Jan Kubik

1. Introduction. Modeling the Round Table (RT) process as a political-cultural phenomenon.

In this essay, I will look at the Polish Round Table (RT) from a "political culture" perspective. There is no room here to present a complete and exhaustive picture of this perspective and its place in the most recent theorizing on culture. I summarize the main assumptions of my approach in Appendix 1; it is strongly influenced by Sewell's recent synthesizing article.¹ As for political culture, I adopt a useful definition offered by Gamson: "A nonredundant concept of political culture refers to the meaning systems that are culturally available for talking, writing, and thinking about political objects: the myths and metaphors, the language and idea elements, the frames, ideologies, values, and condensing symbols."² I focus, therefore, on the "meaning systems" (or "webs of significance") that were developed and used by various participants of the Round Table negotiations to visualize, conceptualize, analyze, criticize, evaluate and propagate strategies of (political) action they and their adversaries were employing.

Specifically, the theoretical frame of this essay is based on:

1. An approach to the study of the relationship between culture and politics, informed by (a) the Geertzian definition of culture as a "web of significance" and (b) Swidler's idea to construe "culture's causal significance not in defining ends of action, but in providing cultural components that are used to construct strategies of action."³

2. Conceptualizations of social processes that explicitly problematize the dialectics between social action and textualization of social reality (narrativization, emplotment). Here I borrow heavily from cultural anthropology (particularly Geertz and Victor Turner) and sociology of culture.⁴

3. Cross-cultural studies on conflict resolution.⁵

1. The pre-RT period (1980-1986). It begins with the Breach in the socialist status quo, that is the creation of Solidarity in 1980. Next, a long phase of Crisis follows (with the Martial Law period being its essential part).

2. The Amnesty of September 11, 1986 (all Solidarity activists are released from prison) opens the Pre-Redress phase. In this section I emphasize the specificity of the Polish resistance to communism.

3. The RT process per se (February 6, 1989-August 24, 1989 [formation of the Mazowiecki cabinet]), constituting the Redress phase. Here I focus on two pairs of contradictions/tensions: confrontation versus compromise and exclusion versus inclusion.

4. The post-RT period: Schism or Reconciliation? Analytical emphasis is placed on the conflict between various interpretations of the RT and their political relevance.

1. Documentation produced within the Michigan project, including: (a) the transcript of the conference and (b) transcripts of the interviews with several key participants of the RT negotiations⁷;

2. My own memories of and notes on informal conversations and debates I had with several participants in Ann Arbor (April 1999) and elsewhere;

3. Several existing historical and sociological accounts and analyses of the Round Table (RT);⁸

4. Documentation produced by Polish participants.⁹

1. The dominant symbolic vision(s) of the polity

2. The dominant relationship between the elite and followers in Solidarity

3. The dominant relationship between the elite and followers in the party-state

4. The dominant mode of interaction between the main adversaries.

5. Identify the main feature of each phase

6. Offer a few simple theoretical points learned from or relevant for each phase

2. The Pre-RT Period: Breach and Crisis.

2.1. Dominant Vision of the Polity: Bi-Polar Cleavage: Solidarity Versus the Communists.

As I demonstrated elsewhere,¹⁰ the Polish anticommunist "revolution" was a cultural-political phenomenon of massive proportions, by comparison with other East European countries. During the 1970's and early 1980's, a substantial number of people engaged in the formulation, development and defense of a counter-hegemonic vision, which served to de-legitimize the state-socialist system and, simultaneously, allowed these people to constitute themselves as an "oppositional" cultural-class of Solidarity. Put another way, Solidarity was never simply a trade union or a movement, but a cultural class in statu nascendi, never fully "consolidated," subjected to the tremendous internal centrifugal tensions which operated together with the centripetal forces of symbolic unification. By 1991, the centrifugal political (both programmatic and personal) tensions destroyed Solidarity (as a specific "cultural" class), but throughout the 1980's a substantial portion of the Polish populace "belonged" to it, either actively, by engaging in various clandestine activities; or passively, by giving it their "moral support." The cultural frame which held this class together was built as a polar vision of "we/the people/Solidarity" versus "them/authorities/communists."
Several students of the 1981-1989 period in Poland concluded that the cultural vitality and political significance of this polar frame during these years not only did not decline, but seems to have increased. Anna Uhlig, author of an excellent study of political symbolism during the 1980's, wrote: "after December 13, 1981 the opposition's drive to make a distinction between 'our Poland' (the Solidarity Republic) from 'their Poland' (Polish People's Republic) intensifies."¹¹ The events that helped the "opposition" to construct this hegemonic polar cleavage included two papal visits, the murder of Father Jerzy Popiełuszko and the immediate emergence of his cult, and countless street demonstrations and clashes with the police as well as large industrial strikes in 1988. Not everybody, of course, participated in this ongoing, political and symbolic confrontation with the regime, and not everybody accepted the polar vision of the conflict. In fact, the actual numbers of those who supported Solidarity kept declining throughout the 1980's and rebounded only after Solidarity's spectacular electoral victory in 1989.¹² Yet the perception of the hegemonic conflict between "us" and "them" continued to be the most characteristic feature of Polish popular political culture. Jasiewicz and Adamski summarized a longitudinal study of Polish attitudes in the following fashion: "Spontaneous answers show that in 1988 somewhat fewer respondents than in 1984 perceive the presence of conflict in Polish society, which is, however, perceived by almost half the respondents. The great majority of those who perceive conflict define it as between the authorities and society."¹³
It is therefore clear that during the waning years of state socialism in Poland (1976-1989), an extreme, bi-polar conceptualization of the public space ("we" versus "them") was formed and became a crucial weapon in the "society's" struggle against the unwanted regime. This bi-polar conceptualization ((di)vision) was not shared by everybody, yet it served as a mobilizing frame for the most active individuals and groups.

2.2. Solidarity: Dominant Relationship Between the Elite and Followers.

During that phase, Solidarity was highly unified and most followers felt that they were "well represented" by the underground structures; a sense of inclusion was clearly dominant in the movement. It is important to remember, however, that the numbers of followers were dwindling and the Solidarity activists had to resort to various symbolic strategies exaggerating the actual strength and the degree of unity of the movement.¹⁴

2.3. Party-State: Dominant Relationship Between the Elite and Followers.

During this phase, the party-state seems to have been strongly united behind its leader, General Wojciech Jaruzelski. The sense of inclusion among the party apparatus (nomenklatura) at various levels must have been high.¹⁵

2.4. Dominant Mode of Interaction Between the Main Adversaries.

The party-state and Solidarity were engaged in an intense, multi-level confrontation. As Solidarity developed massive underground structures and from time to time engaged the security forces in frequently violent confrontations, the state relied on repressive techniques. Due to the authoritarian political structure and the lack of contacts between both sides, the repertoire of political contestation was limited to street protests and infrequent strikes.

2.5. The Dominant Feature of This Phase Was the Symbolic Bi-Polarization of the Polity and Society.

2.6. Theoretical Points.

1. Under the conditions of strong symbolic polarization and a stable and "hostile" external political context, conflict becomes intractable. Yet:

2. Researchers should focus on the way the symbolic politics is being played (the contest of cultural hegemony versus counter-hegemony) and try to identify possible openings for a dialogue. In this case, the "exhaustion" of the existing system's potential for economic growth was becoming increasingly clear to certain "reformers" within the ruling elite.¹⁶ At the same time, some Solidarity activists were realizing that eventual dialogue and compromise was inevitable; other strategies (such as violent confrontation and overthrow) were increasingly untenable.¹⁷

3. Kriesberg's brief article on the transition from intractable to tractable conflicts is very useful. His description of the tractable conflict fits perfectly the Pre-redress and Redress phases of the Polish conflict: "The minimal benchmarks of tractable conflicts include the following three features. First, the adversary parties recognize considerable mutual interests and shared identity, and not only incompatible interests of distinct, exclusive identities. Second, significant members of each adversary side acknowledge minimal rights of the other and the propriety of the other's claims. Third, the adversaries agree to rely on nonviolent means of pursuing their conflict and procedures to settle specific issues in contention between them."¹⁸

3. Pre-Redress Phase

This phase began with the full amnesty ordered on September 11, 1986. According to several interviewees, this was a truly significant breakthrough point. It signaled the regimes' readiness to switch from confrontation to dialogue with the opposition.¹⁹ What factors caused this change? A minimal list should include the following:

1. External political factors: A change in the political opportunity structure (POS) and its framing, caused by Gorbachev's reforms in the Soviet Union.²⁰

2. Internal political and economic factors: an increasingly acute political stalemate between Solidarity and the party-state. The May and August 1988 strikes demonstrated Solidarity's staying power (however weakened). Equally importantly, during the second half of the decade some key members of the ruling elite came to the conclusion that state socialism reached a state of systemic "exhaustion," particularly in the domain of economy.²¹

During this phase the cultural/symbolic maneuvers are particularly important, for many actors are beginning to reconsider their own and their enemies' identities. A gradual process of dismantling prior stereotypes begins. In Poland, this phase was still dominated by symbolic bi-polarization (Solidarity versus the communists), and the symbolic unity of Solidarity was perceived by its key activists as a necessary pre-condition of eventual success. Michnik noted: "I thought that the only method to dismantle communism is a strong social identity, and this was provided by Solidarity and Wałęsa."²² Yet, a slow reconceptualization of the socio-political map was beginning. In that process some "enemies" were re-defined as "adversaries one can talk to" and a search for a common platform was initiated. Kaczyński noted the paradoxical nature of this phase: "there existed certain confusion between treating communists as enemies and the necessity of eventual negotiations with them."²³ Geremek succinctly summarized the whole problem as a difficulty of moving from "an ethos of the struggle and hostility to an ethos of civilized political game."²⁴
Undoubtedly, this gradual rapprochement was triggered by the real and perceived changes in the political opportunity structure, noted above. But, while some members of both elites began drifting toward a dialogue, others cultivated their unwavering hostility toward the other side. Which factors help to explain this increasing divergence in political behavior, predicated, it seems, on an ability to learn new cultural scenarios?
People's ability to engage in such "strategic learning" varies.²⁵ Most, if not all, participants of the RT process demonstrated some flexibility and readiness for such learning. A minimal motivation to enter negotiations came from a conviction that there were no other viable alternatives.²⁶ But there existed other mechanisms as well. While reading through the interview transcripts and various statements, I identified three such mechanisms:

1. "Dialogic" personalities. Michnik described in detail how his personal background ("a communist family") predisposed him to see in communists human beings. Additionally, he was able to see a difference between the communist doctrine (that he was always ready to fight) and communist functionaries, fellow human beings capable of errors and change, and potential partners for a dialogue.

2. Philosophical affinities. Some RT participants emphasized philosophical affinity with some members of the "other side." This affinity was based on subscribing to loosely understood tenets of left-leaning liberalism.²⁷ Adherents of this philosophical creed could be found among the younger members of the "communist camp."²⁸ This observation underscores the significance of the generational change.

3. Cultural commonalities. I was able to detect three:
   • "Polishness" (Rakowski, Reykowski). According to Reykowski, during one of the critical political debates someone observed: "What's wrong with Solidarity taking over power? They are also Poles."²⁹ Gebert writes: "...In Poland (by contrast to Yugoslavia-JK) we could throw out to the communist side the idea that we were all Poles together. Whatever the political differences, we are all good Poles, good patriots, we all love our country";³⁰

   • Activists of both sides sometimes stressed the "common sense" and "pragmatism" of their interlocutors (e.g., Reykowski on Michnik, Staniszewska on Kwaśniewski);³¹

   • A decisive predilection for "bloodless" cultural scenarios, shared by both sides. This predilection comes from a specific interpretation of (common) Polish history, which suggests a singularly important lesson: no more blood.³²

A gradual shift from confrontation to dialogue engendered a process of polarization (or diversification) within the Solidarity elites.³³ A group of influential activists emerged, who interpreted rapprochement with communists as "treason." According to them, communists were preparing "another trick."³⁴ Nonetheless, Wałęsa and his closest advisers at that time were increasingly convinced that there was only one way out of the deepening crisis: negotiations.³⁵

3.3. Party-state: Dominant relationship between the elite and followers.

A parallel process of fragmentation (or polarization) began among the ruling elite.³⁶ A secret poll conducted in November 1988 among over one hundred regional party secretaries revealed that eighty-five percent of them were against "transcending the fundamental features of the system."³⁷ That meant a decisive rejection of any rapprochement with Solidarity. Stelmachowski reports that after the announcement of the Wałęsa-Kiszczak meeting on August 31, 1988, thirty-two regional (voivodship) party secretaries sent to the Central Committee memoranda expressing their protest against such a meeting. According to Stelmachowski, one of them argued: "For seven years the government argued that Wałęsa is stupid, and now it decides to talk to him. Hence our question: did he become wiser or the government stupider?"³⁸ The most famous phrase, summarizing the attitude of many party members toward the new approach to Solidarity, was coined by Stanisław Ciosek. As he put it: "The Party howled."
In brief, the decision to establish initial contacts with Solidarity triggered the increasing polarization within the party-state elite. The "pro-Solidarity" part of this elite began drifting away from those members of the nomenklatura who felt threatened by the emerging possibility of the regime modification or, even, change.³⁹ In an attempt to alleviate this budding polarization, the party "reformers" had to devise a series of propaganda moves that would produce a modicum of reassurance for the disgruntled apparatchiks. The political significance of communication between the elite and its "base" increased dramatically. In fact, both elites had to play a double communicative game. They had to interact with their opponents, the "other" elite, according to the unclear rules of a complex game of signals, overtures and tactical withdrawals. At the same time they had to talk to their own "base." Signals sent through these channels often had to be quite different. An excellent example is provided by Dubiński.⁴⁰ On August 31, Polish Press Agency (PAP) announced that General Kiszczak met with Lech Wałęsa. It was an event of enormous significance. This official reference to Wałęsa, previously referred to by the regime's spokesman as a private person of no consequence, represented yet another manifestation of Solidarity's re-entry into the public domain. In an effort to dilute the significance of this event, PAP issued on the same day two other communiqués, informing the public of Kiszczak's other meetings. The signal to the "base" seems to have been clear: no big deal with this Wałęsa, Kiszczak is just meeting a lot of people from various organizations.

3.4. The dominant mode of interaction between the main adversaries.

The tenor of the interaction began to change from confrontation to dialogue. The change was occurring simultaneously in several dimensions.
First, both sides, but particularly Solidarity, had to re-establish their "credentials": to signal their presence as a "serious" force and demonstrate their unity. Prior to January 1989, no polls were allowed to measure Solidarity's support, but in the assessment of many Polish sociologists this support was systematically dwindling since 1980.⁴¹ The re-invigoration of Solidarity's public standing was, therefore, no small matter. An occasion to do so presented itself when Miodowicz, the head of the pre-regime labor union federation (OPZZ), challenged Wałęsa to debate him in "a TV duel." Despite tremendous fears and reservations (in itself indicating an acute understanding of the "public relations" aspect of political struggle), Wałęsa, prepared by Andrzej Wajda and other media experts, accepted the challenge and, subsequently, "creamed" Miodowicz (as Michnik put it in an interview).⁴² This was a symbolic breakthrough: Wałęsa not only proved that Solidarity was still alive but he also demonstrated that he and the movement were a serious, credible and relatively powerful force on the public scene. As Paczkowski reports, support for Solidarity's legalization went up from forty-two percent in August 1988 to sixty-two percent a day after the debate.⁴³ In general, as several participants confirmed, the game of mutual perceptions, through which both sides were attempting to test their relative weaknesses and strengths, was very important at this stage.⁴⁴
Second, as both sides were staking out symbolically their positions vis-a-vis each other, they also had to begin building preliminary bridges of communication. At this stage, the choice of a proper idiom was very important. The language and cultural imagery that framed the situation and the identities of both sides had to be carefully chosen. As Stelmachowski observed: "You may think this is amusing, but I had to use their language, because otherwise nothing would have happened as far these negotiations are concerned."⁴⁵
Third, if communication was to happen at all, appropriate spaces for preliminary contacts had to be established. To describe those spaces Kaczyński used the metaphor of "locks." They were initially provided by (a) private apartments, (b) Church spaces and (c) state-sponsored seminars or consultative bodies. Later, the (in)famous villa Magdalenka became the main "lock" between both sides.⁴⁶
Fourth, the process from the beginning was facilitated by the constant presence of the mediator: the Roman Catholic Church, enjoying at that time enormous and unchallenged authority in the society.

3.5. The main features of this phase:

1. Mutual adjustment of identities and strategies;

2. Gradualism (incremantalism): the move from confrontation to dialogue is gradual and "dialogic" from the beginning;

3. The cultural/symbolic side of this process is of primary significance. Symbols, images and rhetorical figures, are used concurrently to (a) sharpen the relative position of both adversaries and (b) build discursive bridges between them.⁴⁷

1. After a change within the "objective" context opens a possibility of moving the conflict from its intractable phase to tractability, the actors themselves must take initiative and introduce preliminary steps on the road to compromise. Cultural/symbolic scenarios, that shape identities, strategies, and mutual perceptions, are of critical importance at this stage. In brief, this stage is dominated by cultural politics.

2. The signs of possible rapprochement must come from the centers of power (the Jaruzelski and Wałęsa circles) to be credible.

4. The Redress Phase: the Round Table negotiations and their immediate aftermath.

This phase reveals crucial structural contradictions underpinning a social change via elite negotiations: on the one hand, the negotiating game, by necessity, calls for exclusion of the majority of a given camp. To be effective, negotiating teams must be relatively small. On the other hand, the "size" of each elite's constituency ("base") or the "depth" of its support is a very powerful bargaining chip. Each elite, therefore, tends to cultivate such support or, at least, invest a lot of resources in creating and upholding an image of its "massive base." As Kuroń, one of the Solidarity leaders, told Castle: "We threatened each other with our bases."⁴⁸ Thus, the logistical demand for exclusion, must be constantly counterbalanced by some form (purely symbolic, at least) of inclusion (of the base). Moreover, if the whole process is to gain a wider legitimacy, at the end of the negotiations, the logic of inclusion must take precedence over the logic of exclusion; a mechanism must be found to re-incorporate the "society" into the process of change. This can be achieved through a skillful ritualization. In brief, the resolution of this tension between exclusion and inclusion determines the final outcome of a social drama and the way its legacy is going to shape further developments.
It seems that this basic dynamic interplay of exclusion and inclusion determines other features of the redress phase in a social drama played according to a scenario of negotiations.

4.1. The dominant symbolic vision(s) of the polity.

The dominant vision of the polity in this phase was still bi-polar, but a picture of the "untouchable" enemy was being slowly replaced by a vision of an adversary-as-a-negotiating partner. Negotiations are impossible without a symbolic platform of commonality. To create such a platform, several principal actors engaged in discursive actions aimed at discharging potentially explosive historical memories. Reykowski said:

1. The party elite as an open-minded, compromise-prone partner.

2. The party elite as a "real politic," pragmatic strategist.

3. The party elite as a trustworthy member of the communist bloc.

4.2. The dominant relationship between the elite and followers in Solidarity.

Since during this phase the number of actors directly involved in the political process is limited, the politics of exclusion (who gets in, who is left out, who makes such decisions) takes on a tremendous significance. The main reason for this may be what is bound to happen next: during the post-redress period, the exclusionary politics of the redress phase becomes the subject of an intense symbolic war of interpretations.
Some Solidarity politicians seem to have realized this significance early on and invested a lot of energy in communicating with their base. "The Round Table talks were not only talks between the representatives of the opposition and the representatives of the authorities. They were also our talks with society," observed Piotr Nowina-Konopka, a Solidarity spokesman.⁵⁴ After the inaugural meeting of the RT, Wałęsa toured several major industrial centers and met with potential supporters at rallies.⁵⁵ As most observers indicate, these propagandistic efforts of Solidarity leaders were extremely important, for the size of the base was very unclear and seems to have been weak. There exists, however, evidence indicating that as the negotiations were progressing the support for Solidarity increased.

4.3. The party-state: the dominant relationship between the elite and followers.

The split within the party cadres widened.⁵⁶ But generals Jaruzelski and Kiszczak were firmly in control of the basic apparatuses of power, such as the army and the police.⁵⁷ Their authority and support for their policies within the communist party was less clear, though. Castle reports that "fifty to seventy percent of its members supported the liberalization policies,"⁵⁸ but within the nomenklatura this support was weaker. As Castle reports: "In January 1989, Politburo member Stanisław Ciosek estimated that a majority of the apparatchiks opposed liberalization."⁵⁹ What held the party together was the tremendous authority of Jaruzelski and a sense of non-alternativity. Significantly, of course, Jaruzelski had Gorbachev's backing.

4.4. The dominant mode of interaction between the main adversaries.

At this stage, interactions between the members of both elites generate intense strategic learning. Collective stereotypes give way to individualized pictures of actual persons; previously demonized personages reveal their human dimension.⁶⁰ Jaruzelski, for example, began perceiving Michnik as a "tactical dove but strategic hawk." It is intriguing, however, that this process was more often mentioned by the representatives of the party-state than by the representatives of Solidarity.⁶¹ This may indicate that the gap between the propagandistic picture and "reality" was much more pronounced within the communist camp than among the Solidarity activists.

4.5. The main feature of this phase.

A tension between the logic of exclusion (underpinning negotiations) and the logic of inclusion lying at the heart of each elite's successful relationship with their respective bases.

4.6. Main theoretical points learned from this phase.

1. The logic of the negotiating process calls for direct interactions between a small number of participants. As a result, many members of the elite are excluded from the process. At the same time, a danger of symbolic exclusion of the followers increases. Success of the negotiations within the closed circle must be "sold" to wider audiences; a mechanism of (symbolic) inclusion must be implemented.

2. Strategy of incremental gains seems to be superior to any maximalist position.

5. The Round Table's Double Political Afterlife: Schism and Reconciliation.

6. Summary of conclusions (see also Table 2).

1. An analysis of the cultural dimension of the negotiated social change should focus, at minimum, on four political actors (incumbent elite, incumbent followers, challenging elite, challenging followers) and three relationships: between both elites and between

   each elite and its base. The negotiating game is played concurrently along the lines of all three relationships.

2. The negotiating game, by necessity, calls for exclusion (to be effective, negotiating teams must be relatively small). The politics of exclusion (who gets in, who is left out, who makes such decisions) is crucial, but what is particularly important is whether the negotiations end with a (symbolic, ritualized) inclusion of a wider public (followers) to the political process or not. The politics of the post-negotiation period are to a large degree determined by the manner in which this issue is resolved.

3. The negotiated social (regime) change is underpinned by an incessant dialectic between polarization/confrontation and compromise/dialogue. Cultural strategies of polarization/confrontation are used by the negotiating elites to (1) maintain their separate identities and (2) to forge ties with their followers. Cultural strategies of compromise/dialogue are necessary to keep the negotiations with the adversarial elite going.

4. The negotiated social change is ridden, therefore, by two tensions: (1) between exclusion and inclusion and (2) between polarization/confrontation and compromise/dialogue.

5. Gradualism (or incremantalism) seems to be a mechanism that allows actors to move forward and navigate between both the polar opposites of both logics without abandoning either of them.

6. In order to facilitate negotiations, rhetoric and symbolism, containing the cultural scenarios employed by both elites, should evolve gradually (strategic learning). A dramatic change is bound to produce accusations of "treason."

7. Wagner-Pacifici noted that "Turner, progressively, thought of dramas in four (not necessarily exclusive) ways: (1) social dramas as revelatory of the ongoing but normally indistinct social structures and relations, (2) social dramas as functional (attempted) remedies for societies in crisis, (3) social dramas as self-reflective moments for societies in crisis, and (4) social dramas as potentially liminal moments of social transformation."⁷⁰ This fourfold conceptualization of the social drama helps to summarize the significance of the Polish Round Table.

   First, the RT process revealed the depth of the schism between Solidarity and the party-state and the nature of the relationship between both elites and their respective bases. Second, RT negotiations did remedy the crisis, ushered in a peaceful regime change, and set Poland on a very successful political trajectory.⁷¹ Third, it is clear that the successful completion of the RT negotiations was made possible by the fact that both elites engaged in the re-conceptualization of their own identities and developed new strategies of interaction (strategic learning). This indicates serious self-reflection. Fourth, it is easy to notice that the RT process was indeed liminal: the rules of the game according to which it was played had little to do with either the rules of the outgoing authoritarian regime or with the rules of the incoming modern democracy.

Next Dancing on the Mine-Field

U-M Center for Russian and Eastern European Studies
1080 South University Avenue, Suite 4668
Ann Arbor MI 48109-1106
Telephone 734/764-0351; Fax 734/763-4765
E-mail crees@umich.edu

Copyright © 2000 The Regents of the University of Michigan