Established 1999

YESTERDAY AND TODAY

27 grudzień 2007

New times, old solutions

From the beginning to the end, I would like to be considered as Lech Wałęsa with all my mistakes, activities, programs as well as issues that I’ve fought for. If we look at the program that I implemented then I never lost. I did lose, however, as Lech Wałęsa – a revolutionary, a man who doesn’t bend, kneel or ask of anyone, who says how it is supposed to be and that’s it. Therefore I lost, not in terms of what I represent, but in relation to my defiant behavior. The sooner relations between Warsaw and Moscow are put in order the better. At that point Washington won`t be necessary. Our basic business will be conducted in the future with our closest neighbors because that`s what will pay off.


LECH WAŁĘSA



the historical leader of Solidarity,


Nobel Prize winner


and former president


of the Republic of Poland,



talks to Damian A. Zaczek



Mr. President, the Christian Democratic Party of the Third Republic doesn’t exist and you were unsuccessful in returning to political power in the previous presidential elections. Are you a retired politician?


From the beginning to the end, I would like to be considered as Lech Wałęsa with all my mistakes, activities, programs as well as issues that I’ve fought for. If we look at the program that I implemented then I never lost. I did lose, however, as Lech Wałęsa – a revolutionary, a man who doesn’t bend, kneel or ask of anyone, who says how it is supposed to be and that’s it. Therefore I lost, not in terms of what I represent, but in relation to my defiant behavior. Consider, for example, my one percent results in the presidential elections of 2000. What was I talking about? That from the political right a candidate should emerge, that Solidarity leader Marian Krzaklewski shouldn’t have run in the elections because he didn’t have a chance and threatened the Solidarity symbol. I’m not saying that Krzaklewski was worse than the other candidates. I’m saying that someone had to foot the bill for economic and political reforms and that person was Krzaklewski. That’s why I announced my candidacy first. I was counting the whole time that I would be able to flush out one candidate, that we would have pre-elections and that the Catholic Church would join our fight. Only the final point was accomplished because at the last minute Fr. Tadeusz Rydzyk from Radio Maryja got involved. A few of the last meetings were held at his place. I said then: Gentlemen, will each of you sitting here move aside for the one we choose? I, Lech Wałęsa, will move aside for each of you and I would ask each of you for the same declaration. There was no unanimity. At that point I said: in that case we will all lose. I proposed Jan Olszewski’s candidacy but Krzaklewski didn’t agree. Was I right when I proposed one candidate? I made a proposition which was essential in order to conduct an effective campaign.



What kind of Poland do you see today?


Not the one that I tried to build. My vision of Poland assumed the construction of a new ruling monopoly, until the time of victory, in order to replace the communist monopoly. Our new monopoly should then have been rapidly transformed into democratic pluralism and divided. After a period of divisions there was supposed to be another strategic unification: right with the right, left with the left, trade unions with other unions, and parties with parties. It was during this third period that I made a mistake. Either I activated the process too soon or too late, or perhaps it should never have been initiated. My character didn’t help – I was revolutionary, coarse, dogged, stubborn and self-sufficient.



Let’s be precise: Is this the Poland you fought for?


No. I have to confess that the direction is good: we have a democracy and pluralism. We are entering the European Union. However, the methods of political practice are too winding. I proposed a presidential system and government with the help of decrees. People were afraid of decrees but all of mine were supposed to pass through parliament. Parliament had 48 hours to either accept or reject them. If parliament vetoed a decree the next 48 hours were to be spent in the creation of a better solution. I wanted to keep up with the thieves, frauds and new, previously unknown, problems. That’s why I proposed another presidential system, another way of conducting privatization, another relationship to the West, a Marshall Plan for a new generation. Along the way I proposed NATO2 and EU2. The nation opted for another system. This is how I lost. Today, we do not have the Poland that I would have built. I had a chance but I needed the consent of the people to realize it. The nation chose other solutions and I don’t hold it against them. In the same way, the nation shouldn’t hold a grudge against me because I didn’t cause the current situation. Our nation didn’t give me a chance to realize my vision so I have been absolved of responsibility for today’s Poland, which is not the same one I fought for.



How do you evaluate the morals of today’s politicians?


This is a complicated issue. Politics today consists, first and foremost, of social and economic programs. During communist times Poland was economically dependent exclusively on the Soviet Union. In the 21st century, because of globalization, our situation depends on events around the world. With the economy you can’t just come up with a lot of new solutions, so the political struggle turns into a personal attack. Politicians fight between themselves and attack programs but they don’t have anything new to offer besides the programs that have already been announced. In the end every politician can lose because today it is impossible to solve the economic problems which have appeared in Poland.



During the referendum you voted for Poland’s accession to the EU. Are you pleased that Poland will join its structures?


Poland’s entry into the Union pleases me – that’s what I fought for. However, as a pragmatist I see many dangers. In Poland we are still in the “earth” period and we have many need: food, sleep and clothing. This epoch finished for many countries with the start of the 21st century. We have to understand this momentous fact. Around the world a technological revolution has taken place. We have satellites, the internet, international environmental problems and a thousand other, previously unknown, problems. I believe that Poland has not yet matured enough to handle this technological growth or the range of new threats. Despite this we have to keep up with the world. There is much to do. We have to deal with global problems: information flows, ecology, the spread of various dangers. Today there are no self-sufficient states – each one is forced to cooperate and specialize in particular fields. A solid division of the work will decide who goes forward and who remains behind. In order to deal with these demands we have to enlarge structures and expand the appropriate institutions. That is how I understand the expansion of Europe and I was able to introduce this idea with great benefit for Poland. Unfortunately, my successors didn’t have the right arguments during negotiation and that’s why Poland will suffer many costs of expansion. The mistakes made during negotiations will cost us. That is what I don’t like.



Do you believe that Poles stand out among European nations?


No. We should remember that after WWII we lived a difficult existence between the Soviet Union and Germany. During communism this was a disastrous geographic location. Those conditions created certain social traits in Poland, first and foremost anti-state tendencies and dislike for honest, effective work. Forty-five years of betrayal, deceit and intrigue on the part of communist authorities led to a lack of trust in government and politics within society. After one or two generations we will match European societies.



Which Polish traits or values may be of interest for Western Europeans?


We might gain recognition for our respect for democratic principles and for freedom of the individual first and foremost or, moreover, for our ability to cooperate in a group. The principles of group solidarity and conduct in accordance with a conscience are others. We believe in the modern individual making decisions according to his or her own conscience in every situation.


In Poland we have a dilemma, torn between the United States and European Union. We like the efficiency of the USA although some of Washington’s activities do not have, for example, the legitimacy of the UN.



Do the current 15 states of the EU have anything to fear from Poland?


Absolutely not. We do not pose a threat to anyone. Our problem, however, is only a development gap in comparison with the EU. We have to achieve balance as fast as possible and even out these differences. One task for Europe is to plan sensible growth. We have to plan a division of labor effectively without playing the role of an understudy, but by sharing opinions and supplementing agricultural and industrial production. We must say clearly: the-dog-eat-dog age, when might made right, is over. In the new age every person needs his fellow man. In Europe we must be solid. That should be the motto of our lives.



Do you dislike anything about the current EU?


I don’t like the fact that the Union still operates on the basis of laws from the previous age. We have a new information age, ruled by old politicians who still introduce outdated solutions. In the new Union everyone’s interest should count and not just those of particular countries such as Germany, France or Poland. We don’t understand the challenges of the times in which we live. Poles cannot be late to enter the new age because we will pay a high price. In the new age we have to anticipate threats, have ideas and play for tomorrow and not for yesterday. I see chances for development in understanding needs and danger in a lack of solutions.



If it were up to you, how would you bring Poland into the EU?


First the West would have to pay for the Second World War and communism. That payment would be in the form of debt write-offs. I would say that the communists borrowed money from the West and since they don’t exist anymore and Poland is a free country then those debts should be erased too. We would need to make a new start. I would tell the West that it should lend me money for modern production and new workplaces. As our growth allows, I would pay off the new and old debts but only on the condition of honest and equal cooperation. In Japan I said: please sirs, you lent the communists money and with that money they bought clubs and beat me. It is true that the money was borrowed by Poland and our country must take on the commitments of the PRL. In order to have peace, I will pay off those debts but only half. Moreover, you have to lend me more so we can stand on our feet. If you won’t lend any more money then I won’t pay back a cent of those old debts. So you can choose: nothing or half. Everyone said they preferred half. That was before 1989 when, as the leader of Solidarity, I met with presidents, prime ministers and kings. They didn’t believe that I could win using peaceful methods. I convinced them with my common sense philosophy and with my example and not one from a book. However, they held to theoretical rules. History has shown that I was right. I would negotiate similarly with the West, firmly and with arguments from history.



How do you evaluate Polish involvement in world politics on the side of the USA and, first and foremost, in favor of their interests? Does Poland have common, global interests with the USA?


In an age of information, technology and the internet we have to find a balance between where we can benefit from cooperation with the USA and where we can lose or are taking too many risks. We have to remember, however, that the most important matters can be worked out with our nearest neighbors. It is closer to Moscow than to Washington.



We often forget about our largest neighbor to the East – Russia. What should Poland’s policy towards Moscow be?


We haven’t forgotten about Russia, but we don’t try to understand our changed and newly positioned relations. In Poland we have a big mess and in Russia is an even greater mess. It’s hard for two messy situations to cooperate. It is easier to learn from well-organized states and, with their help, get involved in other markets. Therefore we work together with Washington in cooperating with Moscow. The sooner relations between Warsaw and Moscow are put in order the better. At that point Washington won’t be necessary. Our basic business will be conducted in the future with our closest neighbors because that’s what will pay off.



So how should Poland behave towards Russia?


In the same way as the rest of the world. Let’s remember that there is enormous potential in Russia, the largest natural resources and many intelligent people. The only question is how to direct Poland to cooperate with Russia? One thing is obvious. Instead of competing and destroying each other we have to effectively cooperate. Conflict in the new age doesn’t pay off. Russia knows this too.



Does the SLD-UP* government have a plan for an Eastern foreign policy?


No. The Miller government doesn’t have this kind of policy. This government hasn’t been cured of communism yet. They might be able to rule efficiently but only with the help of threats, terror and murder to get everyone’s attention. In a democracy they can’t rule because society is familiar with democratic mechanisms and is able to control them. People in the current government are damaged by the communist system but they don’t understand this and are unable to change it. This orientation must leave completely. Of course, there will be a left-wing in Poland, maybe even in the ruling government, but it should be a left-wing of the 21st century and not one burdened by communism. The truth is that any government would have a hard time because the range and extent of these problems is enormous.



Who will rule Poland after next year’s parliamentary elections?


I would like there to be more parties represented in the parliament. In order for this to happen we would have to lower the election threshold from five to 3 percent. I believe that 50 percent of the nation should be represented in the legislature. Someone could say that this kind of fragmentation will hinder the work of parliament. It won’t if we change Sejm and Senate procedures appropriately.



Mr. President, what else would you like to do for Poland?


That’s a good question. Now we have a problem and that’s why Poland has already been “exploited.” All of the processes went too far. I am still available but the majority of my earlier ideas cannot be implemented now. The current situation is such that the nation cannot endure the pace of changes and has started to protest. I foresee that the current year, one in which Poland will enter the EU, will be the most difficult. We won’t be able to develop with EU money and it may turn out that we pay in more than we receive. If it comes to social unrest, I will have to do something. If, however, the situation is peaceful, then I will remain in retirement.



Thank you for your time.



* The government of Leszek Miller (SLD-UP) tendered its resignation May 2.


DECISION MAKER no 1, May 2004

W wydaniu 1, May 2004 również

  1. CATHOLIC CHURCH

    Continuation and breakthrough
  2. FROM THE EDITOR

    Why?
  3. CORRESPONDENT`S ARCHIVE

    From Pius X to the "Passion"
  4. COMMENTARY

    Result
  5. IN POLAND

    Press review
  6. POETRY

    Wisława Szymborska
  7. BEFORE THE ELECTIONS

    Silent incompetents
  8. PEASANT`S OBSERVER

    About us without us
  9. CURRENT POLITICS

    Who with whom? *
  10. POLISH AGRICULTURE

    Hope and anxiety
  11. POLAND - EAST

    Our neighbours
  12. FOREIGNERS IN POLAND

    Welcome
  13. DIPLOMACY

    Common interests
  14. POLES IN GREAT BRITAIN

    Work ethos
  15. CONTEMPORARY ART

    Zdzisław Beksiński
  16. YESTERDAY AND TODAY

    New times, old solutions