should be organized.  And if someone had told me that in a democratic Poland someone like Lepper would be the deputy prime minister, that someone would question the theory of evolution, and that I would still be a minister, that something like Radio Maryja would exist, then I would have made fun of the person then.  I would have thought that this is not possible at all; that this is some kind of gloomy blackened vision.  But this happened this way and there are two paradoxes which simultaneously are answers to questions -  What is possible? and What has come true?

I am conscious of great problems which Poland faces.  We have substantial social as well as political and economic problems which we are not able to solve by ourselves.  But generally, I am a defender of what happened after 1989 since I identify with it.  I do not state, of course, that everything was good, but I publicly defend this.  Despite everything, I think that democracy has too few defendants in Poland.  Quite a large number of people criticize it creating a duplicate and wound-up mechanism.  It is very easy to criticize, but, however, we succeeded in many things.

Now I read various texts in which different scholars state that it was obvious that communism had to fall.  I would have liked to see such a text written before 1989.  I perfectly remember the lecture by Professor Brzezinski in 1988 who said that democratization is not possible in Poland; he emphasized this clearly:  “No Democracy”.  Of course, in regards to Russia.  Meanwhile, a year later I was already a member of parliament in a democratic Poland.   

Katarzyna Kolendaa-Zaleska:  Senator Niesiołowski said that it seemed that the fall of communism would solve all of our problems before 1989 in Poland.  It turned out that it did not.  After 1989, a dissatisfied group quickly appeared, which resulted in the establishment of the X Party, the success of Stanislaw Tymiński; what also now is bringing success of such parties like the Lepper or the Giertych parties.

 In preparing for this conference, I had read a text from many years ago; the text by Jerzy Surowicza who wrote that democracy is necessary, but de-communizing our stance, de-communizing our mentality is just as important.  Why was it not able to change this mentality and what constituted that after 1989 we are very slowly leading to this real democracy, Professor?

Jacek Kurczewski:

I do not fully yet know what a true democracy means.  I think that I live in a democracy.  To a large extent, I am grateful to the people who are gathered here.

I think that you will find the answer in part in what seems to me an advantage and disadvantage.  The advantage is freedom.  But there is also something beyond freedom such as the equality ideal.

I will call on research for a minute because, of course, as a sociologist I could not have not done this.  In 1988 and 1989, I asked the nation in a survey if there is sufficient freedom and equality.  The result was simple, because if concerning freedom, then in 1988, the situation drastically had changed.  Before, the majority of people said that there was no freedom, but in  1989, all of a sudden, there was.

Therefore, what is with equality?  Everyone lives in some kind of pillory where various left force propaganda exists; where at one time, we bartered equality for freedom.  But in 1988, the majority of Poles said that there was no equality.  In 1989, this feeling of social inequality came about.  Communism was not at all a system of social equality.  I will not go into detail here, because I am not an economist and luckily, I will not answer for the transformation shocks.  Apparently, there is a profound difference of income, but what is more interesting, in the last few years, not only those wealthy are running away from those who are the poorest, but parliamentarians and the highest state officials are running away from those who are the most educated.  If I could go back, I would have been more concerned about equally distributing the economic development effects.  From Poland on stamps, we moved towards a Poland with stores; from a restrained Poland to a free Poland.  Only that we did not know how and we still do not know how to reasonably work with this expectation which the people have.  It is not a ballast of communism; it is not that people would want everyone earning the same amount of money.  Society wants to have the possibility for better access to the basket of goodies which is considered.

Zbigniew Bujak:

In Poland, a discussion on the subject of the successes and mistakes of the Polish transformation is slowly underway.  Society complains that this country with its administration still has not responded to their expectations.  People wanted a country and an administration, which will be kind to them, which will remove obstacles in their way; that such a legal system will be built which they will not have to fear; that such duty services will be created which will fulfill service functions, but not control.  Society, therefore, complains about the authoritarianism of this country.  Well, this is my general diagnosis.  Young people who left for England in response to the question will they come back to Poland, they reply negatively.  Why? It is better here. – they say.  Not because they live better or that they have a better home.  Despite hard work and many difficulties, they prefer to stay there because there they have different, more possibilities.  That administration is friendlier.  Sometimes they will not help, but at least, they will speak to you as a human being. 

A conversation with a homeless Pole in London was a shock for me – I asked him:  Will you return to Poland?

- No.

- Why?

- Because here, even as a homeless person, I am treated as a human being, but in Poland – I am not. 

Answering the question – Why did this happen? Philosophers, sociologists, and other great thinkers in our country say:  This is exactly authoritarianism; this is an indication of homo sovieticus.  Homo sovieticus translates well into why this reform in many spheres did not turn out.  I wonder how this occurrence will be called in your country?  Maybe homo fidelus?

Homo fidelus, as an example, that though now we are reforming the country, some kind of authoritarian model of the administration function remains.  It still resides and we do not know how to change it.

How does this function here?  There were different police in our country:  secret and apparent.  Did we ever enter into some kind of discussion what they have to do?  What is the role of the secret and apparent police in the country?  They have to take care of safety.  But what did they take care of earlier?  They also took care of safety.  But whose?  The government’s.  But now – whose safety are they watching over?  The citizen’s.  No, the citizen feels threatened.  Then what?  Also the government’s.  Therefore, the action of the police has not changed.  But what has changed?  There are more or less the same number of police, but at one time, they worked with filing cards, so they did not have a great possibility of controlling.  Now they have computers – the possibility of control over citizens has grown a thousand times!

I will also say a few words about the tax services.  From its model of work, it depends if the economy is developing, or if companies are being established.  There is not less of this service than before.  But at one time, one person could have controlled 5 – 10 companies.  But now, office clerks have computers and they do not control 10, but 1,000 companies.  And they control them profoundly – they do come and they check if the company abides the law.  But what kind of law?  The number of regulations that the company has the responsibility to observe is uncountable.  There are ten thousand.  It is uncountable because some kind of regulation will be found which we have not yet come to; we have not found it yet.  Can you really develop your own business under such conditions?  People, despite these difficulties, of course set up their own businesses, but the barriers are immense.

For comparison, how much time is needed in England in order to register a small company which will manage a small enterprise?  From one to two hours.  But how much is it in Poland?  Two weeks. 

Why is it so short in England?  Because they cannot afford that the citizen’s initiative be ruined.  This has to happen right away; they have to remove the obstacles out of the way.

These two weeks in our country are called homo sovieticus which remained and with which we do not know how to deal with.  And in your country, homo fidelus will remain.  Because in your country, it is also certain that the police and those services will be used for the same purpose.

 The next question, how much does it cost to establish your own business in Poland?  More or less $200.  But how much does it cost in England?  Zero.  Why?  Because money is needed to run your own business and not in order to pay the administration.  The English are too poor to pay $200 for opening their business.  This is a following symptom of homo sovieticus.  Are you in a state to break this in your country?  If you prepare for this – certainly yes.

What did the victory of Solidarity depend on?  Victory not in the sense that they signed an understanding and the whole world started talking about it, because it is just part of the success.  Success is the 10,000 million people who signed up for it.  Why did they sign up for it?  What did they see in Solidarity?  Well – first of all, when the signing of the understanding was announced, the participants of the strike heard from their leader Lech Wałęsa:  We won!  Secondly, if in order for victory to be long-lasting, a phrase was heard:  Go and form your own independent labor unions at home.  Let us build them – everywhere!  In this way, we create an institution thanks to which we could reform our country.  What does this mean?  That people were given a mission.  As a result of the victory, they come out with a mission to fulfill.

When success ended in the Ukraine, success finished in Majdan, a small town with set-up tents set up.  Then, I asked the leaders of the Orange Revolution what those people from the little town of tents have to do?  They will go home – and then what?

- So nothing.  We do not have any mission for them. – They responded.

I said to myself:  “Oh, you will not receive social support for a long time.  The enthusiasm will die out soon”. 

Complaining there today is considerable.  But coming back to Solidarity?  Why did the 10 million people feel so good there?  Because it is not like that it suddenly improved in Poland?  Now, in these 10 million there were all kinds of categories of people.  Therefore, sociologists – involved in preparing for the reform of the whole legal system of Poland.  Others were getting ready for the education, health services, and economic reforms, and all kinds of spheres of life.  They did this in Solidarity.  Solidarity became this kind of Greek agora in which meetings always took place and discussions on how to reform the country were addressed.  Everyone had a mission - that is why they felt so fantastic.   

Did we move this civil soul into this III Republic?  In a much restricted sense.  This is exactly one of those things which we succeeded in doing.  Why am I speaking about this?  Because today we do not know how it will lead to victory in Cuba.  We do not what will happen.  Will it be a great mass meeting, a great strike, a great manifestation, or a great march?  But something will happen.  And now the final victory will depend – to the highest degree – on what these people will achieve by their victory, what sort of tasks they will undertake, and what kind of relations will be present between the public administration and the community in the future. 

As in Solidarity, as in your country, after the victory, you have to invest in people.  But definitely who?  In Poland, we invested in the ministers of the government.  But they poorly govern, therefore, it is a bad investment.  We invested in the legislators, but the regulations are appalling – therefore, we did not succeed here.  Meanwhile, the citizen in the free and democratic market really needed just one government:  solid, good, and independent – court ruling.  But we debased this in Poland.  This is the only area not financed, ignored almost entirely. 

Do not repeat this mistake.  If you can, invest in the court system, the judge as a person – then do so.  Because you will neither have a good government nor good legislature.  The only chance for the citizens is with good judges, and you have a good American school nearby.

Invest in the media since citizens need information about all the occurrences and happenings in order to understand what is happening in their country.  They need to know what kinds of problems were solved in the world.  The media can give this to them.  But this is expensive, because you have to send a camera to America and Europe in order to do such reporting.  It would be easier to place the representatives of the liberal party and radical party together, throw in a subject between them, such as a bone between dogs, and fight on words.  In this way, it is very easy to loathe politics and politicians.  Therefore, it is this other sphere in which is worth investing.  In the end, of course, you have to invest in the civil service – because only in this model, democracy functions, which you have on your side, because the civil service in America is a very decent working structure.  Only there, your people can see how to create administrative subjectivity in regards to the citizen.  How do we do this in order for the administration to fulfill its own service function?   

Katarzyna Kolenda-Zaleska:  I would like to touch upon one more matter, because everyone, as we here believe, that there will be a victory in Cuba and it will come to such a situation as we have in Poland – that there will be the we and they.  A lot is said in Poland for the past 17 years on the subject of settling old scores of the past, in terms of people who worked in that system.  We – at least there is a common opinion - that we were not fully successful.  But perhaps we succeeded indeed?  How to do this, how to evaluate those who worked in that system?  Should we punish them, or should we leave it alone, or should we punish and forgive. (…)  We do not know how to perhaps conduct this, but we have some kind of experience in this regard.  Senator, how do we settle this past?

Stefan Niesiolowski:

I do not want to give any advice to our Cuban friends.  Every nation, every country has its own experiences, it has its own concepts.  I would like to add a few remarks answering the moderator’s question. 

This is a certain phenomena, in what manner will the regime in Cuba maintain itself?  Though there are not any foreign armies there, America is nearby – a friendly democracy in Cuba, however, this regime lasts.  Paradoxically, it would seem that it should immediately fall.  But rather in Poland – surrounded, as Mr. President had said, by a soviet army, something entirely different happened. 

We, in the de-communization matter, act the same as the other countries in Europe.  The Polish model of de-communization is the Czech model.  The idea of de-communization is more or less like this:  people, who fulfilled certain functions in the communist system, for a certain time should be not allowed to perform these functions in the democratic system.  This is the idea; the rest is a dispute over details.  The most de-communization was conducted by the leaders of the Alliance of the Democratic Left (SLD), as a matter of fact, the main de-communism people were Kwasniewski and Olejniczak; that is why they moved away from practically all former leaders who had anything to do with the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR).  They themselves removed inner changes (I do not want to use the phrase:  settling old scores) and today this problem in Poland is a problem to a large extent – in my opinion – already closed.  It is only a matter of time.  Please remember that this is already one generation though.  Naturally, certain laws are written for definite people – this is Polish specialty.  Statute projects are written in order to close down some publication, to arrest some kind of writer abroad – they are such ideas, but in general, they are not done since they are rather absurd that even if the authors themselves count only on the propaganda effect of its notification of this project, and not that it will be legislated.  Concerning settlement, it is also worth remembering that a little depends on what kind of system fell.  When the Hungarian system fell, where were their torturers? -  the people who murdered, tortured, and striving towards retaliation; settling old scores was important. 

Instead, in Poland a system fell under its own inefficient burden; here no one had to kill anyone for a long time.  In Poland, the communist system, repressive in a cruel version ended in 1956.  I was in prison from 1970 to 1974.  It was evidently very unpleasant, however, no one there had hit me, no one tortured me; it was a jail where I never felt threatened.  With all its winters, hunger, this was unpleasant, but there was no comparison to Stalinist prisons.  In connection to this, today there are now only a few, now a very older secret police which in fact tormented people – these are people who are already past their eighties.  The processes of these people always have some delicate element because you are judging some kind of indolent elder who most often now does not understand much and what you want from him. 

Briefly speaking, for me the problem of settling old scores to a large extent is closed in Poland.  This is a problem which is at most moral and symbolic.             

Katarzyna Kolenda-Zaleska:  Thank you Senator.  Senator Niesiołowski says that the case of settling old scores for him is closed, but for many areas in Poland, it is not closed.  In contrast – also many active politicians say that if these settlements had occurred in the beginning of 1990, then we would be in a different standpoint today.

Jacek Kurczewski: 

I agree with what the President had said.  The system is changing in two ways – either in battle or when negotiating.  If power was achieved with force, it is also most reasonable the next day to pardon those who lived.  If one attained power in the negotiation process, then common sense says that you have to uphold agreements.  If one side holds up to the agreement, then the other side will do the same.  In this simplification, I see this situation.  On the other hand, obviously the evaluation of this past will always be controversial.  (…)

Zbigniew Bujak:

Saying that it was possible to guide the Polish transformation another way, ie. if we had settled everything in the beginning.  It is such thinking very close to something that I call my personal application of the Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pota syndrome.  Because it is, nevertheless, their idea in order to change something in the country, it is necessary to remove a certain category of people.  Rather remove, evacuate, or precisely impoverish them.  This is exactly this kind of thinking – we will destroy, we will remove a given category of people, and it will be good.  In the meantime, it will not be good because in this process, it is as if we alone become in a certain sense torturers.

Can we advise the Cubans today?  Not much.  You will be left with this problem alone in your country.  But it is worth looking at how the world has done this.  Therefore, from this point of view, it is worth observing the Republic of South Africa.  I have a feeling that something great happened there, something interesting.  Why?  I see this in the symptoms.  The African Congress in the following elections wins, and even support for it grows.  Does this mean that black Africans live better there?  No, it is as poor as it was.  So what happened that the victorious camp maintains power?  They had to find some kind of inner mechanism.  First of all, of course, some kind of pay off existed.  Secondly – they fulfilled a need which the black population had.  This need which today gives them the feeling of dignity – this, what we fought for, what the Ukranians fought for, what you are fighting for all the time.  For dignity!

There is also one Polish story in this perspective.  In the beginning of the nineties, the mother of one of those killed in the Wujek Coalmines was asked if she expects that these torturers will be caught, detained, and sentenced.  She did not want to settle old scores; she said her son did this for Poland, for freedom.  But a few years pass by.  The same woman has deep resentment towards Poland, the III RP, and Wałęsa, and says:  It is necessary to settle old scores, hunt them down, catch these murderers, or else there will not be justice.

Now the question arises:  What happened during these past four years in which this same person who radically changed her position?  Obviously the answer resides sometimes in the details.  I know one of these details – she suddenly saw her son’s executioner in a very high, very well-paid position, during which she was living in poverty.

I do not know in what way you will cope with the settlements, but if today you have your great heroes, you have their families, and maybe some victims will join – do not forget about them.  Because if you forget about them, it would be as if you are forgetting about the whole nation.   

The last matter:  What will come out of these settlements and the disclosing of these documents?  Now, I always give this kind of example which depicts the question of disclosing the portfolios.  What will we see in these satchels?  The truth lies in the briefcases which the police have taken away.  But it is such a truth as in a series of photographic pictures.  As if we were to place a photographer here before everyone, ladies and gentlemen, he would be taking shots all the time, so later among them you could choose such photographs, where you have a crooked face, some kind of smile, or an ugly grimace.  You can show these pictures later and say:  Look:  this is the truth!  Well it is this person!  We are not fooling you, look!  However, is this the real portrait?  Evidently, it is not.  The portraitist knows how to make a proper picture.  But these pictures show you your own individuality.  Now, the same is with the portfolios of the secret police.  Everything which they have collected is the truth.  However, the truth in a specific way is singled out, showing us in a distorted mirror.  How do we look like?  Horribly.  And who will look like this?  Your heroes – the best among us.  Because everyone led different lives.  They will be shown this way.  And what will you do with this now?   

Lech Walesa:

I checked these documents recently and this is what it really looks like.  Only that it was different in our country.  The secret police had time to sort everything out and did it in such a way to leave us arguing and biting each other.  For example, in the archives there are many documents of the clergy.  It does not mean that every priest was an agent but only because he said something not right and already material about him was written up.  These documents were not lost from the archives – they remained there in order for someone to read them and made a subjective opinion about them.  It will be the same in your country – there will be things, which will serve the other side, it will cause disorder among you.  Therefore, we again caution you about this in order not to make conclusions too quickly and having our experiences, to do it better.    

Katarzyna Kolenda-Zaleska:  Mr. President, better, that is how?  Because we still are not able to do this.  And I remember such a discussion among politicians that perhaps we should have burned all those documents.

Lech Walea: 

We are talking above all about what Cubans have to do.  First of all, you should prepare structures, programs, and personnel for this day which will come forth, because it will not happen by itself.  You will have to come to an understanding between each other, because the opposition in Cuba is much divided.  When there will not be time, you will have to make a quick decision.  Therefore, this how? constitutes the program, the organization, and the hard facts.  Today, the most important is for you to not to be provoked.  I am afraid, as a revolutionist, that the regime will pull you towards the street in euphoria and you will start firing, in order to take control of this “revolt”, and to further hold the government in place.  Perhaps it could happen that even from this meeting, the Poles allowed you to go on the street.  You do not have a chance if the solution would be to go on the streets with police action.  If we had tried to fight with force in those times, we would have been demolished.  You must depend on good organization and wisdom.  If you create certain structures and you choose a leader, then you will have to listen to him.  When it will start to shake, when anarchy will start, then you will “drift off” and it will be bad.  I hope that everyone and Zbyszek [Bujak] and myself as soon as we get a signal, that we should now take action, then we will help you – we will not allow you to go off the tracks, to cut your losses.  Your nation is tired and destroyed, therefore, the least of losses.  It is possible.  With just a quick call, we will be supporting you.       

Zbigniew Bujak:

The declaration given by President Lech Wałęsa was not just lip service.  He, when it was necessary, traveled to the Ukraine and went there during a time when it was not known whether tanks will pull out onto the street or not.  But he is the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, therefore, when he walks around Majdan and around the Palace, it is difficult to come out and shoot.  Obviously, this is a declaration and here I would keep him to his word. 

I always say that this freedom will come – it is not known when, it is not known how, but it will be appear.  The most important, however, is what will be happen “the day after”.  It was mentioned that you can count on experts and advisors, but I started to ponder, who should we send to you from Poland?  Now, they will be earning millions of dollars from consulting.  Personally, I would prefer to give out this money on the street, it would bring a greater benefit.  And there was a second category of advisors – pre-accession advisors.  They were tax service workers, customs officers, and the administration which every day keeps in touch with the citizen and solves different matters.  I profited from their advice during the two and a half years I was the head customs official of the Republic.  And today, these people from the United States, Germany, England, France, and Sweden who were in our country – today, they are the best for you.  Why?  Because, they came against a mental barrier - an authoritarian barrier.  They saw how our authoritarian thinking inhibits the reforming of services and departments.  They already have become familiar with this.  And they, now after a hundred times, will show you what the problem entails.