John Keane

The Polish Laboratory

Warsaw. Wednesday December 7th. The eighth anniversary of

martial law approaches. Foul-smelling fog blankets the city. The battered Russian-made taxi which fetches me from the airport clatters
down potholed roads. Rows of grey apartment blocks stand guard,
frozen, expressionless. Trams whirr and clang through street crowds.
Fur-capped shoppers skelter, wrapped in dour coats of brown, olivegreen and grey. Powdered snow swirls through sullen-faced queues for
bananas, pork, detergent, bread, chocolate. Trench-coated soldiers.
Blue-overalled workers. Frozen silence. Winter. The Polish road to
democracy.
The taxi speeds up, jumping every other red light. Its driver, goaded
by fears of acute petrol shortages, is hungry for my dollars. Twenty
minutes from the airport, we squeal and rattle into Iwicka Street,
headquarters of Gazeta Wyborcza, Polands first and most successful
independent daily newspaper. The building resembles army barracks.
I pick my way through its postered corridors to the office of the
editor-in-chief, Adam Michnik. The famous ex-dissident, leading
Polish historian, elected deputy in the Sejm and key adviser to the new
Solidarity-led government spots me through his half-closed office
door. Enshrouded in blue smoke, telephone in hand, he smiles impishly, slams down the telephone and strides in my direction.
Professor John! Bienvenue! Then a friendly handshake and bear hug,
trimmed by polite cheek kisses.
Time is precious. Michnik is harried by a curious irony of socialism.
In 1980 he was described by the Polish authorities as the most sinister
figure of the Polish counter-revolution. Later today, after our
meeting, he has an appointment with Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the new
Prime Minister of Poland.
We fall immediately into sharp political discussion, in French.
Michnik fires the opening shot. Poland is today the most advanced
laboratory in the Soviet bloc. Our country is feeling its way along an
evolutionary road from communism to democracy. It is full of potholes and hairpin bends. The twentieth century taught us how to
build communist regimes. The trouble is that we dont yet know how
to dismantle them.
103

A Democratic Experiment

Michnik isnt pessimistic or melancholy about the difficulty of completing the democratic experiment successfully. He makes it clear that
he rejects the narcissistic view, common in the West, that the revolutions in central-eastern Europe demonstrate the natural superiority
of western liberal democracy and its guaranteed triumph over totalitarianism in the East. Although the democratic revolution in Poland is
not impossible, its course is shaky and outcomes uncertain. Michnik
also worries about the seductions of governmental power. He is aware
that there are groups in Polish societyecological initiatives,
Christian associations, farmers organizations and workers clubs
which already criticize the new government as remote, arrogant, halfblind. They point to the continuing absence of clear, legally formalized guarantees of press and broadcasting freedom. They complain
about the tendency for key political decisions to be made through
informal negotiations, bargaining behind closed doors and by means
of jostling among prestigious leaders. I remind Michnik of Montesquieus eighteenth-century maxim: Constant experience shows that
every person invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry that
power as far as it will go.
Michnik twitches, half-nodding in agreement. But the recent formation of a non-communist government headed by Tadeusz Mazowiecki
excites himjustifiably so, since it was originally his idea. On July
3rd, on the eve of the inaugural session of the new Polish parliament,
he published a highly influential article, Your President, Our Prime
Minister. It proposed the unthinkable: a Solidarity-led coalition
government. The proposal was at first criticized widely by many
within the democratic opposition, and not only because it conceded
the presidency to General Jaruzelski, the tinted-spectacled architect of
martial law. The chief argument was that Solidarity would end up as
a loser in the game of cleaning up the economic mess left by successive
communist governments.
Michniks proposal for a governmental alliance between Solidarity
and the Polish United Workers Party quickly triumpheddespite
such objections. He isnt surprised by the breathtaking pace at which
military and party rule crumbled. He explains that communists who
feel at home in the nomenklatura system are notoriously bad at playing
politics in the open. They are lazy and incompetent politicians,
unable to see that winning the trust of citizens involves more than
giving orders. Their judgement is poor, their common sense is in
short supply and they quickly lose their nerve. On top of that,
Michnik says, martial law was doomed from the outset because it
could never solve the terminal crisis of communist regimes. The
Polish events of the past decade contain a lesson for all communist
generals who dream of becoming dictators. Military governments
cannot sit on their own bayonets. Michnik speaks passionately, with
the wise militancy of a man who spent six years in prison for his
democratic beliefs. Although armed to the teeth, military governments are weak because they usually dont have the support of civil
society. For eight years Jaruzelski was paralysed by his insistence that
104

Solidarity didnt exist. All his actions against us resembled the tragicomical efforts of Xerxes to defeat the sea by doing battle with it.
In Michniks view martial lawtotalitarianism with broken teeth
was further paralysed by mounting economic corruption and decay.
The architects of martial law failed to see that democracy is a vital
precondition of economic reform and prosperity. The formula is
straightforward: No free elections and legally guaranteed civil society,
no democracy; no democracy, no bread or butter or decent vegetables
or meat in the shops. The grim consequence of this rule is that shortages of basic commodities are now rampant in Poland. Each month
inflation approaches 100 per cent. Speculation and black market profiteering are widespread. The level of foreign debt (US$38 billion) is
frightening. The standard of living is plummeting dangerously.
Environmental damage is massive. And this winter widespread
pauperization could scar the face of Polands young democratic
government.
Michnik likens the Polish laboratory to the peaceful transition to
democracy in Spain. I shuffle restlessly through my notes, looking
puzzled. I suggest to him that the Spanish economy thrived at the end
of the Franco dictatorship. By contrast, the Polish economy is utterly
ruined. Doesnt Poland today better resemble Chile after Salvador
Allendes election victory? Like Mazowiecki, Allende didnt control
the army, the security police, the communications system or the economy. And the population of Chile, like that of Poland, was starved of
simple daily necessities. Militaries cannot sit on their own bayonets.
But can democratic governments sit on their hungry citizens? I know
only one thing, says Michnik sharply. We must do absolutely everything to halt the slide in the standard of living. Unless a tiny silver
lining appears in the dark economic skies very soon, the whole system
may quickly go bust. That is why we are going to defend the interests
of the working class. At the same time we are taking steps to change
political and legislative practices so that people will be inspired to
work harder. And we are sending off signals to the world to encourage
it to assist Poland. Walesas recent initiatives in the United States,
Canada and Britain are an effort to move in this direction.
It is true that Poland is already attracting new foreign investment.
Recent examples include major extensions to Warsaw airport, to be
carried out by the West German construction firm, Hochtiefbau, financed by loans from the US Citibank and guaranteed by Hermes, the
West German state credit guarantee concern; and the joint venture of
Trust House Forte and Orbis, the Polish state-owned tourist
company, to renovate and operate the Bristol Hotel in Warsaw.
Poland is also targeted by various foreign aid and loan programmes.
EEC officials have recently confirmed further contributions to a currency stabilization fund for Poland, aimed at bolstering confidence
among bankers and foreign investors. Its provision is to be
coordinated with the International Monetary Fund, which itself
agreed a loan deal with the Mazowiecki government in early January
1990. The IMF agreement compels the government to pursue an
incomes policy and tight monetary policy in exchange for a US$725
105

million bridging loan supplied by the United States and the Baslebased Bank for International Settlements. A further US$1.67 billion
worth of loans has been pencilled in by the World Bank for disbursement over the next eighteen months. And the EEC, aiming to stimulate
an economic boom in central-eastern Europe, is planning to set up a
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and is expected
this year to approve a further grant in food aid to Poland.
The New Entrepreneurs

As Michnik speaks my thoughts wander. I am struck by the enormity

of the structural economic problems facing the fledgling Polish
democracy. Michnik doesnt mention the emergence of the new
private economic monopolies. Large privatized firms such as Dolnel
in Wroclaw are not only likely to use their monopoly power to hinder
technical innovation and the formation of competitive market structures. Their power freely to determine working conditions, employment levels, prices and the quality of goods and services is also likely
to frustrate Solidaritys hopes for a just, democratic and economically
productive Poland. The current privatization programme is opening
the way for Party and state bureaucrats to swap their former nomenklatura role for private positions of managerial and entrepreneurial
power. Communist bosses are becoming private entrepreneurs! Booty
capitalism is replacing communist corruption! A well-known example
is Mieczyslaw Wilczek, a figure who could have stepped out of a
Balzac novel. He first occupied senior managerial posts in state
industry. Later, he founded a highly profitable fur company through a
private PolishCanadian joint venture. Today he is a member of the
Party, its treasurer and a millionaire. Solidaritys election programme
warned against figures like him. But nothing is being done to counteract their rise to power.
Then there is a seriousbarely recognizedlong-term dilemma
facing the Solidarity-led government. Stalinism begat industrialization
in Poland. Its unwanted child was Solidaritythe first ever modern
social movement of workers opposed to state despotism. Yet Solidarity has inherited an industrial system which is historically obsolete. Its
Taylorist production and distribution methods are inefficient,
decrepit and wasteful of energy. How therefore can a Solidarity-led
government modernize this systemby stimulating the adoption of
new information technologies and flexible production methods, for
examplewithout destroying its very basis of support among
industrial workers and their households and communities?
My daydream snaps. Michniks expressed support for Polish workers
prompts me to ask him whether their loyalty can be maintained even
in the short run. How can a Solidarity-led government defend the
interests of Polish workers while imposing a tough austerity programme on them? The economic rescue programme, outlined by
Finance Minister Balcerowicz in early October, involves wage restrictions and massive cuts in state spending. It scraps food subsidies
(which has had the curious effect of fuelling inflation, slackening
demand for food as real wages fall, and reducing the income of many
106

farmers). The programme also urges state enterprises to make a

profit. Bankruptcy is considered an essential ingredient in the fight
against politically distorted investment and pricing. Unemployment
will naturally result. During 1990 it is expected officially to rise to 20
per cent.
Michnik denies that Solidaritys rescue programme has anything to do
with the restoration of capitalism. The old language of capitalism
versus socialism is exhausted. Coming out of the Stalinist era, we
have brought with us a whole bag of labels and stereotypes, one of
which is the great perennial conflict between capitalism and socialism. As if there have been no long-lasting feuds and bloody conflicts
between socialist countries! We are trying to make our economy
effective, and I think no one today has a recipe that can help protect
any economy against the detrimental effect of totalitarian methods of
management. In the absence of such a programme, dogmas will
impede our economic development. I am convinced that all the great
ideologies of the past should be abandoned to the past.
Michnik does admit that the rescue programme puts pressure on the
old idea of Solidarity as the defender of civil society against the totalitarian state. In effect, it requires Polish workers to look beyond their
noses, to distinguish between their short-term and long-term interests.
A trade union role for Solidarity is not enough. Michnik doubts that
Solidarity can or should become a political party in the western sense.
The multiparty system of Western countries is the child of bourgeois
revolutions. But we have an entirely different situation, where building exclusively on other countries experience will not bring about the
desired result. Among the political trends in this country you will certainly find Constitutional Democrats, Social Democrats and even
Christian Democrats. But distinguishing among them today is difficult, even impossible, since the process of social renewal and polarization is taking place against a different social background and stems
from a mass psychology without precedent in history. Michnik nevertheless emphasizes that the strategy of Solidarity under martial law is
no longer viable. It must recognize that citizens have problems distinct from those of workers or consumers, and that the task of democratizing the state and civil society cannot be resolved into the struggle
for economic democracy. It is now faced with a new dilemma. Solidarity needs to be both a trade union and a citizens movement. A
trade union which has to decide everything cannot remain a trade
union for long. Political questions can only be expressed through a
citizens movement.
Michnik detects confirmation of this point in the citizens committees
which mushroomed prior to the June elections. He believes Polish
society has a genuine capacity for dignified self-sacrifice, for solidarity
in conditions of extreme austerity. The image of Poles as impassive,
tired-looking people who get no fun out of life is mistaken. The Polish
spring a decade ago was a watershed. It cut the thread of helplessness
in Polish society. The 198081 events were a revolution for dignity, a
celebration of the rights of the vertebrae, a permanent victory for the
straightened spine, says Michnik. Whatever happens from hereon,
107

one fact cannot be erased from the memory of the Polish nation: The
events of 1917 signalled the rise of communism. The meeting of
Gdansk workers in August 1980 signalled its destruction. The downfall of the totalitarian communist order began here in Poland.
A Springtime of Nations

Michniks description is correct. The Poles love of democracy has

been infectious. The national revolutions against communism have
spread. Democratic ideals are winning an epochal victory against
totalitarian regimes. He is jubilant about the current springtime of
nations in central-eastern Europe, and has worked hard to give it a
democratic twist. In November 1989 he helped organize a Polish
Czechoslovak jamboree in Wroclaw, attended by more than 6,000
people. For a long time he was convinced that Polands and
Hungarys striving for democracy could be successful only if the
dismal wedge of conservative Czechoslovakia wasnt driven between
them. With me he is contemptuously funny about the deposed Jake
leadership. Do you know why the Jake group consistently lived up to
their self-image? He smiles, his eyes twinkling with the Marx
Brothers. Because they looked stupid, acted stupidly and were
stupid. Inevitably, we discuss the two Germanies. Michnik brushes
aside talk of the possible emergence of a Fourth Reich with statues of
Hitler in every German town. He denies the claim that the recent
destruction of the Berlin Wall is dangerous because it is the harbinger
of a unified Bismarckian German state in the heart of Europe. In his
view an increasingly united, federated Germanya democratic
Germany which acknowledges the existing borders of Polandcould
be the magnet which attracted a larger, more democratic Europe. The
citizens of both Germanies are entitled to exercise their right to determine their own destiny. Emphasizing the grave dangers of redrawing
national boundariesanyone who speaks of altering national boundaries is either a fool or a troublemakerhe extends the same principle of democratic self-determination to the nations of the Soviet
Union itself. In September 1989, Michnik visited the Ukraine with a
Solidarity delegation. He told the first congress of the Popular Front,
to wild applause, that Solidarity was watching with joy the rebirth of
the Ukraine, concluding: Long live an independent and democratic
Ukraine!
In Poland Michniks speech was hotly contested. What business do
Poles have in Soviet affairs, some asked? Could the Soviet Union survive a day without the Ukraine? And doesnt the nineteenth-century
belief that national interests are essentially incompatible still apply?
What is good for Ukrainians is bad for the Poles, isnt it? Michnik
replies: The right of a nation to freedom and a sovereign state is a
precondition of democracy within its borders. A persuasive point.
The striving for democracy does demand recognition of at least some
rights of self-determination of a nation. And it is true that a shared
sense of nationhoodin Poland as much as in the Baltic countries
and Armeniacan infuse citizens with a sense of confidence and
dignity.
108

But I ask Michnik whether a strong sense of nationhood is exposed to

the well-known dangers of nationalismespecially in middle Europe,
where it was the original mass political ideology of the region, and
where (as the Polish historian Jan Josef Lipski has pointed out) the
cultural vacuum left by the communist attempt to root out other traditions has actually stimulated its growth. Isnt the crucial trait of a
nationa large collection of people who identify primarily with the
amorphous collectivity and not with its sub-groupspotentially a
menace to democracy? Isnt the striving for nationhood sometimes the
soil which sprouts nationalism and hence, insularity, xenophobia and
the love of knives and guns and state power? Michnik erupts. Categorically no! Chauvinism is the greatest enemy of democracy. But
theres no necessary link between the striving for national sovereignty
and nationalist attempts to exploit the mythology of xenophobia. On
the contraryas the Pamyat movement in Russia showsnationalism thrives within nations which have been degraded. He pauses.
Whenever there is a thaw in the countries of central-eastern Europe
democratic attitudes and ideals normally flourish. This occurred in
1956 in Hungary, in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and in 1980 in Poland. It
is also evident in my country, in Hungary, the DDR, Czechoslovakia,
the Baltic Republics, and in Russia itself.
Russia. Talk of this country and its Empire normally makes Poles
flesh creep. Not so with Michnik, who sees an inverse relationship
between democracy and militarism. The Russia we have always
feared, and which we fear even now, is a country whose autocratic
political system is doomed to expansionism. A democratic Russia can
establish entirely different relations with Poland. He is sure that a
democratic Russia could coexist peacefully with democratically established states in central Europe. But he is less certain whether the Gorbachev group has in fact swapped the Brezhnev doctrine for the
Sinatra doctrine. Can it help build a new and more equal compromise
among the nationalities of the Soviet Union? Will it permit Hungary
to break the Warsaw Treaty? Czechoslovakia to abandon COMECON?
Turn a blind eye to the integration of the two Germanies? Allow
Polandin Churchills wordsto become mistress in her own house
and captain of her own soul?
It is too early to tell, says Michnik. He is certain of only one thing. The
Soviet Union is the last great empire on the face of the earth. It is
crumbling. It contains many countries and national minorities who
are the natural foes of totalitarianism. If there is to be (in Gorbachevs
words) an end to strife between nationalities then there must be a
brand new political compromise, says Michnik. Military solutions
and Schmittian talk of revenge, friends and enemies must be avoided.
The road to democracy is through give and take. Gorbachev is confronted by a fundamental choice. Either he acknowledges that there
are irremovable conflicts within Soviet society and, accordingly,
works to build a social order based on compromiseamong Tatars,
Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Georgians and other minoritiesor
he attempts to resolve these conflicts by using the police and the army.
There is no other choice: either there will be compromise or Stalinism. I urge him to find agreement with the genuine leaders of the
109

national minorities. He must try to build a new Soviet commonwealth

of nations. Andrei Sakharov was right: freedom in Russia is possible
only if it no longer oppresses other nations.
Five oclock approaches. Michnik becomes visibly nervous, torn
among his roles as intellectual critic of power, editor-in-chief, adviser
and tenant in the house of political power. A taxi appears in Iwicka
Street. Michnik issues a barrage of staccato instructions to the staff of
Gazeta Wyborcza. I grab my equipment and we climb noisily into the
taxi. Shrouded in fog, it roars and rattles the short journey to the
Prime Ministers offices. I cant resist a string of parting questions.
How long will this new government of Mazowiecki last? Can it retain
public trust beyond the June local elections (as Walesa and others
have asked)? Is it fated to be replaced by a dictatorship, perhaps led
by a new Pilsudski figure such as General Jaruzelski? Or do such
questions reinforce a doomsday scenario which actually produces
doomsday? Michniks parting shot is predictably guarded. Democracy is
an awful way of running things. It is a costly and time-consuming
kind of government. But nobody has yet come forward with a better
idea. So I fight for more of it. Salut Professor John! bientt.

110