In announcing the new plan, the government of Lech Walesa is taking a big risk. In the last few months, judging both by the development of strike movements and by the opinion polls, there has been a growing disillusionment amongst Polish workers with the choice of capitalist restoration.
How has the attitude of the Polish working class changed in the course of the last few years? Shortly before the announcement of the new government plan, IV put this question to two Polish sociologists who have written widely on this subject.
Maria Jarosz teaches at the Institute of Economic Sciences at the Polish Academy of Sciences, She has supervized two recent enquiries into the attitude of workers towards the property transformations in Poland.
Leszek Gilejko teaches at the Department of Sociology and Politics at the Central School of Commerce at warsaw, and nas, over the past ten years, been responsible for several enquiries into the aspirations of workers and their organizations. The interview was conducted by Jan Malewski 14 on June 19, 1991. * International Viewpoint #211 • July 22, 1991
Maria Jarosz: In April and December 1990 we carried out two surveys on the perception by different groups of workers of the changes underway in Poland. The size of the sample - 1,377 replies in April, and 4,428 in December - allows the cross-checking of the replies received and gives the surveys a representative
We selected some groups of character. workers who we thought had a determining influence on opinions and behaviour in their workplace; directors at various levels, workers, qualified or otherwise, but in any case not exercising management functions, members of the councils of self-management, of Solidarnos and of the former official trade union (OPZZ). Since December 1990, the objective situation has not changed much, except that six enterprises have been privatized. The press has recently claimed that 300 enterprises have already changed status, but this figure should be treated with caution.
Privatization, therefore, only affects a small percentage of enterprises, but nonetheless the effects of these changes are immense, in particular so far as the behaviour and opinions of the workers is concerned.
Numerous indicators allow us to characterize the attitude towards privatization — such as the strikes against it. A significant part of the workforce have come to the conclusion that only a strike will allow them to impose their opinion. The government, which had been considered as something emanating from the workers, is no longer perceived as such. People say, for example "These are our guys; we carried them to posts of responsibility on our shoulders and now they treat us as if we were nothing". The new elites are often described as a "new nomenklatura" or more simply as "them", , which is reminiscent of the situation in the preceding years. • In your research, a kind of schizophrenia is apparent; on the one hand privatization as a general slogan is widely accepted, but on the other, workers are largely opposed to it in their own workplaces.
Maria Jarosz: In general, people consider that it is not possible to continue as before, and that the property transformations are therefore indispensable. Amongst the possible changes there is one — privatization — which is the preferred choice of the ruling circles and is therefore the most well known. This leads to the acceptance of privatization in general,
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
POLAND have so far changed their status. You have conducted research on the way different social groups per- ceive the changes in the status of property. What are the results?
as a way of breaking with the past, although it is already possible to see a decline in this acceptance. Between April and December 1990, we observed a tendency to the diminution of the acceptance of this general thesis and I think that if I had the chance to do more research now, the level would be still
This is linked to the develthe recession, which results in lower living standards, and the appearance of poverty and unemployment. But whatever the reason, workers are in general opposed to the perspective of privatization of their own enterprise, even if there are
POLAND
OUŠEMĚC JE MOČMÉ PICNÍT POCTIVE K PENĚZŮM. ALE PRO ZAČÁTEK MUSÍTE MÍT differences among them.
Thus the majority of enter- NĚJAMÉ NÉPOCTIVÉ... prise directors were favourable to privatization, although they come for the most part "Of course, it is possible to get money honestly, but to get started it is a good idea to have a little dishonest something" - cartoon by Vladimir Jiranek from Lidové noviny (Prague) from the old nomenklatura. But even when they were linked to the nomenklatura, they are the first to admit the inefficiency and disfunctioning of the
They are then favorable to change, to privatization or to group property. Only a small part of the directors want their enterprise to remain in state "destatization" consists of the activists and leaders of Solidarnosc (not the members), as well as the members of the councils of self-management. However, the latter were mainly in favour of group property, whereas the former are rather favourable to privatization. On the other hand, the rank and file workers and the militants and leaders of the OPZZ are the most opposed to "destatization" and argue that the status of their enterprises should remain the same, with some minor chang-
It should be noted that between April and December 1990 there was a net increase in the percentage of people favourable to group property; in April, 40% of those questioned were favourable to their enterprise passing into the hands of the workforce; in December, 50% opted for this solution, against 20% who were for the maintenance of nationalization and only 17% in favour of classic privatization. • How do you explain the differences between the enterprise managers and the activists of the OPZZ? It might be thought that, coming from the same mould, they would share the same opinions.
Maria Jarosz: There is a factor of differentiation; the members of the OPZZ feel themselves to be threatened by the effects of privatization, and particularly by unemployment. This is not the case for the
Leszek Gilejko: Our research amongst trade union leaders revealed that an overwhelming majority of OPZZ leaders were for the preservation of the state enterprises. There is without doubt a political motivation for this, founded on the hope that values profoundly anchored in the society are going to reappear, which will allow them to gain a certain influence. It is, in my opinion, one of the reasons for the difference between the directors and the militants of
One aspect merits emphasis: privatization, as it is being carried out today, is perceived by the workers as a phenomenon which is imposed on them. No account is taken of their aspirations, the government acts as if it was none of their business explains their growing opposition. • How can one explain the evolution of opinion in the course of the past decade, from the massive support for self-management in 1981 to the apparent support for capitalist restoration in 1989-1990?
Leszek Gilejko: The results of our research through the 1980s confirm those of the team of Maria Jarosz. We observed a growing consciousness of the inefficiency of the existing economic system and the necessity, not of reforming it, but of replacing it by another; this was particularly noticeable amongst the workers. Independently of any judgement we could have on the old regime and its willingness to reform, it is clear, at least starting from 1983 when the rigors of the state of emergency were relaxed, that this regime was seeking to introduce certain elements of the reform proposals which
It then became clear that this regime and the structures on which it rested were incapable of realizing change, of ending the crisis and opening the road to a progressive dynamic. I think that this is another factor which explains the growing popularity of the theme of "destatization" and privatization in the course of the past decade and up to the beginning of • Now, it seems that a change has explained that, for the workers, the slogan of the construction of capitalism means quite simply opening the road to those who wish to enrich convinced that those who seek to gain political influence do so to
Leszek Gilejko: The modification of the property relations in Poland has three aspects. Firstly, there is a clear preference on the part of the new autorities for privatization; even if, in certain cases, there is a preference for shareholding — that is the diffusion of property — private property is what it adds up to. Secondly, these changes have been made in a period of profound recession, which has produced immense political, social and economic upheavals. Finally — and this is very important - the factor which has always synonymous with progress Poland, namely the influence of the base and of the fundamental social groups on the changes underway, has been blocked by the policy of the government. The lad somas deci ded to amore brandy 15 edly and sometimes even more brutally July 22, 1991 • #211 International Viewpoint
POLAND than in the past, in particular as far as the modification of property relations is concerned. And finally — as Maria Jarosz has already noted — we now see the appearance of a new "them and us" distinction in which the new regime is perceived as exterior, as "them". It amounts to a change of great importance, firmed by all the research carried today. The workers perceive the new rulers, including the trade union leaders, as another social sphere, as "them".
We have recently conducted research amongst the leaders of Solidarnosc, at the central level and in the workplaces, which shows this conflict - typical in the old trade unions, between the members and the leaders — appearing today inside a movement which had until recently preserved numerous elements of spontaneity and activity originating from below. This same conflict between the central leadership and the base structures, let it be said in passing, exists also inside the OPZZ
Maria Jarosz: The principal problem of privatization in Poland now greally resembles the process of nationalization in the 1940s. Privatization is being introduced by decree, from on high, as was the case with the nationalizations.
cases, the opinion of the workers has been
My research concerns the workers in the nationalized enterprises - comprises 80% of wage earners. One cannot ignore the opinion of so many people and yet that is what the government has
Today people say that only the directors count and that the opinions of the workers have little importance.
This engenders very dangerous social consequences, a very great gap between the hopes of the workers and reality. People believed that privatization bring well-being and freedom. It appears today that this privatization from above brings only pauperization, unemployment and poverty for most people.
The people are therefore turning away from the leaders who they had considered as theirs and from the ideas with which they had identified.
Leszek Gilejko: I want to underline two other important questions. Beyond the fact that we are confronted today with the need for a new social contract - this problem is increasingly raised in Poland
- it is plain that the main social groups and their organizations need to develop programmes reflecting
The current crisis in Solidarnos is not reducible to the single dichotomy which exists between, on the one hand, its nature as a reformist movement and, on the other, the fact that it is also an organization for the defence of the workers, a trade union. The leaders of Solidarnosc have a tendency to say; "We have the responsibility for change and therefore we must 16 altar of what is more important". The sacrifice our trade union interests on the International Viewpoint #211 • July 22, 1991 problem is not one of sacrificing anything but, on the contrary, having a programme which allows the linking of the interests and aspirations of the base with the process of reforms, in new conditions. • Very recently, Lech Walesa proposed to the Diet that the government be authorized to carry out the transformations by decree. Outside a few rare personalities — like Karol Modzelewski or Josef Pinior - the leaders of Solidarnosc have adopted a wait and see attitude towards this government. How do you think the workers will react?
Leszek Gilejko: Our recent research showed that there is a potential of support for such measures, and even a growing
Maria Jarosz: In particular amongst the workers... • Does this potential support reflect the illusion that at last someone will restore order in the name of the
Leszek Gilejko: Yes. This phenomenon has always existed in Poland, in the 1970s and in the course of the last decade. Half of the people pronounced themselves in favour of a "reestablishment of order" — independently of knowing who would do it, even if the people we asked preferred that it was not done through the old nomenklatura. The other half, on the contrary, favoured a democratic and self- managed solution, seeking to construct a
• What changes are going on inside the Polish trade union movement in relation to the current transition?
The two union federations - Solidarnosc and the OPZZ - have swopped places in the past couple
The OPZZ, born out of the dictatorial regime, has been pushed into opposition. Solidarnosc, on the other hand, feels itself invested with a mission to introduce reforms.
Leszek Gilejko: There are two groups in the OPt leadership. One seeks to define itself as an opposition - which does not mean that it will call for the building of barricades! - in the name of the defence of a political concept. The other, on the contrary, seeks to occupy a more trade unionist role, closer to the daily aspirations of the workers.
One notes an apparent division inside Solidarnosc, between a more political current - tending to defend the government for ideological reasons — and a more pragmatic, trade unionist, current, susceptible to pressure from the base. This conwithout doubt, Solidarnosc. But the fault lines between an ideological current and a pragmatic trade unionist current exist at the top of both federations. • What about the situation in the workplaces? Is the split between the OPZZ and Solidarnosc, provoked by the state of emergency, in the process of disappearing? Is cooperation between the two trade unions possible today?
Leszek Gilejko: Cooperation is developing in certain situations, like during a strike or in a pre-strike period. But the past still weighs heavily. amongst the trade union activists revealed that the Solidarnose militants very largely identify their trade union with the interests of the workers and the OPZZ with those of the old nomenklatura. The Solidarnosc militants still remember the repression they suffered, with the active support or at least the acquiescence of those of the OPZZ. The refusal of the OPZZ to accept the legalization of Solidarnosc until the last minute has also created problems.
However, today the rank and file militants of the OPZZ are less aggressive towards Solidarnosc than their equivalents in Solidarnosc are towards them.
Maria Jarosz: My research last December revealed an interesting phenomenon. Members of the OPZZ have a tendency to identify themselves with Solidarnosc and recognize the progressive role of the rival trade union; struggle for freedom, against the nomenklatura, and so on. But they still have a negative judgement on the government. Moreover, on the conquestions - privatization, rhythms, modes and so on - the workers have, whatever their adherence, the same position as the OPZZ militants. One could speak then of a phenomenon of rupture between the Solidarnosc militants and their base. In the last few months, this has begun to change, for Solidarnosc has made a turn towards more strictly trade unionist preoccupations.
• Very briefly, what are the main findings that
Maria Jarosz: Privatization had been considered by society as one of the means of breaking with the so-called Communist past, which was rejected. But privatization was not perceived as a goal in itself, but as a means. The objective sought was not only freedom, but also bread, the possibility of self-realization, and finally equality or at least equality of opportunity. In the current government discourse, on the contrary, privatization appears as an end in itself. And that discourse has not been accepted.
What the people accept, on the contrary, is plurality of choice - including privatization — in relation to the concrete situations in the different enterprises. They reject having one single choice imposed on them from on high, as in the past.
Leszek Gilejko: I am in agreement with