Their capacity for achieving unity in action in order to extend mobilization, despite often very deepgoing differences, is clearly a new and important element in the Polish political situation. Along with the other factors cited, this is another obstacle to the governmental schemes for tying down the Polish workers by means of an anti-crisis pact. *
An eagle-eye view of the reform UNDER THE PRESSURE of the mass protests in May and June, a first meeting was held on June 28 between advocates of an "anti-crisis pact" in both the government and the opposition camps. The opposition was represented by former advisors to the Solidarnosc leadership, Bronislaw Geremek, Andrzej Wielowieyski and Ryszard Bugaj. Among the bureaucrats taking part in the meeting were Colonel Stanislaw Kwiatkowski (head of the Center for the Study of Public Opinion, CBOS), the journalist Ryszard Wojna and the sociologist Marian Gulczynski.
In an interview in the July 9 issue of Zycie Warszawy, the prestige official daily, Marian Gulczynski gave some indications of what the meeting meant and what was discussed at it. W HO DO you consider today to be the anti-reform forces? These forces have two wings. One wing is represented by rebels who want to destroy the system without any idea of what should built on its ruins. I have observed this attitude above all among the young people, who feel frustrated and ill at ease, which is the consequence of the stagnation and the inadequacy of the reforms. We should not forget, for example, that one out of two couples in Warsaw lacks an
----- photo credits and running heads -----
6
September 19, 1988 • #147 International Viewpoint apartment of their own.
In the other wing are entrenched dogmatic and conservative forces. They defend the old model of socialism because their vital interests are linked to this model, for example the administration and the lobby that control raw materials and steel. The same goes for the various local establishments that control the decisions about the distribution of scarce goods — building materials, fertilizer, tractors and so on - and from this role derive very concrete • You talk about "rebels," which might suggest that you are talking about some organized group.
It is not a group, but a social phenomenon, a "mass of powder." But it is very dangerous because it is a powder that explodes very easily. These are teenagers and youth in their early twenties. They are frustrated, not only because of what is functioning badly at the level of the system as a whole, but also because of what is not working for them, in the factories or the universities. Among these young people, I see no leaders. But I am sure they will appear when an explosion occurs. They are there, ripening.
To keep this "powder" from catching fire, we have to rapidly give these young people the opportunity to organize themselves freely. We must be aware that protest by young people is inevitable. But it may take uncontrolled, aggressive forms, and then the contact between the government and the young generation will take place through the stone and the club. It can also take other organized forms respectful of the law, if the youth have an opportunity for self-organization. • Does this mean taming the revolt?
Is there another solution? What? Emigration? Private initiative? The safety valves are already largely closed off. It is characteristic that today young people's anger is being directed mainly against local targets, against the bureaucrats in the enterprises who are hanging on fiercely to their privileges. We know cases where the defense of socialism is being equated with defending a team in power. But the bureaucracy is dangerous at all levels.
We have to realize that in fact we lost the recent municipal elections, while formally winning them! We would really have won them if new solutions had been introduced in the new election law, as public opinion demanded; if the electoral colleges had included people not belonging to the local bureaucracies; if collecting 100 to 200 signatures had been sufficient to put up a slate of candidates, and so on.
Then, the municipal councils would have really had an infusion of new blood. Even if, say, the opposition had taken power in 15 municipalities or a department, that would not have been a tragedy. On the contrary, it would have been a very good thing, because the opposition would have found itself obliged to take on tasks of coresponsibility, and the old establishments would have had to mobilize themselves to • In a year, there will be new elections, this time to the Diet. How do you think that the election campaign should be
I think that the future parliament should approximate the real relationship of politically active forces in our society. This is not the case today. There are informally organized forces that in the long run could become illegal forces. But in general, when such forces reorganize illegally, they become destructive. The better part of these
That is why I think that the most important thing is the right of free association, including the right to form political clubs and associations. I place a special stress on the club form, because I think - and on this point I am in agreement with many representatives of the opposition - that if parties were formed overnight, the demagogues and populists would take center stage. Associations and clubs are different, because they set in motion processes that can gradually lead to the formation of a broad coalition of political forces. • Without being called parties?
In the future, these forces should call themselves parties. I have nothing against that, but this should be the result of a long process, especially since an important part of such associations and clubs would be parliamentary in character - that is, they would have enough representation in the Diet to influence the decisions of the national legislature. But they would not be
POLAND NEGOTIATIONS A PLANTE strong enough to overturn the party, or coalition, in government. • There is not much time left before the Diet elections!
That is why it is necessary to start working right away on the new election law, bringing in those representatives of the opposition that respect the constitutional realities of our system. • And excluding the rebels?
Obviously. That is precisely what I proposed in the meeting [of June 28], a meeting that has already become famous, although I think that none of those participating were looking for public notoriety. • What were the results of this meeting?
It became clear that the differences were secondary in comparison with what unites us, both with respect to our assessments of what is going wrong in the country and our convictions about what has to be done to remedy these evils. On one point there was total agreement, that there is not a lot of sense in having more meetings of this type, because we already know each other well enough, I think, to work together. The nation is waiting for action. • What are the limits? What concessions are unacceptable to the government?
Two sorts of concessions are impossible. The rebel forces cannot be allowed to organize and act freely. They cannot be permitted to break up the system and render it anarchic. That is obvious. But if we put forward a constructive project rapidly that includes the right of association, we can hope that those sections that are a little bit reasonable, which might be under the influence of the rebels, will end up in the last analysis in the reform camp
We cannot permit a destabilization of our position in Europe, which conditions the delicate worldwide balance between the two politico-military blocs. This is a fundamental question for security and development for us as well as for the rest of the
The reforms and changes cannot affect the alliances that assure our existence. These are the limits, and these are the stakes. *
----- photo credits and running heads -----
7
LOOK ON THE POSITIVE SIDE...
WERE ANOTHER ARAB CLOSER
TO PEACE!
International Viewpoint #147 • September 19, 1988
MIDDLE EAST