 |
Communism's Negotiated Collapse: The Polish Round Table, Ten Years Later
PANEL FOUR:
Aleksander Hall
Former teacher and founder of the Young Poland Movement (1979), Aleksander Hall (b. 1953) participated in the Round Table negotiations as a representative of the opposition. In 1977, he received a degree in history from the University of Gdańsk and became a coordinator of the Movement for the Defense of Human and Civil Rights. A member of the Regional Coordinating Commission for Solidarity from 1980 to 1981, he spent the following three years in hiding. He resumed involvement in the Solidarity movement in 1988 and became a member of the Citizens' Committee. Hall was a government minister responsible for cooperation with political organizations and associations from 1989 to 1990. Co-founder of the Democratic Union, he served as its Co-chairman from 1991 to 1992 and as one of its Deputies in the Sejm from 1991 to 1993. Hall was leader of the Conservative Party from 1992 to 1997, when he co-founded the Peasant-Solidarity was certainly a polyphonic major national anticommunist movement that was also a labor movement in favor of civil society. In time, differences surfaced, sometimes quite substantial, among separate strands of that movement, but it was undoubtedly a major national movement that had its own ethos, the movement that has transformed Poland. Its mode of operation was indeed the rejection of violence, and in this rejection of violence, both ideological and pragmatic considerations played a role... Was it possible to engage in dialogue with the other side? I think that there certainly existed political communities in Poland which believed that it was not, for ideological reasons, simply because one just doesn't talk to the communist authorities. Let's be honest, however, those were marginal communities. Other groups claimed that it wasn't the right moment, or would claim that the side represented by Solidarity and Wałęsa was not fully representative for society and opposition at the time. But I think that a distinct majority of those who were active and involved in the opposition, groups and individuals, believed that it was worthwhile to opt for those talks, not because they trusted in the good intentions of the other side, but for other reasons... It was also clear that the system was stepping back, not because those in the leadership of the communist party were liberals or reformers, but it was in retreat because of its own weaknesses, because of the various forms of social resistance, and also, I would just say, under the influence of the reality... Since the Church and the underground Solidarity really demanded, insisted on resuming dialogue, so when the other side finally, under the influence of many factors, had matured to engage in this dialogue, or at least there was a chance that it had matured, it was necessary to take advantage of this opportunity. Taking advantage, of course, meant not having any illusions, or in other words, trying to preserve our own independence, our own identity, and under no circumstances legitimizing the status quo that would signal that a reformed People's Poland was the achievement of what we had been struggling for. Signing an accord that would legitimize the withdrawal of a prospect of democracy and independence for Poland was out of the question. But on this path towards democracy and independence, it was possible to make partial compromises that would bring us closer to that goal. And that appeared to be a decent compromise... We have to look at the Round Table by, on the one hand, rejecting the sort of black legend that depicts the Round Table as a betrayal. Because that would be a very strange betrayal that pushes Poland's affairs strongly ahead. But we also have to reject the other legend which produces the myth where both sides, Solidarity and the government, are being presented as equally worried, equally concerned with the need for transforming Poland. And under that myth both sides are given equal credit for having brought about democracy in Poland. I have no doubt that such was the intention of Solidarity, but that was not the intention of the communist authorities of the People's Poland... I had a very distinct feeling that it was very important for the society to emphasize very clearly that two opposite visions of Poland meet, that they also represent different moral stands, and that our delegation approaches this table to reach a certain goal, a goal that would place Poland closer to independence and democracy, and that, to the enemies, because there was absolutely no doubt that these were our enemies, that we need to show them, well, some attitude I would say, an attitude of human respect. Yet, at the same time, we cannot create an impression that these fundamental differences have been blurred and that martial law, with its victims, and the whole balance sheet of the Polish People's Republic have been forgotten... Of course, the Round Table did not represent the entire opposition, realistic opposition I mean, since there were also groups which generally opposed any direction towards negotiations. Why did that happen? It was not...because of the decision of the government, but it was the decision of Mr. Lech Wałęsa and his advisors, since they were the ones who created the group that participated in the Round Table negotiations. And I think it was not good that important circles and important people were not participating in those negotiations.
Adam Michnik
...During the Round Table negotiations and, actually, at one of the sub-committees, where the most controversial issues were being discussed, a very significant dialogue took place between a representative of the government and a representative of the Church. Namely, the representative of the government, Mr. Stanisław Ciosek, in an attempt to explain to us how important it was, said: "Well, I have a dog and his name is Pikuś. And Pikuś is sick, and my sick Pikuś needs medication, and this Pikuś is Poland, and I know that this medication for Pikuś is democracy, but if we inject too much of this medication into my dog Pikuś, then instead of getting better, he will just kick the bucket." So then the Church representative, Father Orszulik, says: "Well, Mr. Secretary, but your Pikuś gets into convulsions just by looking at the syringe." So in that little anecdote, we can see both the heat and the essence of the discussion but we can also see something that...Communists, and those who accepted the communist government for their own benefit, are a component of the Polish nation, which cannot be excluded from Poland, unless one wants to destroy the Polish national community. And this is what I learned at the Round Table... I have a feeling that at the Round Table, we, as a nation and a society, have managed to leave communism behind in two ways. First, the whole model of a single party dictatorship, supported by censorship, police violence, subordination to Moscow, and ideology, has been broken down and sort of thrown away into the dumping ground of history. But second of all, we have rejected bolshevism also by accepting the fact that our society is pluralistic, with many different interests, different ideas, different forces, and different value systems. And only in those areas where we are able to reach agreement are we capable of defending the interests of our state... This was an essential conflict, and in this conflict, both sides had good arguments and I don't deny moral points to my adversaries, because in their conviction, they were defending the most important thing for Poland. All I am expecting is reciprocity. I want it to be admitted that defending Solidarity's position so strongly, I was, in my conviction, defending the most important thing for Poland.
Janusz Reykowski
Professor of Psychology at the University of Warsaw since 1972, Janusz Reykowski (b. 1929) participated in the Round Table talks as a negotiator for the government. He was a member of the Polish United Workers' Party from 1949 to 1990 and served on its Central Committee and Politburo from 1988 to 1990. Reykowski earned his master's (1954) and doctoral (1959) degrees from the University of Warsaw. Since 1980, he has directed various psychological institutions, including the Psychology Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Reykowski has been Editor-I must say that when Professor Michael Kennedy approached me, asking me to participate in this panel, concerning the ethical problems, I felt uneasy. I felt uneasy because I thought that that would lead to an ethical argument with people who, defending their own values and convictions, suffered a huge sacrifice, personal sacrifice. And their ethical attitude, their sacrifice, makes them look like saints. And you can hardly argue with a saint. So, I hesitated, whether or not to take up this discussion. But, eventually, I thought that my respect of the moral attitude of those people and their struggle for a democratic Poland, which they may rightly consider won, should not prevent me from participation but it actually obliges me to present the moral arguments shared by those who saw the situation from a different perspective...
On one hand, there is a set of values Solidarity is struggling for, values such as civil society, national sovereignty, civil rights guarantees. On the other hand, though, there are values represented by the government. Well, it was, above all else, defending that minimal, limited sovereignty which they were able to keep and enlarge. For the West and also for many members of the Polish community abroad who were looking at the socialist camp from a distance, everything looked all the same, but to many Poles living in Poland, the difference between our situation and the situation in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, or Romania, was tremendous. Defending, protecting this, we believed, was a very important value for the society. Another issue that we also considered a value was our fear that...
One aspect of the Solidarity movement was mobilization of the society around the idea of peaceful transformation toward democracy. Another aspect was an explosion of aggressive populism, escalating demands, and traditional Polish nationalism and intolerance. Both elements might be discerned within the Solidarity movement. All that caused us to think that the moral situation was not as obvious as presented by activists on both sides...
We were...convinced that the natural logic of a destructive conflict causes severing of any ties between the struggling sides, causes a growing tendency to demonize the enemy, and invariably results in physical confrontation. This is that tragic logic that moves the sides involved in the Balkan conflict and all others involved in conflicts where blood is shed. And we wanted to counter that kind of logic, so we wanted, at all costs, to try to avoid leading those two separate camps to a precipice. That kind of thinking is often criticized as trying to enter into agreements with the devil. This accusation is put forward not only against those who were collaborating with the regime this way or another, or those, like myself, who agreed to represent one them, but also against the Solidarity participants of the Round Table negotiations. The latter ones, while defending themselves, say that it's worth negotiating with the devil if it ultimately spreads the good and the peaceful transformation that has led to freedom and democracy...
I do not think that people who at that time were in charge of Poland deserved being called devils. First of all, they also acted on behalf of certain values, which are important to the Poles, even though one must admit that those values were defective and limited. ...They do not deserve to be called that because they undertook some efforts to limit or to eradicate certain evils which the regime generated. These efforts were limited by the limited vision of those who were in charge at that time, but they were a permanent element of governing the country. Finally, they don't deserve to be called that because they voluntarily undertook actions geared towards fundamental transformation of the system when they fully realized that it's economically unviable and politically unfit for the needs and the aspirations of Polish society...
On the one hand, there was a real conflict, discussion, struggle, argument. There were dangerous and dramatic moments. But above all that, there was a conviction that we share a common goal. And that common goal was starting such reforms, which will enable Poland to pass safely and peacefully to another way of functioning...
On the day the Polish communist party was being dissolved, a young man approached me, reached out his hand and, with a grimace of rage on his face, said, "Well, thank you very much for destroying the party..."
I always had a feeling that...
I look with sadness upon those people who, while they contributed a lot to those negotiations, find themselves attacked unjustly, I think, and that I haven't done anything to maybe even partially protect those people from those attacks. One could say, well, this is the justice of history: when they were in power, they hurt their enemies more than the enemies are hurting them now. But I think that the reason we were trying to change this world, this political world, was to prevent it from becoming a sequence of mutually performed harms, even when some are smaller than others.
Copyright © 2000 The Regents of the University of Michigan
|
