Beyond the Transition

Trains, Stadiums and Automobiles

2012-03-04T13:21:00.001-08:00

Poland has suffered its worst train crash in over twenty years, after two trains were involved in a head-on collision in the south of Poland. Over 16 people were killed in the accident and another 57 lie injured in hospital.

The Polish media and political class have reacted as if to a national tragedy. PM Donald Tusk and three ministers were immediately on the scene. The news channels have been transmitting continual coverage of the incident, with newsreaders wearing black. Finally President Bronisław Komorowski has announced two days of national mourning.

This is of course primarily a tragedy for the people involved in the accident and the families of those who were killed and injured. However, there are a number of wider points that should be considered.

First of all, why do we react so strongly to a train accident, whilst accepting the far-greater number of people that are killed on the roads? This is probably due to the fact that train accidents are relatively rare and they therefore shock when they do occur. In contrast we accept the scores of people who are killed and injured in car accidents every weekend.

In 2011 there were around 39,400 car accidents in Poland in which 4,411 people were killed. This is 11% more than in 2010 and equals around 80 people every week, more than four times the number killed in this weekend's train crash. Over the previous few years the number of fatal accidents had been declining annually. The decision to raise the national speed limit most probably contributed to the rise in accidents last year. Despite the fact that around 213km of motorways were opened in 2011, the road network still remains grossly underdeveloped and overcrowded.

Despite this hypocrisy, there are serious questions to be asked as to how such a train accident could occur. Although the train system in Poland remains relatively safe, the number of accidents has increased in recent years. This is primarily due to the low level of investment in the system's infrastructure, with accidents only prevented due to trains having to run slowly in those areas where the infrastructure is in disrepair.

The disregarding of the Polish railway network has not only made it less safe and reliable but has dramatically reduced its size and density, pushing more and more people onto the roads. According to a Eurostat report:

'A particularly striking reduction in rail infrastructure was seen in Poland, where the railway density dropped from 84 km/1 000 km² in 1990 to 74 km/1 000 km² in 1998 and then to 65 km /1 000 km² in 2008. Data on regional rail infrastructure in Poland have been available since 1998. The most striking reductions between 1998 and 2008 were in Dolnoslaskie (down by 14 % to 88 km/1 000 km² in 2008), Lubelskie (down by 24 % to 43 km/1 000 km²), Warminsko-Mazurskie (down by 70 % to 50 km/1 000 km²) and Wielkopolskie (down by 46 % to 69 km/1 000 km²), compared with a decline of 13 % for Poland as a whole over the same period. Most of these regions had high-density networks in 1990. One exception is the Slaskie region, where the high-density rail network inherited has actually been significantly extended since 1998 (up by 16 % to 174 km/1 000 km² in 2008).'

Obviously the immediate cause of yesterday's accident is as yet unknown, despite some already claiming that it was due to 'human error'. Yet, this tragedy cannot be taken out of the context of the general decline and disinvestment in the Polish railways. This has immediately been recognised by those who work on them. The leader of the Solidarity railways' trade union , said:

The safety situation on the Polish railways is getting worse. The only thing that counts is money and not health or people's lives. As trade unionists we appealed for a change in this approach after previous accidents, but the situation did not change, which led to further tragedies.

Also the leader of the train-drivers trade union, Leszek Miętek, placed the general blame for the accident on the Polish railways' signal system.

In Poland we have a signal system that is practically 100 years old. The only difference is that it is now operated electronically rather than mechanically.

He goes on to note how this archaic system is reliant upon the train driver and that it does not sufficiently protect against errors caused by, for example, tiredness. In this situation a mistake made by a train driver or signal operator can have fatal consequences.

In less than 100 days Poland will host the EURO2012 football championships. On Wednesday, there was much self-congratulation and back-slapping after the first football match was successfully held in Warsaw's new stadium. Despite the huge effort in building such stadiums around the country, the government has almost entirely neglected its railway network. Yet it will be on Poland's railways and roads that supporters will be travelling between these new stadiums. More importantly, those living in Poland are reliant upon these networks every day – before, during and after EURO2012.

It is a scandal that during a period of large infrastructural development in Poland, the lives and safety of passengers has been almost entirely neglected.

Gas Fracking in Poland

2012-02-27T00:00:00.000-08:00

A video about gas fracking in Poland and the lobbying of the US government and companies. I haven't heard much about this before, but it is interesting. Make of it what you will.

Faking Left?

2012-02-23T05:33:00.005-08:00

For years the left in Poland was represented primarily by the SLD, whose left-wing credentials began and ended in its name. A kind of virtual political reality ruled, whereby a person's connection to the left was more due their own personal history than any real political conviction.

The SLD had become complacent in its role as the sole ambassador of the mainstream left. Other pretenders were swept aside and genuine left-wing activists marginalised to the sidelines or restricted to single-issue campaigns. Even after the SLD had led the left to a series of disastrous electoral defeats, no challenger to its leading status appeared. That is until the emergence of Janusz Palikot, and his modestly named Palikot Movement (RP) at the last elections.

Palikot and RP have usurped the SLD as the leading representative of the left, they lead their rival in the polls and they are openly declaring their ambition to unite the left at a congress on May 1^st.

The party (is it actually yet a party?) has made a name for itself through the media of 'political happenings'. Palikot announces that cannabis will be smoked in parliament in protest at the country's draconian drug laws, but then burns an incense stick instead (all too reminiscent of a teenager's bedroom). His party enters parliament claiming that it will remove the cross from the debating chamber, yet the cross still hangs. He drinks beer with the miners at galas and holds press conferences with those campaigning against eviction from their houses. Yet he openly supports the government's decision to raise the age of retirement.

What exactly is the Palikot movement? Who do they represent? What do they want? These questions circle around the conversations on the left in Poland unsure whether to embrace or react against this new phenomenon.

Palikot has already made his place in history. The simple fact that prominent feminists, gay activists and transsexuals are amongst their MPs has ensured that. This after all is no mean feat in a country like Poland (and not just Poland, when will the first transsexual MP make an appearance in the House of Commons?) However, this is a millionaire businessman who once edited an arch conservative and at times homophobic magazine. He is someone who rose through the ranks of PO as the arch supporter of liberal economic reform.

If Palikot is anything he is the establishment's rebel. He rallies against the state and claims to wish to set people free from its clutches. He represents the frustrated young professional, the struggling business owner, the unwilling self-employed. Cut bureaucracy, remove their tax burden and the creative and entrepreneurial will bloom.

However, there are two more aspects to Palikot's character – ambition and intelligence. He realises that a liberal party in Poland (and can anyone actually tell me when there was a true liberal party ever in Poland's history?) has a limited electoral appeal. He does not wish to simply be PO's precocious young sibling, he wants to rule the roost himself. So he looks left. He looks both to that part of the political scene that is under and poorly represented and he seeks to speak for those who feel let down by 'really existing capitalism'.

Presently Palikot talks left, he surrounds himself by (sections) of the left and he dons the symbols of the left (a nice red shirt being one of his favoured outfits). In addition to his liberal secular rhetoric he rallies against homelessness and social exclusion. He appears on the demonstrations against ACTA sensing that this is potentially his movement; and although he is greeted with a mixed reception at these demonstrations, the decision of RP MPs to put on Guy Fawkes masks in parliament captures the mood.

But scratch the surface and the Palikot of old remains. He has opposed the campaign by the trade unions to call a referendum on the government's plan to raise the age of retirement (over 80% of society oppose this plan). He does not support the SLD's proposal to increase the minimum wage, despite the scandalously low wages received by a huge section of society. Palikot has opposed the raising of taxes for the most wealthy in society, although the country has one of the most regressive tax systems in Europe.

Despite these shortcomings the emergence of Palikot and RP on the political scene should be welcomed. It is heartening to seek a new political movement take on the conservative establishment and raise issues that are of real concern. A vocal liberal party in Poland, that possesses some social conscience, could be an invaluable ally to the left.

The problem emerges however because Palikot does not wish to complement the left, he wants to take it over. A recent article by left wing veteran Ryszard Bugaj puts this into some perspective. He notes how the strategy of the post communist left, led by Aleksander Kwasniewski, has always been to ally the left with the liberal centre. This has continually failed and driven the left into deeper defeat and isolation when attempted. According to Bugaj the efforts of Palikot to unite the left under his own auspices, which is being supported by Kwaśniewski, is a continuation of this project.

It is therefore also welcome that the SLD has so far refused to go along with Palikot's plan. Presently under the leadership of Leszek Miller, the party has supported a campaign for a referendum on raising the pension age and initiated a bill to increase the minimum wage. Miller has held joint press conferences with the Solidarność trade union (something that would have been unthinkable previously) and has adopted a strategy of positioning the SLD to the left of Palikot on a number of socio-economic issues.

Therefore one of the benefits of having some competition on the left has been that it prevents a continual drift to the right. The SLD are now painting RP as being a liberal party that is only left on certain social and cultural issues. In turn Palikot has attacked Miller and his party's own dubious record. In particular he has stated that he would refuse to work with Miller if it is proved that he was aware of the CIA interrogating prisoners in secret prisons in Poland when he was PM. This is a principled stance, although quite why he doesn't extend this to Kwaśniewski is unclear.

This is the new dual virtual reality of the left. The accusations flying in both directions between the SLD and RP are true. Miller is a pragmatic politician, with little political conviction. In the early 1990s he was the leading left-winger inside the SLD, opposing as Minister of Labour and Social Policy the SLD government's attempt to privatise the pension system. By the time he became PM in 2001, he had transformed himself into the main advocate of neo-liberalism on the left. As the political wind again changes direction, so Miller once more adjusts his image. But for how long?

Palikot will be unable to unite the left because he is not part of this movement himself. Despite the SLD's failings it is a party that has emerged from the traditions and structures of the Polish left, however treacherous and distorted these may have been. Miller's strategy of positioning the SLD to the left of RP has succeeded in, at least temporarily, halting the party's slide towards oblivion. By maintaining this position the SLD will only gain, particularly if Palikot becomes the informal partner in parliament that Tusk needs to push forward his reform agenda. However, due to Miller's own political biography (imagine Tony Blair returning to lead the Labour Party on a new left-wing platform?) he lacks the credibility to broaden support for the SLD beyond its core supporters.

Competition on the left is a good thing. The question now is how to capitalise from it.

Wilders' New Anti-Immigrant Campaign

2012-02-21T06:57:00.000-08:00

The far-right Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) - led by Geert Wilders - has once again attempted to build hostility towards immigrants from Poland and other Central-Eastern European countries.

The PVV has set up a new website that encourages people to post their complaints about "central and east Europeans ... for general nuisance, pollution and labour market displacement."

Wilders has a long history of stoking hostility towards immigrants in Holland. Last year he was in court facing five counts of giving offence to Muslims and of inciting hatred against Muslims and people of 'non-Western immigrant origin'. Wilders has recently turned his attention towards immigrants from CEE, particularly Poland. He has, for example, proposed that migrants from CEE should be returned home if they lose their jobs or are homeless. It is estimated that there are currently around 200,000 Poles living in Holland, plus a further 100,000 from other CEE countries (primarily from Romania and Bulgaria).

Despite his extreme views, Wilders has managed to exert a certain influence over mainstream Dutch politics, as the country is presently run by a minority right-wing government that partly depends upon the support of the PVV. The PVV is the third largest party in Holland and frequently increases its anti-immigrant rhetoric as a way of boosting its support. The PVV's latest website is an attempt to further disseminate negative stereotypes about immigrants from CEE amongst Dutch society.

The Dutch anti-discrimination officers have already received over 3,000 complaints about the PVV's new website and many Dutch people have responded by posting positive comments about their experiences of living and working alongside people from CEE. The Union of Polish Communities in Europe has written an open letter of complaint to the Dutch Prime Minister. The website has also been criticised by a number of European politicians, diplomats and also by the European Commission for going against the principles of the free movement of labour and tolerance inside Europe.

As Europe continues to struggle with the worst economic crisis for a generation, politicians such as Wilders are seeking to build upon people's frustrations through racism and xenophobia, including against immigrants from Poland and CEE.

Poland Leads a New Struggle for Freedom

2012-02-14T03:35:00.001-08:00

A lot of good articles on the protests against ACTA at the moment. Here is another one from the Interpress Service Agency writeen by Claudia Ciobanu:

Last weekend saw tens of thousands of people across Europe taking to the streets in protest against the international treaty to enforce intellectual property rights. European politicians are gradually distancing themselves from the treaty, largely as a result of citizen mobilisation initiated in Central Europe.

Several hundreds gathered in front of the presidential palace in Warsaw Saturday Feb. 11, for a two-hour modest protest. That was a far cry from the intense street actions that drew thousands in all major cities in Poland a little over two weeks back.

Poland’s ACTA Protests – Molecular Change in an unlikely Place?

2012-02-14T02:08:00.000-08:00

Kinga Pozniak has written an interesting article on the relevance of the recent ACTA protests in Poland:

As the economic crisis washes over Europe, political and economic discourses across the continent make it sound as if “there is no alternative” to widespread belt-tightening that withdraws and privatizes areas of social welfare and undermines social solidarity.

This discourse is certainly hegemonic in Poland, a country frequently held up as a token success story of neoliberalization. Following socialism’s collapse in 1989, Poland eagerly embraced a variety of neoliberal reforms, including rapid privatization of formerly state-owned enterprises, withdrawal of price subsidies, cuts to state spending and decentralisation of state responsibility for social and family policy.

Read more

Kalecki on Full Employment

2012-02-02T23:59:00.000-08:00

Below I reproduce an article on the 'Political Aspects of Full Employment' written by the Polish economist Michal Kalecki and first published in 1943.

Kalecki states that full employment can be gained if the government instigates a programme of "public investment (e.g. builds schools, hospitals, and highways) or subsidizes mass consumption (by family allowances, reduction of indirect taxation, or subsidies to keep down the prices of necessities), and if, moreover, this expenditure is financed by borrowing and not by taxation." Such ideas obviously contradict the mainstream economic opinions being promoted in Europe today (that are leading to spiralling unemployment) and are therefore still highly relevant.

Kalecki is part of a long line of prominent left-wing Polish economists that include Rosa Luxemburg, Włodzimierz Brus, Oskar Lange and more recently Tadeusz Kowalik. These economists have dealt with such things as the realities of early peripheral capitalism in Eastern Europe; the harsh realities of the Great Depression in countries such as Poland; the injustices and imbalances of the Stalinist command economy and the negative effects of the shock-therapy return to capitalism after 1989.

These economists often bridge the traditions of both Marxist and Keynesian economics and attempt to offer concerete and practical solutions to immediate economic problems. Kalecki is famous for having devised many of the ideas of Keynes, before Keynes himself (but was less known in the English speaking world.)He came to these ideas through applying the methodologies of Marxist economics.

Unfortunately many of the ideas of economists such as Kalecki have recently been largely neglected, not least in his native Poland. In light of the present 'Great Recession' in Europe, the Polish left could do a lot worse than return to these works as a way of helping to devise an alternative economic policy for the left.

The article below was written in the perspective of socio-economic life in inter-war Poland. By 1939 around 8m people were unemployed, which equalled a third of the population.

Political Aspects of Full Employment1
by Michal Kalecki

1. A solid majority of economists is now of the opinion that, even in a capitalist system, full employment may be secured by a government spending programme, provided there is in existence adequate plan to employ all existing labour power, and provided adequate supplies of necessary foreign raw-materials may be obtained in exchange for exports.

If the government undertakes public investment (e.g. builds schools, hospitals, and highways) or subsidizes mass consumption (by family allowances, reduction of indirect taxation, or subsidies to keep down the prices of necessities), and if, moreover, this expenditure is financed by borrowing and not by taxation (which could affect adversely private investment and consumption), the effective demand for goods and services may be increased up to a point where full employment is achieved. Such government expenditure increases employment, be it noted, not only directly but indirectly as well, since the higher incomes caused by it result in a secondary increase in demand for consumer and investment goods.

Read More

Fiscal Farce

2012-02-01T10:39:00.000-08:00

The most boring suicide note in history is how it’s been described. And Poland has decided to sign up to it.
As the economist James Meadway explains:

Strip away the eurojargon, and the EU’s fiscal compact is a despairing embrace of terminal decline. Austerity will now carry the force of law. Forget democracy, as Angela Merkel sternly warns, the European Court of Justice will now determine economic policies, and “Never will you be able to change them through a parliamentary majority.”

Southern Europe is being torn apart by the austerity programmes. There are simply no realistic prospects for recovery while the cuts are being applied. A fatal mechanism is at work: cuts reduce demand. Falling demand means firms selling less. Firms selling less means falling wages and rising unemployment, further reducing demand. This is the vicious circle Europe is locking itself into.

Elsewhere, FT columnist Wolfgang Munchau – no bleeding-heart Keynesian – has described the treaty as “quite mad”. He’s too generous: it is wholly lunatic, economic folly on a grand, continent-wide scale. Austerity is driving Europe into a state of permanent stagnation. The crisis was not provoked by public spending, but by the collapse of the banking system and persistent trade imbalances. And yet the whole argument, at least for Europe’s elites, is framed around the need for sharper and sharper spending cuts. The diagnosis is wrong, and the prescription actively dangerous. Voluntarily agreeing to it, as the 25 treaty signatories have, is suicidal.

Poland went to the negotiations in Brussels yesterday with the aim of ensuring that the French position of restricting the pact to the eurozone countries was defeated. This was a clear and (leaving aside the details of the pact) principled position, which sought to make sure that Poland remained at the centre of decision making inside the EU.

What the Polish delegation achieved were assurances that it and other non-eurozone member states will be allowed to attend summits at least once a year that discuss the "architecture" of the euro zone and competitiveness. Such countries will not be able to vote and will be left outside the other meetings held by members of the eurozone.

While the Czechs decided to join the British in standing outside of the fiscal pact (for similar Thatcherite eurosceptic reasons given by David Cameron) Poland has signed up to the agreement. It was unsatisfactory – declared Tusk who had previously threatened not to sign the agreement – but it was the best that could be achieved.

Fortunately non-eurozone countries will not be subject to the sanctions written into the Pact for countries that break its fiscal rules. For this reason alone, the fact that Poland is not fully integrated into current economic decision making brings it some benefits.

Eurozone Problems: Paul Krugman

2012-01-31T02:42:00.000-08:00

It's well worth looking at the lastest blogpost by the economist Paul Krugman on the Social Europe website. He presents a number of clear charts that show, for example how the current economic difficulties in the Eurozone, and in particular the GIPS countries in Southern Europe, were not caused by a rise in public debt. Rather the rise in public debt has been a consequence of the crisis, the shift of resources from the public to the private sphere and the imbalances between the richer and poorer economies within the eurozone. Read more here

Young Poles Outraged by ACTA

2012-01-26T23:42:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the Polish government signed the ACTA in Tokyo. On the same day protests spread around Poland to a number of cities, with around 10,000 alone demonstrating in Kraków and thousands expressing their anger outside the Citizens' Platform offices in Poznań.

Below I reproduce an article by the Green Party activist Adam Ostolski on the recent mobilisations in Poland against ACTA

2011 was a year of discontent throughout the world, but apparently not in Poland. Poland's political class was spared the challenge of massive protests that blossomed in many places, from Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, through the Indignados of Spain, to the US Occupy movement. There is much to be angry about, to be sure. Life in Poland is getting harder, the privatisation-by-stealth of health service and education is going on, schools and kindergartens are being closed down, which makes it especially difficult for young parents, there's no affordable housing, the prices of municipal services and staple foods are rising (both at least partly due to recent changes in tax rates). Poland is now the leading country in Europe in terms of non-permanent job contracts (having outrun Spain), and the vision of having a decent retirement in the future is becoming increasingly remote. Read more

Tusk Attacks his Base (and then some!)

2012-01-25T03:48:00.000-08:00

Donald Tusk has managed to do something truly amazing. He has riled his own political base and brought them out onto the streets to demonstrate with his opponents. He has managed to cause such social anger over his decision to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that for the first time in a generation’s memory Poland is standing at the forefront of an international protest movement.

The protests started on-line, after the government announced that it would sign ACTA in Tokyo this Thursday. Government websites were blocked, closed down or replaced with counter-propaganda in an impressive show of technical skill and political ingenuity. One of the major complaints of the protestors has been that the government has failed to consult with society over its plans to sign ACTA. So the government talked amongst itself, then announced that it would open up a period of social consultation, but only after it had signed the agreement (sic).

At this point the scale of the dissatisfaction was unclear. Many commentators claimed that the blocking of government websites was counterproductive and that such ‘internet activists’ would not be able to translate this into numbers on the street. They were wrong.

As I walked up Świętokrzyska Street towards the offices of the European Parliament in Warsaw yesterday afternoon I was met by a wall of noise that I have rarely experienced at a demonstration in Poland. All too often whilst huge numbers of people have demonstrated in Europe against wars, austerity and their like, only a handful have turned up to similar mobilisations in Poland. But this time it is different. The social and political breadth of the 1000 or so demonstrating yesterday was impressive. Nationalists with anti-fascists; liberals alongside conservatives; Catholics amongst atheists; football fans standing with students. The atmosphere was angry, but good humoured and the chants witty and cutting. The symbols ranged from Polish flags to the masks of the occupy movements. The slogans sometimes called for ‘people before profit’ and at other times equated the coming censorship with the communist system. It was truly eclectic, the potential birth of a new social movement.

So why Poland? Why in a country where political passivity has become the norm have young people reacted so strongly. What the government has not realized is how directly ACTA could affect the lives of young people in Poland. The Internet nowadays is not simply an additional activity, it is a means of life, where people communicate, socialise, share information and, crucially, work.

Throughout the more than 20 years since Communism collapsed in Poland the number of graduates has soared. By the early 2000s Poland had the highest number of university graduates as a share of the under 30 population in Europe. Young people have done all that could be expected of them. They have educated themselves, learnt foreign languages, immersed themselves in the new information technologies, embraced the country’s entry into the EU and taken literally and seriously the notions of freedom and democracy. All this has now been thrown back in their faces.

Firstly, the economic system upon which all this has been built has not been able to provide the jobs and security that this generation needs. As well as there being 2 million unemployed in the country, 1/3 of all working Poles are on temporary, insecure contracts. This is the highest figure in Europe and as it does not take into account the large and growing section of society that is ‘self-employed’ then it is greatly underestimated. It is now becoming a rare thing to meet someone with a secure full-time contract.

This is a dangerous social mix. Young people are now more educated, aware and socially active in Poland than at any time in its history. And the government has previously recognised this, producing pages upon pages of documents, declaring its wish to harness society’s human capital, build so-called social capital and to create a governing administration built upon social consultation. Its actions around ACTA show all of this for what it is – empty words.

ACTA threatens the one area of social life that young people have been able to claim as its own. It threatens to further commodify and extend the influence of monopolies over cultural life. It potentially criminalises people’s everyday activities and brings new suspicion and fear into their lives. ACTA is a bill that is unclear, ambiguous and full of uncertainties that can be interpreted in different ways. For this reason alone it should be opposed.

This reality has resonated amongst young Poles. It has been common during the protests of the past few days to equate the decision of the government to the political repressions of the previous system during the 1980s. The present elite in Poland never wastes an opportunity to wrap itself in the flag of the previous opposition movement and reminisce of the days when they had to fight for freedom. The young generation is now the guardian of such freedoms and its turning against this elite that it deems wants to take them away.

And this goes further still. A central pillar of the economic and political transition in Poland has been its incorporation into the EU. This has been seen as a guarantor of economic development, social progress and democratic freedoms. This is now not so clear. The economic turmoil in Europe is fragmenting the EU and the response at the centre to by-pass democratic institutions in order to impose austerity programmes is enhancing social resentment towards the Union. And now this. ACTA was debated and agreed within the EU, which is imposing a pressure upon Poland to sign up to it. The claim that Brussels even protects civil freedoms is now being questioned by many, hence the decision to demonstrate outside of the European Parliament building yesterday.

The furore around ACTA may dissipate and the government could eventually have its way. But the events of recent days show that the gap between the government, the political class and the population is growing. The governing Citizens’ Platform (PO) initially emerged as a supposed social movement that opposed the corruption of the elite. Tusk rode to power in 2007 through harnessing the fear in society that the Law and Justice Party (PiS) were pushing Poland down the road of authoritarianism. Yet now, increasing numbers of people, not least from those who had once supported him, see Tusk to be standing in the place where Kaczyński once did

2012-01-24T01:21:00.000-08:00

Fiscal Pact Divides Europe

2012-01-19T09:56:00.000-08:00

The decision of 26 EU states to agree to a new fiscal pact (read: coordinated austerity) at the last EU summit was met with self-congratulation and new claims of optimism.

However, within less than a month all of this has dissipated as it becomes clear that a strategy of dealing with the crisis purely through public spending cuts is entirely insufficient. In turn countries outside the eurozone, amongst them Poland and the Czech Republic, have begun to question the wisdom of participating in such a fiscal pact.

The decision of the Standard & Poors Rating agency to downgrade the credit ratings of nine eurozone countries (including France) is a sure sign of how the markets are far from convinced that the EU’s current economic strategy will deal with present crisis. This is not just implied but, as the economist Paul Krugman points out, clearly set out in a statement by Standard & Poors:

We also believe that the agreement [the latest euro rescue plan] is predicated on only a partial recognition of the source of the crisis: that the current financial turmoil stems primarily from fiscal profligacy at the periphery of the eurozone. In our view, however, the financial problems facing the eurozone are as much a consequence of rising external imbalances and divergences in competitiveness between the EMU’s core and the so-called “periphery”. As such, we believe that a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues

And it is not just the markets that are unconvinced. Although Britain was the only EU member state to not formally sign up to the pact, it is now unclear which of the other non-eurozone EU member states will participate in it. The Czech government, which expressed its uncertainty over the pact from the beginning, has now provisionally committed itself to holding a referendum on whether to sign up to the agreement. Furthermore, Poland, a country that both pushed for and then praised the signing of the new fiscal pact, has also expressed reservations about participating in it.

Countries such as Poland are caught between the contradictory positions of France and Germany. On the one hand, it has consistently opposed the approach of Sarkozy to create a ‘two-speed’ Europe, where an agreement would be exclusively for the eurozone member states. Correctly recognizing that this would lead to its own isolation, the Polish government has pushed Germany to unite all 27 EU states around a common programme of action. Following the EU summit, Poland could claim that it had successfully secured a place at the centre of economic policy making in Europe and announce that it would willingly sign up to the new fiscal pact.

Yet it soon became clear that things were not so straightforward. The Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski argued that the pact did not concern Poland as it was not yet a member of the eurozone. He pointed out that Poland already has its own internal limitations of public debt and also that it has signed an agreement with the European Commission to bring down its budget deficit. The Polish government is therefore unwilling to enter into yet another binding agreement, especially one where it could be fined for not meeting its obligations. As Rostowski noted ‘ we are not masochists and we will not take on extra, unnecessary obligations’

Some within the government have taken this approach a step further and have begun to question the wisdom of prioritising alliances with Germany and other eurozone states. The Vice-PM,and leader of the junior coalition party the Polish Peasants’ Party, has argued that it would be better to seek closer alliances with non-eurozone member states such as the UK, Sweden and the Czech Republic. His argument for this is basic: ‘It was not us that caused the mess, therefore we should not be first to clear it up’. Also on a recent visit to Rome PM Donald Tusk said that Europe "cannot allow itself to be led by Berlin and Paris alone", arguing that countries such as Italy and Poland should have a greater say on the issue of fiscal union inside the EU.

Behind all of these discussions lies the fact that the attempt to unite the EU around a common programme of austerity and budget cuts is not bringing its member states closer together but rather driving them further apart. The problem is that no viable alternative is coming either at a European or national level. For example, the country that has been most opposed to the fiscal pact, the UK, is pursuing its own independent policy of austerity that is pushing the country into an economic downturn deeper than that experienced in any of the other advanced economies in the world.

The fiscal pact is rapidly falling apart even before it has got off the ground, causing divisions between the EU states to intensify.

Trade Unions to Coordinate Protests

2012-01-17T01:53:00.000-08:00

During the first decade following the collapse of ‘communism’ in Poland, politics was divided primarily along historical lines. Therefore the major political parties and coalitions were built out of organisations that were either connected to the previous governing party or opposition movement. Although historical issues continue to play an important role in Polish politics, they have ceased to be the defining issue of political allegiance.

One area however where the historical division has remained dominant is the trade union movement. The two major trade union federations are the Solidarność trade union (the successor of the independent trade union set up in the 1980s) and the All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions (OPZZ) (that was created by the authorities in the 1980s as an alternative to Solidarność).

Solidarność and the OPZZ have remained rivals and have rarely coordinated their activities. This has ensured that the trade unions have been divided at a national level. This has hindered their ability to defend their members’ interests, particularly in a situation where trade union membership has been in a steady decline.

However, yesterday Solidarność, the OPZZ and the the third national trade union confederation Forum held a joint news conference for the first time. They have also announced that they will be coordinating a series of joint actions and protests.
Immediately they have revealed that they are suspending their participation in the Trilateral Commission that includes representatives from the government, employers and trade unions. They have done this in protest against the failure of the government to consult with them on a number of issues. The leader of the Solidarity trade union, Piotr Duda, stated that the trade unions would discuss now with the government only through force and that this step was the first in a number of actions to oppose the government.

The leader of the OPZZ, Jan Guz noted how there are more than 2 million unemployed in Poland, another more than 2 million who have been forced to emigrate, a further 2 million who receive extremely low wages and another milion who are employed on so-called junk contracts.

The trade union leaders concluded that it was only through joint actions that the government’s policies could be opposed. They have raised the possibility of carrying out protests before the Euro2012 football championships and also announced that they will collect signitures for a resolution to force a referendum on the government’s plans to raise the retirement age.

Plans to Close Hundreds of Schools Met by Protests

2012-01-15T03:26:00.000-08:00

It has been estimated that up to 800 schools will be closed in Poland this year, after 300 were shut down in 2011.

The official reason given for the liquidation of schools throughout Poland is the upcoming demographic downturn that will result in a decline in the number of available pupils for these schools. Of course behind this fact lies a debate about whether schools should be provided as a service, even in areas where there are less pupils, or whether they should be run along the lines of profitable businesses.

The most immediate cause of the schools’ closures is the cut in education spending, with the central government decreasing its education spending by 1.4bn złoty this year. Although up to now schools have been closing mainly in rural areas, they are now starting to be shut down in large cities as well.

The closing down of schools has been met by a new wave of protests throughout the country. An occupation of a technical school in Bytom has received the most media attention, with students and parents protesting against the local government’s decision to close down the school. Similar protests have taken place in places such as Wałbrzych.

The protestors have set up a facebook page which has some information about their activities in English.

Private Pension Funds Record Loss, Whilst Profits Rise

2012-01-10T07:49:00.000-08:00

Poland’s private pension funds recorded an over-all loss in 2011, that averaged 4.8%. This means that future pensioners, whom are required to pay into these funds, have seen around 5bn złoty wiped off their future pensions. This is the second year in their 12 year history that these private funds have registered a loss, falling by 14% in 2008.

Despite the fact that the future pensions of Polish citizens has reduced throughout the year, the general Polish Pension Association (PTE), that administers the funds, saw its profits grow. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, the PTE enjoyed a profit of 438m złoty. Also the salaries of those working for the PTE grew from 80m złoty in the third quarter of 2011, up from 72m zł in the corresponding period of 2010.

As the publicist Piotr Szumlewicz has noted: ‘Estimates show that in 20-30 years time pensioners in Poland (particularly women) will receive miserly pensions. The pension reform, begun in 1999, has led to lower pensions, rising public debt, a rejection of the principle of inter-generational solidarity, whilst also bringing huge profits to the companies running these funds. In such a situation the government should abolish the compulsory private pension funds as quickly as possible and return to the previous pension system that was more stable, secure and just.’

Polish Left at Crossroads

2011-12-21T03:55:00.000-08:00

It’s hard to believe that at the beginning of the 1990s Poland was regarded as being the best hope for the left in Central Eastern Europe. It now stands as the country with perhaps the weakest left in Europe and where right-wing ideology and parties dominate. Yet, Poland is a country whose destiny is largely determined by changes occurring in Europe, particularly inside the EU. Therefore, in order for the Polish left to reinvigorate itself, it needs to integrate with and seek to influence the political debates and movements occurring within the wider European left and help promote a common programme for European development.

Bulldogs and Eagles

2011-12-13T08:53:00.000-08:00

There’s nothing quite like a good row in Brussels to get the British patriotic juices flowing.

David Cameron returned to Britain’s shores – after vetoing a treaty involving all 27 EU states – like a retuning hero, cheered on by his fervent backbenchers and jingoistic media.

Yet Cameron was not in Brussels representing Britain nor his nation’s concerns. No, he was there to defend the interests of Britain’s financial sector, the City of London. Cameron was primarily concerned with securing the welfare of the very institutions that have contributed more than any other to causing the current crisis.

And he may not even have managed to do this successfully. The fact remains that while the fools in the gallery cheered, Britain has now released it diplomatic nuclear arsenal and is more isolated in Europe than ever before. No compromises were made and no concessions won and it is quite possible that Britain’s separation from the rest of the EU will have negative consequences for its economy. If this was a victory for Britain, then one wonders what a defeat looks like.

There is however much to be opposed to in the new EU treaty. The summit agreed that all national governments would be committed to reducing their structural budget deficits to 0.5% of GDP and that the previous rules requiring budget deficits to be below 3% of GDP will be strengthened. In effect a whole series of new regulations are being introduced – including the EU Commission being given the prior oversight of national budgets – in order to enforce an undemocratic programme of austerity and budget cuts throughout the EU. The real imbalances and deficiencies within the European economies are not being addressed and instead Europe’s citizens are being forced into an ideological straightjacket of cuts (Cameron has of course decided that he prefers his own national variation – how very British). Put simply, if allowed to go ahead, this treaty marks the end of the European Welfare State.

While the British sailed away into splendid isolation, countries such as Poland were doing everything in their power to be included in the new treaty. What Poland feared more than anything else was being left on side-lines of any new agreement, with politicians such as Sarkozy pushing for an agreement that included just the 17 eurozone countries. For over a year now – and particularly during the past six months whilst holding the EU Presidency - Poland has been pushing for a general EU Treaty that included all its member states.

The recent agreement pacifies some of Poland’s fears, but not all of them. Non-eurozone countries have been allowed into the treaty, will probably need to meet the budget requirements that it contains and will be required to pay into the new fund included in the treaty. However, although non-eurozone states will be able to participate in the meetings of the new body, they will not have the right to vote.

It is quite understandable that Poland would not want to be isolated within the EU and that it is seeking to be at the centre of decision making. It is far easier on the peripheries of Europe to see what catastrophe awaits us if the eurozone and EU were to break up. However, the requirements that will be placed upon it, by signing up to this treaty, will potentially have grave negative consequences for the Polish economy.

Since joining the EU – and particularly since the outbreak of the economic crisis – Poland has found itself in a relatively fortunate economic situation. While countries in Southern Europe have seen EU funds dry up, they have also been stuck in a currency union in which they have been unable to devalue their currencies. In contrast, Poland has seen EU funds move eastwards and been able to use these to increase public investment in the economy. At the same time its currency has devalued in relation to the euro, making its exports more competitive. Whilst not rushing into the eurozone, it has also been able to sensibly allow its budget deficit to rise in order to retain public spending and fully utilise the available EU funds.

All this is about to end. As a signature to the treaty Poland will be required to rapidly bring down its deficit. This will help to shrink the economy and will make it harder for the government to continue with its programme of public investment (something it has already indicated it is planning to halt). Also, Poland is likely to now speed up its application to join the eurozone (which is now opposed by around 70% of Polish society), which could see its currency increase in value and therefore decrease its economic competitiveness.

The task of implementing the present EU treaty will meet many obstacles, not least political opposition. However, with the European left unable to offer a coherent alternative for a federal social Europe, we may expect the conservative and nationalist right to take the initiative. In Poland the conservative right has already declared the government’s signing of the treaty to be an act of national betrayal and that the Polish government should follow Britain’s example. On the thirtieth anniversary of the implementation of Martial Law in Poland, the Law and Justice Party is organising a demonstration today that combines a commemoration of this event with accusing the present government of giving away the country’s national sovereignty.

European convergence presently seems to involve yet more austerity and thus a deeper recession. Yet if the European project breaks up, then we will be faced with more economic chaos along with further political division and reaction. These are the options presently on the table and neither look particularly appetising.

Public Investment to Fall, Unemployment to Rise

2011-12-07T09:29:00.000-08:00

The Polish government has published its revised budget for 2012, which is based upon the premise that economic growth will reach 2.5% next year, down from its previous prediction of 4%. The government also now forecasts that unemployment will increase to 12.3%, whilst earlier it had estimated that it would stand at 10%.

The government hopes that its declared policies of spending cuts and tax rises will help it to meet its aim of bringing the budget deficit to below 3% of GDP and public debt to around 53%. Disturbingly, the government has also announced that public investment - which has so far been the major engine of economic growth in Poland - will be sharply cut next year.

The government estimates that public investment will grow by just 1.5% in 2012. As Poland will be completing its investments for the Euro2012 football championships during the first half of the year, this means that thereafter public investment will be drastically reduced.

This will undoubtedly help instigate an economic slowdown from the second half of 2012, which will have a particularly negative impact on the labour market. Perhaps this is also one of the reasons why the government believes that unemployment will be more than 2% higher than it had previously thought.

Yet Tusk’s administration does not seem to be particularly concerned about this matter and rather accepts it as a fait accompli . While unemployment continues to rise the government has even announced in this budget that the Labour Fund will allocate just ZŁ3.4bn for training and internships. This is half the sum which it spent on this two years ago and less than ZŁ2bn of this will be spent on actually fighting unemployment.

The government has targeted spending cuts and tax rises as a way to bring down its budget deficit and public debt. Although the effects of these policies will not be properly felt until 2013, by reducing public investment and employment spending the government is endangering the country with a sharp economic downturn and a rise in unemployment.

Rather than continuing the economic policies that have been relatively successful in Poland since the outbreak of the economic crisis, the Polish government is bringing the country more into line with the current failed economic orthdoxy that is driving policy throughout the EU. Ironically it is such policies that are likely to actually cause an increase in its debt.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

2011-12-01T11:34:00.001-08:00

This week’s speech in Germany by the Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, in favour of a Federal Europe, is a significant development in Polish and European politics.

With the Eurozone facing the possibility of collapse, Sikorski urged its strongest economy Germany to act in order to save the currency zone and thus the European Union. In dramatic language he described the huge negative consequences that such a collapse could bring. In order to divert such a development he has called for further EU integration, including the establishment of a common fiscal, immigration and foreign policy. In historically significant language he stated that:

I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity.

The political response in Poland to Sikorski’s speech has been depressingly predictable. PiS accused Sikorski of betraying and subordinating Poland to Germany and even suggested that the Foreign Minister should be brought before a state tribunal. All this has diverted attention away from the real content of Sikorski’s speech and the vision of the type of EU that he proposes is created. In turn the mainstream left has fully backed Sikorski’s statement, failing to highlight its many negative elements.

There are parts of Sikorski’s speech that can be evaluated positively.

Firstly, Sikorski is one of the first major politicians in Europe to have spoken openly and candidly about the seriousness of the choices facing the EU today. He put the issue straightforwardly: either Europe unites and integrates more or it will break apart. As a representative of the Polish state, Sikorski could remind his audience in Germany of the historical lessons of division and conflict that have occurred in the continent.

Sikorski also addressed some of the myths that are being repeated during the present crisis. In particular, he challenged the idea that the eastern enlargement of the EU is in some way responsible for the Union’s current problems. He counteracted the argument, that is increasingly popular currently in the EU’s richer states, that expansion has only brought them costs and no benefits. Talking about the economic profits enjoyed by the richer EU economies from the opening up of the eastern economies Sikorski noted:

Enlargement has created growth and wealth all over Europe. The EU15 exports to the EU10 countries rose almost twofold in the last ten years. It’s even more striking if you break it down by countries. Britain’s export to the 10 countries that joined after 2004 rose from €2.2 bln in 1993 to €10 bln last year; France’s, from €2.7 bln to €16 bln, Germany’s, wait for this – from €15bln to 95 billion Euros. The total volume of trade between EU15 and EU10 amounted to €222 bln last year, up from €51 bln in 1995. A tidy sum. I guess it sustains a job or two in Old Europe.

The Polish Foreign Minister also reminded about the positive effects of Poland’s entry in the EU and at how it has been the most successful EU economy (in terms of GDP growth) since the outbreak of the crisis.

Furthermore Sikorski warned about the dangers of protectionism and nationalism and argued against the prospect of further integration being confined to a select group of EU countries. Integration inside the EU, he reminded, should include all of the EU27 states.

Yet when we go beyond these general statements of unity against division, we find that the type of new Europe being proposed by Sikorski is highly regressive and that it would in fact deepen the current crisis. Sikorski’s repeats the myth that the major cause of the current crisis is too high public spending and debt. He therefore reasons that the best way to address this issue is for there to be an increased and expanded programme of austerity and spending cuts throughout the EU.

This argument ignores the experience of those countries that have introduced draconian spending cuts inside the EU. These have tended to repress economic growth, increase unemployment and therefore actually inflate public debt and budget deficits. Sikorski has also failed to highlight the reasons for Poland’s recent positive economic growth. This has been achieved by allowing a moderate expansion of public debt and the budget deficit in order to increase public investment and capitalise from the inflow of EU funds. Sikorski would have to look no further than his own backyard to realise that investment and not cuts are the best way forward for the European economy.

In contrast Sikorski has lauded the Polish government’s recent decision to implement its own austerity programme as an example for other EU states to follow:

Next year alone we intend to cut our budget deficit to 3% of GDP and the overall debt to 52% of GDP. By 2015 the deficit will be brought down to 1% of GDP and public debt to 47%. The retirement age will be lifted to 67 years for both genders. Pension privileges for soldiers, policemen and priests will be cut. The disability pension contribution will increase by 2%. Child-benefits will be taken from the rich and given to the poor.

Sikorski continues that the policy of cuts and austerity should be assured through introducing new rules and punishments that would prevent national governments from expanding their spending and debt:

In order to strengthen economic convergence the Commission and the Euro group would get the right to scrutinize in advance all major economic reform plans with potential spill-over effect in the euro area, impose sanctions on countries failing to effect policy recommendations, and permission for groups of countries to synchronize their labour, pensions and social policies. Financial discipline would be strengthened by giving access to rescue funds only to members abiding by macro fiscal rules, by making sanctions automatic and giving the Commission, the Council and the Court of Justice powers to enforce the 3% ceiling on deficit and 60% ceiling on debt. Countries in excess deficit procedure would have to present their national budgets for approval by the Commission. The Commission would get powers to intervene in the policies of countries that could not fulfil their obligations. Countries persistently violating rules would have their voting rights suspended.

These proposals of increased ’fiscal discipline’ are almost the sole basis of Poland’s idea for further European integration. Yet what is even more striking is what Sikorski suggests leaving outside of his new Federal Europe. In probably the most important extract from his speech, Sikorski states:

The more power and legitimacy we give to federal institutions, the more secure member states should feel that certain prerogatives, everything to do with national identity, culture, religion, lifestyle, public morals, and rates of income, corporate and VAT taxes, should forever remain in the purview of states. Our unity can survive different working hours or different family law in different countries.

What this means is clear. Countries would be allowed to maintain regressive policies on such things as the relationship of the Church and State and same sex marriages. The practices of social dumping would also be expanded through allowing some countries to maintain low tax rates and longer working hours. (For an excellent article in Polish on this see here)

Despite this reality the parties now claiming to represent the left in parliament - both the Palikot Movement and Democratic Left Alliance - have almost uncritically given their backing to Sikorski’s speech. This represents an extremely dangerous development in Polish politics, where the two political options being presented to the population are either neoliberal Europeanisation or nationalist conservatism. A good start for the left in challenging this hegemony would be to articulate an alternative vision for a federal democratic, secular and social Europe.

The Mixed Signals of Palikot

2011-11-22T08:09:00.000-08:00

With the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) in a seemingly terminal decline, the major political force claiming to represent the left in Poland is now the Palikot Movement (RP). RP has more MPs than the SLD, and since October's parliamentary elections has been a far more pro-active political current in and out of parliament.

Despite its left wing stance on issues such as the relationship between the Church and State and Lesbian and Gay rights, RP had taken an overtly liberal stance on economic issues, such as supporting the introduction of a flat income tax.

However, in recent weeks RP has been making some moves to be seen as a party that represents the economic interests of the poorest sections of society. Primarily this has been done through Palikot forming an alliance with the 'Office of Social Justice' movement (KSS), led by the socialist Piotr Ikonowicz.

The KSS campaigns against poverty and social exclusion in Poland and has been particularly active over the issue of housing evictions. Palikot has donated his own parliamentary salary to the KSS and is promoting it as a social movement to combat poverty in Poland. Furthermore, last weekend a meeting was held between RP MPs and representatives of KSS to discuss joint work over issues such as social security and the labour law.

At the same time, Palikot re-affirmed his commitment to a number of liberal economic policies. In a recent interview he defended the policy of introducing a flat-income tax rate, supported the compulsory private pension system, promoted the privatisation of a large section of the health service and re-affirmed his belief that students should pay for studying on courses (such as humanities) which do not teach the skills needed on the labour market. Furthermore, a document has recently been put up on RP's website that includes support for a flat tax of 18% for VAT and income and business tax. The major 'pro-growth' proposals in this programme are reducing the level of bureaucracy for businesses and liberalising the labour code.

In response to criticisms about this ambiguity, RP's spokesperson Andrzej Rozenek has argued that the left-right divide is archaic and has no meaning in contemporary society. It is interesting that Rozenek was previously considered to be one of the party's leading left-wingers.

RP has also recently announced that in Europe it will cooperate with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). This is the third largest group in parliament and although it currently has no Polish MEPs as members it previously had relations with the neo-liberal Freedom Union and Democratic Party.

It seems that Palikot recognises that there is a space on the left in Poland which he can fill. His secular and cultural liberal programme appeals to voters from the left and statements on poverty and social inequality allow him to extend into other areas of the left electorate. While such developments should be welcomed and one has to wait to see how RP develops (particularly as it has yet to form as an actual political party) its continued support for liberal macro-economic policies and its alliance with liberals in Europe separates it off from the rest of the Polish left.

It seems that RP is moving towards being a social liberal party where statements on social exclusion and poverty can be deployed as populist slogans, yet where its actual economic programme would make them worse.

A Speech For the Rating Agencies

2011-11-19T13:09:00.000-08:00

These have been a bad few weeks for democracy in Europe. Italy and Greece are now ruled by technocrats, trained in American banks, appointed to push through austerity measures that no government with a democratic mandate could manage. Even in those countries where elected administrations ostensibly rule, economic policies are being devised more according to the concerns of the international markets and the whims of the rating agencies than the needs of the electorates.

On the economic peripheries this situation is most pronounced. Most obviously the governments in Southern Europe are being forced into a programme of extreme austerity under the pretence that this will instigate growth and bring down public debt. Likewise, in Central-Eastern Europe a similar - if more subtle - game is being played out.

In Hungary investors have been awaiting proposals from the government for a deal from the IMF for a new loan. The negotiations between the IMF and the government in Budapest essentially concern the amount of economic sovereignty that the country should be allowed to have. There is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to Orban's government in Hungary. However, the IMF is most worried about reversing some of its more positive economic policies, such as passing part of the burden of mortgages taken out in Swiss Francs onto the international banks that created them and abolishing the compulsory private pension pillar.

Therefore, despite the fact that Hungary's economy is growing and its budget deficit and public debt are at comparatively low and manageable levels, the country's bond's have been put on watch for a possible downgrade to junk by both Fitch and Standard and Poor's, leading to a surge in borrowing costs in the country.

The situation is similar in Poland - a country that has grown almost twice as much as any other inside the EU over the past three years - where the representatives of the international markets are turning the screw. Poland's economy has expanded through increasing borrowing in order to drive public investment (boosted by EU funds) in the country's infrastructure. With public debt standing at a meagre 53% of GDP any rational approach to the Polish economy would be to continue and in fact deepen this economic course of development.

The international markets and agencies have other ideas. Over the past few weeks the three largest rating agencies have been making it clear that if the new Polish government does not undertake the structural reforms that it deems necessary then it too will face a downgrade, which of course would lead to soaring borrowing costs.

It was in this atmosphere that PM Donald Tusk made his opening speech to the new parliament, setting out his government's priorities for its next term in office. Tusk did not even attempt to conceal that the main purpose of his speech was to appease the financial markets, stating 'I do not hide the fact that the aim of this is to stabilise the financial situation of Poland. This is positive for the reputation of Poland and connected to the security of our bonds.'

And so Poland is embarking on a course of drastic deficit and debt reduction as it attempts to keep in line with the policies of other European economies that are undergoing economic contractions. The government predicts that public debt will reduce to 42% of GDP by the end of 2015 and that the budget deficit will stand at just 1% by the end of the government's present term in office (it currently is above 7%). Quite why this should be the aim of any government in the midst of the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s is not explained.

And how will this all be achieved? Well if Tusk is anything he is not a stupid politician and he at least understands that part of the austerity has to be shared out amongst different groups if he is to maintain political support. Yet behind these attempts at policy 'triangulation' Tusk has drawn a clear line under his first administration and opened up a period of cuts that are, on the whole, socially and economically regressive.

One of his major ideas is to move social policy away from the principle of universalism. Therefore, child benefits and tax reliefs will no longer be made available for those earning more than 85,000 złoty a year. All this is dressed up in the progressive language of supporting the poorest in society. However, the poor will be no better off from the proposals, which will further socially stigmitise those who earn benefits, increase bureaucracy in the system and decrease social solidarity.

One of the other major announcements of Tusk was that the retirement age would be successively raised for men and women from 2013 until it reaches 67 (it is presently 65 for men and 60 for women.) Although the normal demographic arguments were deployed, this is being carried out in a country where the average life expectancy is just 75 and where youth unemployment stands at around 25%. Tusk also declared that the government would be seeking to move away from the annual percentage rise in pensions and also that the early retirement privileges of certain social groups (such as uniformed workers and coal-miners) would be abolished.

Along with making some farmers pay full health insurance, employers will have to pay 2% more in social insurance contributions. The only social groups that will directly benefit from this government will be soldiers and the police, who will enjoy a salary rise of 300zł, which will possibly be repeated before the end of the government's present term.

Tusk has not laid out any programme for economic or social growth and rather pins his hope on the delusion that cuts will instigate development. Nor has he proposed any measures to tackle the serious socio-economic problems that face the country such as high unemployment, workers employed on insecure contracts with low wages and the lack of housing.

Tusk claims that he is building a force of the political centre that can push through painful but necessary reforms. He has warned about the need to counter radicalism on the right and the left. It is true that compared to many other governments in Europe his proposals are relatively modest. Yet they place Poland in line with the policy of austerity being pursued around the continent and are likely to depress economic growth and raise social divisions. It is exactly these phenomena that are increasing social discontent and unrest throughout Europe.

Reflections on 11 November

2011-11-15T03:18:00.001-08:00

For the second year running the anti-fascist movement was successful in blocking the 'march organised by the Polish far-right in Warsaw on Poland’s Independence Day. Grouped around the '11 November Agreement' Association, the counter-demonstrators organised a concert and blockade along one of Warsaw's main streets, preventing the far-right from walking along their planned route.

A stand-off occurred with the two demonstrations separated by lines of police. In response the far-right began to fight with the police and throw stones, street paving and flares. They also separated into smaller groups and attempted to attack some of those on the edges of the counter-demonstration as well as intimidating passers-by and attacking some bars and cafes.I personally saw someone getting seriously beaten up by a group of 'patriots' who were looking for anti-fascist demonstrators. Over 40 police were hurt during the actions and 29 people taken to hospital.

Once the demonstration had proceeded along a revised route and approached its destination (the statue of the leader of the pre-war far-right in Poland - Roman Dmowski) they also attacked and burnt the vehicles of media covering the march.

The far-right demonstration this year was attended by a large number of football hooligans who had been mobilised from around the country. This is a worrying development and is a tactic that has been used by far-right groups in other countries (such as the English Defence League).

Some of the violent attacks by the far-right can be viewed here:

However, rather than the perpetrators being outrightly condemned for the violence that occurred in Poland's capital, some politicians and part of the media have sought to proportion equal blame on the counter-demonstrators.

This has primarily happened through claiming that the violence was partly caused by a group of German anarchists who were supposed to have come to Poland looking to cause trouble. The leader of the main opposition party, Jarosław Kaczyński, condemned the sight of Germans ‘attacking Poles’ on Independence Day.

As well as the demonstration being attended by representatives of far-right groups from other European countries, the counter-demonstration was joined by a number of anti-fascist activists from abroad. Out of the 210 people who were arrested on the demonstration, 95 were from abroad, including around 70 German anti-fascist activists. However, these people had already been arrested hours before the violence took place after being tracked by police since crossing the border.

The counter-demonstration was peaceful and sought only to stop the march of the far-right through the streets of Warsaw. The fact that some people are attempting to paint those involved in this counter-demonstration as being equally to blame for the violence is a cynical political manoeuvre. However, it has been partly successful and is being used by sections of the right to conceal the true perpetrators of the violence on 11 November in Warsaw.

This propaganda offensive also includes denying the neo-fascist and racist nature of the demonstration in Warsaw. While the demonstrators now try to avoid using openly racist or fascist slogans or salutes, the political character of the march is clear. It is partly organised by far-right organisations such as the National Radical Camp (ONR) and the All-Polish Youth organisation, both which follow the tradition of Dmowski and the pre-war Polish far-right.

However, the demonstration was also successful in reaching out beyond the confines of these groups. The danger is that the counter-demonstrators will be portrayed as the ones who prevent patriots from demonstrating on the country’s Independence Day and the cause of the terrible scenes of violence on the streets of Warsaw. Undoubtedly, this will involve calls for the police to prevent a counter-demonstration that blocks the march from taking place next year.

It is essential that the anti-fascist movement win this argument and engages with as wider a section of society and political opinion as possible to recognise the politically repulsive and violent nature of the Independence Day march organised by the far-right.

Below the Belt

2011-11-10T00:28:00.000-08:00

It was heartening when watching the opening of the new Polish Parliament yesterday to see a more socially diverse group of MPs.

Most prominently were the first openly gay (Robert Biedroń) and transsexual (Anna Grodzka ) MPs from the Palikot Movement, alongside the country's first black MP (John Abraham Godson) from PO. Despite this progress, the Polish parliament - dominated as it is by representatives of the conservative right - showed how it remains stuck in the past.

Biedroń managed to offend and amuse a number of MPs when he spoke in favour of the nomination of Wanda Nowicka for Deputy Speaker of parliament (WiceMarszałek). Nowicka is a Palikot Movement MP and a long-serving activist of the Womens' Movement in Poland and at the second attempt has been elected as Deputy Speaker. Defending his collegue against attacks from the right Biedroń dared to use the term (wait for it).... 'Below the Belt'.

As in English this is a commonly used phrase in Polish. However, for the MPs from PO and PiS (including PM Donald Tusk) it was just too much to hear a Gay MP use such phraseology and they responded with howls of laughter.

However, rather than being embarassed by their behaviour a number of MPs then went on the attack against Biedroń. Interestingly, it has been MPs from PO that have criticised Biedroń the most - as the conservative wing of the party seeks to reassert its influence.

The PO MP Julia Pietra argued that Biedroń had crossed acceptable limits in the parliament and during a subsequent debate on television she argued that he always talks about the same thing: sexuality. As Biedroń pointed out there was nothing in his speech about sexuality. Furthermore, another leading figure from PO - Stefan Niesiołowski - stated that he voted against the nomination of Nowicka because of Biedroń's irritating and stupid smile (sic). As normal Niesiołowski was growling and grimacing as he said this.

Biedron won over 17,000 votes at the last election, which was possible due to years of campaigning against homophobia during a time when such voices were rarely heard. The election of MPs such as Biedroń is a great advance for Polish politics. However, from yesterday's spectacle it is obvious that many in the parliament are not yet ready for this.

Mixed Economic Signals as New Crisis Looms

2011-10-25T05:38:00.000-07:00

As Europe’s leaders seek to contain the ever growing economic crisis in the eurozone, the countries in Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) are holding their breath.

When the first wave of the economic crisis hit Europe in 2008, the economies of CEE were amongst the worst affected. Therefore, whilst the average rate of economic decline in 2009 was 4.3% in Western Europe, the EU economies in CEE fell by 8%.

Although such a dramatic economic downturn is not currently being predicted, all indicators point to a marked slowdown throughout CEE. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has drastically reduced its prediction for economic growth in all countries in the region for 2012: down from 3.5% to 1.7%.

With the outcome of the crisis in the eurozone countries still uncertain, and the possibility of a new double dip recession in Europe a real possibility, then this prediction may be over optimistic.

Whatever happens, it is clear that a region struggling to emerge from a severe economic crisis is facing more turbulent times ahead.

Poland is still predicted to be one of the region’s best performing economies, with its estimated growth for 2012 cut from 3.5% to 2.2%. In the wake of the recent elections – when politicians begin turning their attention to realities rather than fantasies – the signals coming out of the Polish economy are mixed.

Despite the negative economic climate in Europe retail sales have remained strong, growing at an annual rate of 7.1% in the third quarter of this year. Industrial production has also continued to grow, rising by 4.1% in the third quarter of 2011. Will it be possible to maintain this course of positive economic growth?

Leaving aside events in the eurozone economies, it should be expected that the government led investment drive in the country’s infrastructure will continue at least until the Euro football championships in June 2012. Thereafter, the ability of the government to continue its course of public led investment will be decided by its own budget situation and the willingness of the richer EU states to contribute to the EU’s next budget, due to come into force in 2014.

More immediately there are worrying signs about whether the growth in domestic consumption can be maintained. Firstly, it seems that the error committed in the Western capitalist countries – of expanding an unsustainable credit bubble to drive economic growth – is in danger of being repeated in Poland.

During the past two yeas the number of Poles who have problems paying their bills and meeing their credit payments has risen by 25%. 2.08m Poles have difficulties with their credit payments, with the average debtor owing nearly 10,000 zloty. Overall private debt has now reached a total of 32.4bn zloty in Poland. With the possibility of a new banking crisis breaking out in Europe these are disturbing figures.

Another negative development in the Polish economy is the slowdown in the labour market. According to the Polish Statistics Agency (GUS) in September alone the number of jobs declined by 5,000 and employers have stopped creating new vacancies that could replace these. Whilst a year ago there were 18 unemployed people for each job vacancy, this has now risen to 27. In September this year unemployment stood at 11.7% (in absolute terms 1 862 800 people), which is likely to increase in the coming year. In such conditions, over the past year, those seeking work have reduced the average amount that they are prepared to accept as a monthly salary by 322 zloty. Such depressed wage demands will further eat into people’s consumption power, particularly as inflation currently stands at around 4.3%.

With the government facing a possible economic downturn it is already talking about revising its over optimistic budget for 2012, which it presented before the elections. The Finance Ministry predicted in this budget that economic growth would reach 4% in 2012 and that unemployment would be around 10%.

With the government determined to rapidly reduce its budget deficit, it is likely that it will embark on a new round of economic austerity. However – as shown by the experiences in other European countries – such a policy would only depress economic growth, thus placing further pressure upon the government’s finances.

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse......

2011-10-19T10:58:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) seems determined to rub salt into its self-inflicted wounds.

It may have been hoped that the SLD would have learnt some lesson after suffering its worst ever election defeat. At the least it may have been expected that it would have sought to change its current political course and attempted to begin the process of opening itself up to other currents on the left.

It was in this spirit that 7 SLD MEPs wrote to the SLD's national MPs urging them to vote for a leader of its parliamentary group that would begin this process. It was pretty obvious what this meant: vote for Ryszard Kalisz instead of Leszek Miller.

Although the political programme of Kalisz may not be radically different from what had come before, many believed he would begin a process of instigating internal changes within the SLD that would allow it to rebuild some support amongst the left in Poland.

But the SLD MPs decided that the best way forward was to re-elect Leszek Miller. Miller represents more of the same and will only dispirit those with any hope that the SLD could reform itself (see here, here and here for previous articles concerning Miller.) It will also allow Miller to consolidate his position before the run up to new leadership elections scheduled to take place in January next year.

Oh and Napieralski has still not resigned as leader (sigh).

15th October Agreement

2011-10-13T23:57:00.000-07:00

The '15th October Agreement' movement has called its first action in Warsaw tomorrow, which will start at 12pm outside of the gates of Warsaw University.

This is how they describe themselves and their activities:

The October Fifteen Agreement was established at the initiative of several young people above all students of Wielokulturowe Liceum Humanistyczne im. Jacka Kuronia.

The Agreement is thought to became a platform for joint action, above all to show our solidarity with Ruch Oburzonych w Hiszpanii, as well as to submit similar demand to Polish authorities.

Form of cooperation which we propose is (after Spanish movement) quite loose coalition platform of groups which are combined as the opposition and with general direction of their criticism. Basic requirement is that (again after Spanish movement) we strive to avoid physical violence as a form of protest.

The Agreement is not responsible for the content and views voiced by organizations which are going to join The Agreement. ‘Some are progressive, others more conservative. Some are religious, others not. Some are politically defined, others – apolitical.’ – so it was in Spain and we want it to be in Poland. Our solidarity with May 15. and that we are outraged are what is going to unite us.

We are as an initiative group open for your propositions and cooperation. Beyond the direct action we will also be grateful for any additional help with spreading the information (posters, leaflets, printing houses, news channels) and also with theoretical background (arranging meetings, discussions, film screenings) around October 15

The End of the 'Post-Communist' Left?

2011-10-12T11:26:00.000-07:00

When the former President Aleksander Kwaśniewski said on election night that this could be the last time that the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) enters parliament, he wasn’t exaggerating.

The Polish left has now reached its nadir. Not only has it scored its worst result in any election since the end of Communism, but it has also been overtaken by a liberal populist movement (the Palikot Movement – RP) that is trying to portray itself as the new party of the Polish left. The left is facing the very real possibility of extinction from the political mainstream in Poland.

It goes without saying that the SLD – under the leadership of the hapless Grzegorz Napieralski – ran a poor and ill-thought out election campaign. Napieralski had led an energetic campaign during last year’s Presidential elections and was able to represent himself as the young alternative to the two candidates from the right. Although he failed to articulate a political alternative to the right, he did manage to accumulate enough political capital to help strengthen support for the left in the run up to the parliamentary elections.

However, rather than reaching out to other activists and organisations from the left – who had previously become disillusioned with the SLD – Napieralski turned the party both inwards and to the right. Napieralski came to embody the worst features of the post-communist left in Poland. In the all-important game of deciding who should be in which position on the party’s electoral list, Napieralski chose his friends and close allies above genuine activists. This meant that in the run up to the elections there were a number of high-profile defections (both to PO and RP) that weakened the support of the party.

The most galling aspect of this political manoeuvring was the re-integration of former PM Leszek Miller into the leadership of the SLD. Miller was given first place on the party’s electoral list in the winnable seat of Gdyńia and became a high-profile figure during the election campaign. The political influence of Miller upon the political strategy of Napieralski became all too clear. This was particularly symbolised by the party’s decision to sign an economic pact with the Business Centre Club - an organisation that had openly praised the former Prime Minister.

It should be remembered what damage Miller has done to the left in Poland. It was Miller who was PM when support for the SLD declined from over 40% to 11%. His government was seeped in corruption scandals, which helped build the image of the SLD as a party of privilege and power. It was Miller who reneged on his promises to tackle the privileges and power of the church and reform the abortion law (policies on which the SLD was elected.) It was Miller who argued that the left should become supporters of neo-liberal economics and even advocated introducing a flat-income tax rate. Finally, it was Miller who followed Bush and Blair into their disastrous military adventure in Iraq. Yet, while even the mention of Tony Blair’s name at the Labour Party conference is met with jeers and boos nowadays, Miller returned to parliament this week.

The problem for the SLD is that for more than two decades it has been trying to be accepted as part of the mainstream. At the start of the transition – during a time when the legal right for those connected to the old system to participate in politics was under question – it did all it could to convince people that it was committed to the course of reform. Once this had been established, it then sought to show that it was not an ‘anti-clerical’ party and would not challenge the authority of the Church.

However, while the SLD remained stuck in this ideological straightjacket, Polish society was changing. Over 80% of society believes that the Church should be separated from politics. Young Poles lead life-styles that are far removed from the doctrines of the Church and are closer to those within the majority of European societies. It is not that Poles have suddenly stopped believing in God, but they have certainly realised that the privileges and power, accumulated by the Church hierarchy over the past two decades, are excessive.

It is in these conditions that Janusz Palikot was able to usurp the SLD and win the support of that part of the electorate that is the most liberal on social and cultural issues. After splitting from PO, Palikot became the champion of policies such as removing compulsory religious education from schools, making priests pay taxes, supporting the state-funding of in-vitro treatment, supporting same-sex legal partnerships and legalising marijuana. This strategy allowed him to successfully win the support of those parts of the electorate that were dissatisfied with the conservatism of PO and the timidity of the SLD.

Despite Palikot’s stance on these matters he is no man of the left. Alongside this array of social and cultural policies he advocates an economic policy of more neo-liberal reform. Most strikingly, he supports the introduction of a flat tax (18% for VAT and income and business taxes) and advocates no programme of economic redistribution at a time when social inequalities are once again growing. RP is setting itself up to be the leading advocates of reform in parliament and it is to be expected that this will include them pushing for the government to introduce further liberal economic reforms. It will be interesting to see whether those in his movement that are genuinely from the left will oppose these moves.

While some of the policies of Palikot are progressive, and many of these are supported by the majority of society, his overall programme is not. For the past few years Polish politics has become dominated by symbolic cultural conflicts that have disguised the real socio-economic problems and challenges facing the population. Palikot’s aim is to harness the frustration’s of the middle class through waging a cultural war in the country and attack his opponents in an often primitive and offensive manner (such as claiming that Jarosław Kaczyński was responsible for the Smoleńsk tragedy.) In many ways he replicates the so-called ‘new atheists’ in the West, who use progressive liberal principles as a guise to promote regressive political aims (such as banning Muslim women from wearing the veil).

Palikot has already become enemy number one for the Law and Justice Party (PiS), who will attempt to show how Palikot, in alliance with PO, represent an immoral elite that ignores the economic difficulties faced by the majority of society. The danger of such a situation is that social and cultural liberalism will become further regarded by some as the preserve of the privileged few and that the causes of economic inequality will be hidden behind artificial cultural conflicts.

For the left the situation is more complicated. In order to reassert its independence it needs to consistently support progressive social and cultural reforms, whilst also developing a clear left economic programme that promotes economic growth, develops public services and reduces social inequalities. As the economic crisis worsens in Europe it needs to maintain a clear political stance of ‘investment not cuts’ and oppose attempts to shift the burden of this crisis onto the poorest sections of society.

For these reasons the left has to rebuild itself in opposition to and not in alliance with the Palikot Movement. Immediately the SLD should open itself up to all those on the left and help instigate a process of creating a new organisational framework that can represent the left’s pluralism. All of the left at this moment should realise its common interest and understand the seriousness of the challenges that lie ahead of it. For if it doesn’t act now then it may be too late.

Tusk Bucks the Trend

2011-10-10T04:22:00.000-07:00

The victory of Donald Tusk's Citizens' Platform party (PO), at yesterday's parliamentary elections, is significant for two reasons.

Firstly, this is the first time in the country's history (which includes the inter-war period) when a governing party has been re-elected in an open and free election. PO has not only won the largest share of the vote, but has gained enough seats to continue its coalition with the Peasants' Party (PSL). It really couldn't have wished for a better night.

Secondly, the victory of PO goes against the current trend in European politics. The expanding crisis within the eurozone has had its own affect upon the political scene in most European countries. One result has been the strengthening of the conservative-right, which has used the ideologies of reaction and division (such as racism and xenophobia) as the liberal consensus is undermined by growing economic hardship.

It is true that the Polish political scene does not replicate those in the vast majority of European countries - dominated as it is by two right-wing parties. Nevertheless, there is a measurable difference between many (although not all) of the social and cultural policies of PO and its more conservative rival the Law and Justice Party (PiS). Furthermore, with the liberal populist Palikot Movement (RP) winning more than 10% of the vote, it can be seen how there has been a shift to the left in this election on social cultural issues; and to some extent on economic issues, as PO has had to temper its more neo-liberal rhetoric.

Yet, although the parties of the conservative right have been strengthened in many European countries, they have still suffered their own defeats. The more general trend in recent European elections has been that nearly all governing parties have been ejected from power as the social effects of the economic crisis have been felt. Any governing party that is able to be re-elected in today's Europe is doing well, let alone in a country which has never done so before in its history.

PO have managed to extend their support into some of the heartlands of PiS and re-establish themselves as the hegemonic party not only of the right but of Polish politics. The graphic below shows how PO has extended out of its western heartlands and won in regions previously controlled by PiS.

.

How has it been possible for PO to claim such an impressive victory? Well, its the economy stupid. It's been oft repeated that Poland has been the only EU country to have avoided a recession since the outbreak of the economic crisis. Although critics have rightly pointed to the growing hardships for many social groups and the terrible state of many public services, it still has to be accepted that growth is better than decline.

Tusk has proven himself to be a pragmatic leader with a political skill and instinct rarely displayed by his rivals. He has avoided confrontation with the teachers and its strong trade union by raising their wages; and he has sensibly partly reversed the compulsory private pension system - an act of ideological treason for some.

The major slice of political luck for this professed heir of Hayek, has been that while the invisible hand of the market of has been paralysed, the state has been able to flex its muscles. The influx of funds from the EU (and lets call this what it really is - progressive economic redistribution directed by state institutions) has allowed public investment to rise as private investment has collapsed.

Furthermore, the PO government has maintained a relatively high (although not excessive) budget deficit and has not embarked upon a policy of economic austerity that is currently driving many European economies into a double-dip recession.

Yet, as Tusk reflects on his victory today he will realise that it may not be so easy for him during the next four years. The widening economic crisis in the eurozone is knocking on Poland's door and there are already signs of an economic slowdown in the country. The government is committed to quickly bringing down the budget deficit and could embark on its own austerity drive. Also, although it is unclear how much Poland will receive from the next EU budget in structural and cohesion funds, it is certain that the current wave of infrastructural development will slow following next year's European football championships. Add into the mix the possibility of a prolonged economic downturn in the eurozone – including perhaps in Germany - then the challenges for the Polish government are huge.

It should also be remembered that although PiS has lost another election it still enjoys over 30% of the vote. It may have retracted into its heartland and hardened its rhetoric but it is well placed to capitalise on any future decline in support for PO.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the left that is in its weakest position since the end of Communism. Another reason for Tusk to feel particularly self-satisfied today.

Poland revises plans on funds for railway sector

2011-09-27T00:08:00.000-07:00

It has been pointed out in this blog how Poland has managed to maintain economic growth throughout the global economic crisis largely due to an increase in public investment spurred by an inflow of EU funds. It has also been noted however that the vast majority of infrastructural developments in transport have been concentrated in roads rather than railways.

There are signs however that the Polish government is considering reversing its decision to divert funds designated for railway development to road building. This is a welcome development and comes after sustained political pressure at a time when Poland holds the EU Presidency.

Below I reproduce an article from European Greens website (thanks to Greig Aitken for pointing this out)

According to reports, the Polish government has changed its mind about proposals to redirect €1.2 billion in cohesion funds from rail to road projects. The money will now be spent, as originally foreseen, on the modernisation and maintenance of existing rail infrastructure.

The Greens, who lobbied the Polish government on this issue together with EU transport commissioner Siim Kallas, welcome the decision. It's good news for the climate, rail transport in Poland and the credibility of European transport policy.

According to Green transport spokesperson Michael Cramer MEP, "Redirecting cohesion funds from rail to road would have set a disastrous precedent for EU transport policy and would have been a terrible signal to send in the context of the current Polish EU presidency."

"It is welcome that there was coordinated EU opposition to the original plans: funds that are approved for environmental-friendly railway projects cannot become subject to subsequent relocation to the climate-damaging road construction."

This is particularly good news for the Polish railway network which is in urgent need of funding. Poland is Europe's frontrunner in dismantling railway infrastructure with 25% of rail routes dismantled since 1990. Improving this infrastructure will aid transport not just in Poland but for the rest of Europe, in particualr the Baltic states. For Michael Cramer "Strengthening and expanding the connection between Bialystok in Poland and Kaunas in Lithuania has to be a top priority to ensure Baltic States do not remain disconnected from the European rail network".

Palikot - Humanities' Students Should Pay for their Studies

2011-09-26T02:43:00.000-07:00

Janusz Palikot - who leads the liberal populist Palikot Movement - claimed in an interview in today's ' Metro' that those studying on Humanities courses should pay for their studies. And why? Because afterwards they will be unemployed.

I also have an idea for education. It can not be so that a philosophy student studies for free and an extramural student at a polytechnic has to pay. The governemnt should state that those courses will be free, which give someone a chance of finding work. Subjects such as business, biology, food-processing, mathematics, medicine and IT should be free. Those studying humanities should pay, because they end up unemployed.

There speaks the new leader of the left (sic)

Poland Takes Centre Stage During Eurozone Crisis Talks

2011-09-19T01:12:00.001-07:00

With Poland currently holding the EU Presidency, it has taken centre stage over the past week as the debt crisis in the eurozone intensifies.

During a debate at the EU parliament last Wednesday, the Polish Finance Minister - Jacek Rostowski - claimed that the crisis in the eurozone threatens the break up of the EU itself. He went on to warn that such an event could result in the outbreak of war in the continent within a decade and that he is 'really thinking about obtaining a green card for my kids in the United States'.

Such claims may be over emotive and exaggerated, but they do reveal the fears felt about the break up of the European project in Central Eastern Europe and other poorer states in the Union.

On Saturday, Economic and Finance Ministers and the European Central Bank met in the Polish city of Wrocław to discuss the current EU crisis. The situation is deemed so serious that the U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner joined the discussions. They were also greeted by a demonstration of up to 50,000 trade unionists, protesting against low wages and unemployment.

Opinions on dealing with the crisis range from increasing help for the so-called periphery economies and issuing eurobonds (alongside imposing further austeriy measures upon these countries) to allowing for the break up of the eurozone as these countries default on their debts. However, neither of these options addresses the fundamental problem facing the European economies today and at how this can be resolved. This can only be done through reversing the collapse in fixed investment that has accounted for the total economic contraction in Europe over the past couple of years.

The article reproduced below, from the website Key Trends in Globalisation, looks at this :

The international financial system is passing through the agony of a new round of the Eurozone debt crisis for the simple reason that European governments, like that in the US, refuse to deal with the core of the economic recession in Europe for reasons of economic dogma.

Anyone who looks at the economic data for the Eurozone without wearing ideological blinkers can see the situation at once – it is charted in Figure 1. The Eurozone recession is due to a collapse in fixed investment. Taking OECD data, at inflation adjusted prices and fixed parity purchasing powers (PPPs), then between the last quarter before the recession, the 1st quarter of 2008, and the 2nd quarter of 2011 Eurozone GDP fell by $204bn. But private consumption declined by only $29bn while the net trade balance increased by $32bn and government consumption rose by $91bn.

However fixed investment fell by $290bn – i.e. the recession in the Eurozone was wholly due to the fixed investment decline

Equally evidently, due to its scale, until this fall in investment is reversed it will take a prolonged period for the recession to be overcome. Therefore to restore growth, which by now is generally realised is the core to turning round the budget deficit problem, the fixed investment decline must be overcome.

Nor is there anything mysterious about how to do this – the state has entirely adequate means. To take the most decisive international case China made the core of its stimulus package direct state investment particularly aimed at infrastructure and housing – the result being that China’s economy has grown by over thirty per cent in three years.

Europe and the US clearly do not have the scale of state sector, nor the political willingness, to act on the scale China did. But US history shows that even without proceeding to a socialist scale of measures direct state intervention on investment is entirely possible.

Roosevelt expanded US state investment from 3.4% of GDP to 5.0% between 1933 and 1936 (data from US Bureau of Economic Analysis Table 1.5.5). Jason Scott Smith, in his study of New Deal public spending, summarises such investment as including 480 airports, 78,000 bridges, 572,000 miles of highway - which, in addition to its immediate effect in stimulating demand, reinforced the productive position of the US economy. Roosevelt, it is superfluous to point out, was neither a socialist nor a communist (despite claims to the contrary by the US right!).

Quarterly, up to date, data is regrettably not available on what is occurring across the Eurozone for state investment, but it is available for the US and there is no reason to suppose, with current policies, that the situation in Europe is any better. Between the peak of the previous US business cycle, in the 4th quarter of 2007, and the 2nd quarter of 2011 US private fixed investment fell from 15.8% of GDP to 12.2% - i.e. a decline of 3.6% of GDP. Yet in the same period US state investment did not compensate but also fell marginally – from 3.3% of GDP to 3.2% of GDP. Therefore while Roosevelt expanded the weight of US state investment current US administrations have been letting it fall.

Instead of directly addressing the core issue of the investment fall European administrations are either attempting to stimulate it indirectly – which, as it is ineffective, has led to fiscal/sovereign debt crises, or are acting via expansion of the money supply – which, in a situation whereby companies and households are paying down debt, is merely the famous ‘pushing on a piece of string’. The most favourable outcome of such a situation is that eventually the debt will be paid down, but only after several years of stagnation. The less favourable variant, of course, is that the banking system breaks under the strain and renewed recession is further propelled by fiscal cutbacks. All these problems simply arise from the fact that, under the rubric of the dogma ‘private equals good, state equals bad’, European governments refuse to use the state tools available to deal with the investment fall which is at the core of the Eurozone recession.

Some European politicians are now beginning to call for state measures to increase investment, UK Business Secretary Vince Cable being one. But the action they envisage so far is inadequate to deal with the scale of the investment fall.

China's economy, which does not have such ideological inhibitions, will continue to expand while the Eurozone remains relatively stagnant for a significant period - and as long as economic stagnation continues there will be no resolving of the Eurozone debt crisis.

Electoral Success for Latvian Centre-Left

2011-09-19T00:18:00.000-07:00

The recent Latvian elections have resulted in the centre-left Harmony Centre gaining over 28% of the vote. This is interesting due to the fact that a large section of the Harmony Centre's support comes from the Russian minority that live in Latvia. It also raises doubts about the claims the Latvian policies of austerity have been a great success and an example to be emulated.

Below I reproduce an excellent article from the Socialist Unity website:

Yesterday’s election in Latvia is more than a curiosity for two reasons; firstly that Latvia has been the poster-child state for austerity, with political claims made that the Latvian population have supported huge spending cuts; and secondly that Latvia is one of the few parts of the former USSR to now be part of the EU.

Given the use of rhetoric about human rights by Western governments, the unconditional acceptance of Estonia and Latvia into the EU, despite the legal discrimination in those states against Russians, (and other ethnic minorities who use Russian as a lingua franca) is extraordinary. A full 16% of people domiciled in Latvia are denied a vote in elections, including many who were born there, and whose parents were born there.

In response to the 2008 recession, Latvia’s government made the decision to assume responsibility not only for the state’s sovereign debt, but also for the private sector debt of the banking institutions; and to protect the banks they launched extraordinary cuts in public spending. As Daniel McConnell in the Irish Independent reports:

A third of teachers in Latvia were laid off; the rest have endured savage salary cuts of up to 40 per cent, leaving them barely above the minimum wage.

Many have seen their pension entitlements slashed by 70 per cent; doctors and police officers face sacrificing a fifth of their pay. Many other key state services were severely curtailed including the cancellation of medical surgeries and closure of hospital wards in order to bring the cost of running the state into line.

According to an excellent study by Fine Gael TD Paschal Donohoe, which compares Ireland’s economy to other similar-sized European and Scandinavian countries, living standards in Latvia are well below those of Ireland and the EU average.

Despite the strong growth this year, unemployment remains high at 18 per cent but is falling.

The article in the Irish Independent quoted above is flawed by accepting the conventional but preposterous narrative that Latvia has somehow benefitted by these austerity measures. based upon the flimsy evidence that since its economy fell by a full 25% since 2008, and unemployment reached 22%, Latvia has more recently experienced a limited dead-cat bounce.

Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post had boasted that this limited recovery is linked to mass political support for what is euphemistically called “internal devaluation”, i.e. massive deflation of Latvia’s domestic economy and devastation of its civic institutions in the short term interests of servicing the debt:

What distinguished Latvia’s experience from our own is that, once people recognized the gravity of the crisis, they came together to support the necessary, if harsh, policies to stop the free-fall and restore stability. The economy is now growing again, and although joblessness remains horrific (16.6 percent), it is gradually declining. There is renewed hope. The government that presided over the punishing measures that brought about recovery was reelected last October with an expanded majority.

Yesterday’s election which reverses the 2010 result both burst the bubble of the myth that Latvians support austerity, but also reveals starkly the ethnic and linguistic divide in Latvian society which produced last year’s anomalous election result.

With regard to the economy, Samuelson is simply wrong. As Professor Michael Hudson argues:

The modest uptick in growth is primarily a consequence of Swedish demand for Latvian timber. Long-term economic prospects in the country, however, remain grim. … … let’s interrogate what Latvia’s “success” means? First, the banks are being paid. There has been no debt write-down. That would be an answer to the question previously raised of cui bono. Latvians are paying their private debts (largely to the Swedes, … helping to ensure that Sweden has faced no economic crisis). The cost, however, came at 25% GDP contraction of Latvia’s economy and public-sector salaries to driven down 30%, with unemployment from public spending cutbacks driving down private sector salaries.

Meanwhile, the Latvian public will have to bear the cost of this programme through the future debt payments required on the more than €4.4bn borrowed from the EU and IMF, which was required to keep its government running on life support during the crisis.

The Latvian solution’s defenders, however, argued that the economic contraction has ended and that modest growth has returned, with unemployment finally below 15%. But emigration has been part of the reason for the fall in unemployment, while investment in manufacturing and savings are far too low to return the country to robust growth. Unlike, say, Argentina, which rejected austerity, and saw its economy grow at 6% annually for six of the seven years following its crisis, Latvia shows no signs of posting such numbers.

… So, is Latvia on the way to recovery? Only time will tell, but the initial signs look very bad. Demographically, the country’s very survival looks in doubt. Economically, according the internal devaluation proponents, the country will have to export its way back to health. Yet, as the economist Edward Hugh has shown, only 10% of Latvia’s economy is from manufacturing, as opposed to roughly 40% for an industrialised economy like Germany’s.

Effectively, Latvia has become a colony for the EU, with the population toiling to service debt, but their real economy and social infrastructure disintegrating. Let us be clear, Latvians now have a standard of living (as measured by Parity Purchasing Power (PPP)) roughly half that of Greece, and only slightly higher than Belarus; and a large proportion of Latvians are now economically worse off than when they were part of the USSR.

This is the context where the 28% vote for the centre-left “Harmony Centre” party (Saskanas Centrs) must be understood.

Harmony have opposed austerity, and strategically opposes the discrimination which denies citizenship to almost half the Russian speaking population. Russians make up a majority of the population of Daugavpils, the second city, and over 40% of population of the capital, Riga; but many Russian speakers are not accepted as citizens in Latvia’s racist constitution. Remember that almost half of Latvia’s Russian population are denied a vote.

Latvian government statistics show that 630,380 ethnic Russians live in the Baltic state. Some 367,662 are Latvian citizens, and around 22,000 hold Russian passports. Another 235,908 people are neither Russian nor Latvian and are classed as “non-citizens.”

For example, Tatjana Zdanoka, the only Russian out of Latvia’s nine MEPs, (despite one in four Latvians being Russian). She gained citizenship in 1996, but only after a court battle, and the original rejection of her citizenship was on political grounds, because she had opposed independence in 1991.

The centre-left Harmony party now has 31 seats in the 100 seat parliament (Saeima), and to have acheived that they must have attracted votes from left inclined ethnic Latvians. But a pro-austerity coalition seems to have been swiftly stitched together between the so-called Reform Party, and the Unity bloc, the parties which came second and third in the election; they can probably also count on the support of the Latvian ultra-nationalists.

This is an extraordinarily volatile situation. In particular, the apparent electoral support for pro-austerity parties is a reflection of the racialised politics in Latvia; where support for Keynesian economic intervention has become associated with the Russian minority; and austerity is trumpeted by Latvian nationalists.

Wnuki Thatcher, Dzieci Blaira

2011-09-16T03:22:00.000-07:00

My article in Polish about the riots in the UK was published in the latest issue of Le Monde Diplomatique (Polska Edycja):

Do Wielkiej Brytanii nie zawitała Arabska Wiosna. Nie były to nawet wydarzenia porównywalne z ostatnimi protestami w Atenach czy Madrycie. Te zamieszki nie miały pozytywnych celów politycznych, nie wysunięto żądań, nie przedstawiono programu. Był to wybuch chaosu.

Błędem byłoby jednak rozpatrywanie zamieszek w Londynie w całkowitym oderwaniu od wydarzeń w innych miejscach świata. Najpotężniejsza dekoniunktura gospodarcza w ciągu całego pokolenia doprowadziła do powstania całego łańcucha powiązanych wzajemnie zdarzeń, których przyczyną pozostaje spadający standard życia i rosnące nierówności. Kair, Ateny, Madryt, Londyn, a nawet Oslo – oto momenty, które zachwiały znajdującym się w kryzysie systemem globalnym.

Dlaczego jednak Wielka Brytania, i dlaczego teraz? Dlaczego w kraju, uznawanym często za opokę stabilności, zaczęło się dziać tak źle, że cały sektor młodzieży wyległ na ulice własnych społeczności, wszczynając zamieszki i dokonując grabieży?

Oto pytanie, na które nie chcą odpowiedzieć rząd brytyjski i jego zwolennicy. Premier David Cameron określił zamieszki jako akt czysto kryminalny. Uczestnicy zamieszek to po prostu kryminaliści i zbiry, a zatem rozwiązaniem jest zaprowadzenie prawa i porządku.

Uczestników zamieszek stygmatyzuje się i szufladkuje jako grupę pozbawionych moralności przestępców. Potem słyszymy jedynie wyjaśnienia, że w ich społecznościach panuje nieład moralny i kulturowy. Przyczynami ostatnich zamieszek mają być rozkład rodziny, samotni rodzice, brak dyscypliny i wreszcie rasa.

Prawica konserwatywna i jej przedstawiciele wśród intelektualistów wykorzystują zamieszki jako nowy pretekst do ataku na społeczeństwo wielokulturowe, obwiniając za wybuch przemocy imigrantów. Nawet wobec faktu, że w zamieszkach wzięła udział młodzież o wszelkim możliwym kolorze skóry, zrzucają odpowiedzialność za problemy na „czarną kulturę". Takie opinie pojawiają się nie tylko na marginesie skrajnie prawicowym, lecz wypowiadają je również „szanowani" przedstawiciele establishmentu w mediach głównego nurtu. Historyk David Starkey wprost zadeklarował w BBC, że biali uczestniczyli w zamieszkach, ponieważ są zainfekowani kulturą czarnoskórych. Oto jego słowa: „problem polega na tym, że biali stali się czarni" [1]. Każdy, kto ośmielił się spojrzeć choć trochę głębiej na problemy społeczne i ekonomiczne, spotyka się z oskarżeniem o usprawiedliwianie przemocy. Jednakże wyjaśnieniem przyczyn zamieszek pozostają głębokie nierówności społeczne i nędza, które przez ostatnie 30 lat stawały się wśród Brytyjczyków coraz powszechniejsze [2]. Prawda jest taka, że Wielka Brytania odczuła rezultaty potężnych nierówności społecznych, powstałych w czasie rządów Margaret Thatcher w latach 80. W ciągu owego dziesięciolecia przepaść między najbogatszymi a najbiedniejszymi 20% społeczeństwa wzrosła o 60%, w wyniku czego nierówności pozostają tu dwukrotnie większe niż w większości krajów Europy Zachodniej [3].

Nie dokonano tego pokojowo. Thatcher musiała zmierzyć się z zamieszkami na początku lat 80., gdy czarne społeczności zaprotestowały przeciwko bezrobociu i nękaniu przez policję.

Trwający przez cały rok strajk górników i zamieszki przeciwko podatkowi pogłównemu to kolejne przykłady niepokojów, za sprawą których Thatcher straciła stołek. Nie zniknęło jednak jej dziedzictwo.

Trudno jednoznacznie ocenić rządy Partii Pracy w latach 1997-2010. Za jej rządów wzrost gospodarczy był zazwyczaj wysoki, spadło bezrobocie i zwiększono wydatki na służby publiczne. Ów wzrost został jednakże w znacznej mierze osiągnięty dzięki polityce deregulacji finansowej, za sprawą której powstała niemożliwa do utrzymania bańka kredytowa. Gdy pękła, gospodarka Wielkiej Brytanii zaznała nie tylko recesji, lecz wręcz depresji. Co gorsza, nawet w latach wzrostu gospodarczego nie zmniejszyły się, a nawet nieco wzrosły nierówności społeczne. Gdy płynął pieniądz, rozwijał się rynek nieruchomości, a ludzie oddawali się szałowi zakupów, pielęgnowano kulturę konsumeryzmu i indywidualizmu. W 2007 r. liczba kredytów osiągnęła punkt krytyczny i domek z kart się zawalił.

Słynne jest powiedzenie Margaret Thatcher, że „nie ma czegoś takiego jak społeczeństwo".

To nie opinia, lecz projekt polityczny, którego konsekwencje okazały się tragiczne. Budowa kraju nierówności i atomizacji przez Thatcher i jej kontynuacja przez Blaira dały się we znaki dwóm kolejnym pokoleniom. Nie można się dziwić, że efektem nierówności społecznych i nędzy okazują się niepokoje społeczne. Nie dzieje się to jednak natychmiast – społeczeństwo doznaje wcześniej uszczerbku, a społeczności i rodziny ulegają korozji. Wśród 21 najbardziej rozwiniętych gospodarek na świecie, Wielka Brytania ma najgorsze wskaźniki dobrobytu dzieci, wypada też źle w przypadku ciąż wśród nastolatek, liczby więźniów, poziomu narkomanii, otyłości, braku mobilności społecznej i chorób psychicznych [4].

Zamieszki zaczęły się w Tottenham. Policja zastrzeliła młodego czarnoskórego, w kraju, w którym czarnoskórzy są 26 razy częściej niż inni zatrzymywani i przeszukiwani przez policję, a mimo pokojowych protestów rodzina zabitego nie otrzymała żadnych wyjaśnień co do przyczyn zdarzenia. Miało to miejsce w okolicy, którą cechuje wyjątkowo wysoki w skali kraju poziom bezrobocia wśród młodych. Zamieszki zaczęły się w okręgu, w którym ostatnio, w ramach 75% cięć budżetu na służby dla młodzieży, zamknięto kluby młodzieżowe [5].

Zamieszki rozszerzyły się z Tottenham na cały kraj, w którym trwa stagnacja gospodarcza, rośnie bezrobocie, a jedyną odpowiedzią rządu na te problemy pozostają oszczędności i cięcia budżetowe. W ostatnich miesiącach rząd zlikwidował zasiłek studencki (Educational Maintenance Allowance, EMA), zapewniający młodzieży z klasy robotniczej środki konieczne na podjęcie edukacji. Podniósł też czesne w szkołach wyższych, w wyniku czego każdy, kto zechce rozpocząć wyższą edukację, musi się liczyć z popadnięciem w dług rzędu 20 tys. funtów.

Zamieszki stanowiły wybuch chaosu na gruncie przygotowanym przez niesprawiedliwość, złość, brak złudzeń i wykluczenie. Są produktem społeczeństwa nauczonego, że jedynym wskaźnikiem sukcesu jest to, co skonsumujesz – zatem ich uczestnicy postanowili wziąć sprawy we własne ręce. To wszystko stało się w kraju, zbudowanym na nieuczciwości i chciwości. To tutaj bankierzy otrzymują nagrodę za doprowadzenie gospodarki do ruiny,

to tutaj przyłapywano polityków na machlojkach w ewidencji wydatków, to tutaj media (w przymierzu z policją i politykami) działają zbrodniczo i niemoralnie.

Cameron może sobie gadać o „wielkim społeczeństwie" i twierdzić, że „wszyscy jesteśmy w nim zjednoczeni". W rzeczywistości jednak polityka gospodarcza jego rządu oznacza cięcia wydatków na służby publiczne i społeczne, mające zapłacić za kryzys wywołany przez sektor finansowy. Całe społeczności, które cierpią już od dziesięcioleci wskutek zaniedbań, zdane są na łaskę i niełaskę sytuacji, w której brak widoków na lepszą przyszłość, nic nie daje nadziei, a za uczciwość i ciężką pracę nie sposób spodziewać się nagrody.

Wielu z tych, którzy wzięli udział w zamieszkach, zapełnia dziś więzienia i sale sądowe.

Znów porządek panuje na ulicach i trwa usuwanie szkód. Jednakże wobec pęknięć, które pojawiły się w społeczeństwie, jakiekolwiek długotrwałe rozwiązanie musi pociągnąć za sobą podjęcie problemu głębokich nierówności, które prowadzą do jego fragmentaryzacji. Lewica musi zaoferować program, w którym podejmie te kwestie, gdyż inaczej nie będzie w stanie przeciwstawić się tym, którzy pragną wykorzystać ostatnie zamieszki, by rozszerzyć swój reakcyjny i równoznaczny z dalszymi podziałami społecznymi pakiet propozycji.

tłum. Paweł Michał Bartolik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gavin Rae – Socjolog, wykładowca w Akademii Koźmińskiego. Autor książki Poland’s Return to Capitalism. Prowadzi blog www.beyondthetransition.blogspot.com.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/3jhx34v.

[2] 41% of those convicted of taking part in the recent riots live in the 10% most deprived areas of England. (http:// tinyurl.com/3l5wpw7).

[3] „Broken Society, yes. But by Thatcher", The Guardian, 29 stycznia 2011 (http://tinyurl.com/yjwj3ta).

[4] R. Wilkinson, K. Picket, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Allen Lane, Londyn 2009.

[5] „These riots reflect a society run on greed and looting", The Guardian, 10 sierpnia 2011 (http://tinyurl.com/442sohu).

The Polish Green Party and the Upcoming Elections

2011-09-14T08:43:00.000-07:00

An interesting interview in English with Bartłomiej Kozek from the Polish Green Party can be found here

Pensions Debate

2011-09-14T07:47:00.000-07:00

Here you can read a paper on the debate over private pensions in Poland, which I presented at the ESPAnet conference last weekend.

The Rise of Liberal Populism

2011-09-14T03:23:00.000-07:00

So is this election about to get interesting?

Well after a day of seeing the media obsess over the supposed hacking of the the PiS MP's - Beata Kempa - email account, it would seem not. Also, the painful sight of watching the left being represented by Leszek Miller and Aleksander Kwasniewski, as they stolled around Gdynia, was enough to put one off politics for life. But something may be stirring below the surface.

A current debate in Poland concerns the domination of Polish politics by four parties. The complaint is that these are the only parties that stand any real chance of entering politics, boosted by the large state subsidies that they have been receiving for years and their near total monopoly of media publicity. The programmes of these parties have essentially converged on many crucial issues and elections have become little more than a publicity show and popularity contest.

I have some sympathy for this point of view, although I feel that it is exaggerated and often used as an excuse by some to explain their own lack of political support. Nevertheless, the issue of how any real alternative could break the current status-quo is a complex one.

One person is currently giving it a go - Janusz Palikot - and according to current opinion polls his political movement (aptly named the Palikot Movement) has a chance of crossing the 5% threshold needed to enter parliament.

Palikot first entered parliament as a Citizens' Platform (PO) MP in 2005. He had previously made his name as a millionaire businessman and a representative of the Polish Confederation of Private Employers. Palikot has a taste for self-publicity and rose to prominence as a flamboyant MP who courted controversy and media attention. He brought the culture of political stunts and happenings into the political mainstream and sought to shock the audience and outrage his political opponents.

Within PO, Palikot took up the mantle of the leading advocate of liberalism. He rallied against the hypocrisies and reactions of the conservative right. He has stood up for such things as gay rights, liberalisation of the drugs law and the secularisation of the state and society. In the aftermath of the Smoleńsk tragedy, Palikot has come into conflict with those on the right who have sought to expand their conservative agenda. Sensing a political opening, Palikot left PO and formed a new movement that already boasts as many members as PO.

However, most of Palikot's gestures and activities are about one thing: himself. For example, his recent proclamation that Jarosław Kaczyński was responsible for the Smoleńsk tragedy may play well to his supporters in the gallery, but is just another example of how far the level of political debate in Poland has fallen.

Yet in this age of media centred politics, Palikot is beginning to make political ground on his opponents. The question remains, if his support does rise who will suffer as a consequence? Palikot's attempt to form a party ostensibly of the left, means that he represents a direct challenge to the SLD. After the gay activist, Robert Biedron, became a candidate for the Palikot Movement, then this challenge has become more direct. Palikot's proactive and overtly political campaign contrasts with the SLD's, which is dominated by the party's old-guard and its leader Napieralski's search for the next photo-opportunity.

However, the biggest losers from the rise of the Palikot Movement may be PO. Palikot is addressing much of his attacks against PO, claiming that they have betrayed their ideological roots and political base. His most recent stunt has been to erect tents (an 'orange city') outside the PM's office, protesting against the refusal of Tusk to debate with leaders of parties who are not currently in parliament.

Does the Palikot Movement represent a genuine alternative in Poland? A cursory glance at Palikot's programme reveals that despite its packaging, Palikot offers little new and combines cultural liberalism with extreme economic liberal policies. (An excellent article in Polish on this matter can be found here)

Palikot proposes to introduce a flat tax rate of 18% for Personal and Business tax and VAT. This would amount to a transfer of wealth to the richest sections of society and would further starve the budget of funds leading to more social spending cuts. Within his programme there is virtually no mention of social policy. The only proposal he has for creating employment is the fight against 'bureaucracy' and liberalising the labour code. He also wishes to raise the age of retirement, in a country that has one of the lowest employment rates in Europe and soaring youth unemployment.

The Palikot Movement represents a new strand in Polish politics: Liberal Populism. Previously the economic populism of the right had been combined with cultural conservatism. Palikot has harnessed the frustrations of a section of the middle class and promotes a mixture of cultural and economic individualism. He is winning the support of that part of the electorate who had placed their hopes in PO but feel let down by its record in government. He is also gaining votes from some of those who would traditionally support the left but are fed up with the SLD.

The dynamism and self-financing of his campaign give Palikot a chance of making a political breakthrough at next month's elections. Despite the fact that this may shake up the political scene, it would offer nothing progressive to Polish politics and further shift economic power to the privileged sections of society whilst further complicating the possibility of forming a real left alternative in the country. However, if the Palikot Movement continues to rise in the polls then the immediate consequence could be the weakening of PO, allowing PiS to make gains at next month's election. Already, the gap between these two parties is beginning to narrow in the opinion polls.

The Travails of the Left

2011-09-06T03:40:00.000-07:00

'There's no one to vote for' is the phrase repeated with depressing regularity when discussing the current elections. So with many fatigued by the two dominant right-wing parties in Poland, does the left have a chance to make a breakthrough at next month's parliamentary elections?

An opening emerged for the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) following the relatively good result of its leader, Grzegorz Napieralski, in the Presidential elections last year. Napieralski ran an energetic campaign which, although low on political content, was carried out without the support of much of the party's 'old guard'. The surprisingly high result for Napieralski (14%) meant that he had an opportunity to widen the political base of the SLD, allying with different movements and individuals on the left.

Napieralski would claim that he has managed to do this. The SLD is standing on a joint list with the Green Party, the Womens' Party and the Labour Union. Although the latter is now little more than a satellite of the SLD, the Green Party and Womens' Party are small but genuinely active parties, with broadly left political programmes.

However, Napieralski has managed to isolate the party from a range of other left activists both due to political principles and organisational maneuvers.

No one is quite sure what the SLD stands for. On the one hand it has proposed a number of progressive social policies that would help society's poorest and build the country's public services. However, it has combined this with an economic programme that is based upon liberal principles.

One of the biggest mistakes of Napieralski has been to bring the ex-Prime Minister - Leszek Miller - back into the fold. Miller is the most vocal advocate of neo-liberal economics within the party, even proposing a flat-income tax rate whilst in power. He follows the Blairite dictum that the left should be supporters of liberal economic policies, that he believes will drive economic growth.

Following this philosophy, the SLD has signed an economic pact with the Polish Business Centre Club (BCC) based around the principles of fast economic growth, improving public finances, creating a friendly environment for business, developing technology and innovation and (finally) a fair distribution of wealth. Although short on detail, the pact confirms the SLD's wish to be seen as the most 'pro-business' party in Poland.

As well as allowing the politics of Miller and the 'old guard' to gain dominance, Napieralski has also given them prominent positions on the party's electoral lists. The most galling example of this, is Miller gaining first place in the SLD's electoral list in the city of Gdynia. Genuine left activists have generally found themselves lower down these lists with little hope of entering parliament.

All this has led to some dissatisfaction within the ranks of the SLD. In August the prominent gay rights activist, Robert Biedron, withdrew as an SLD candidate after he failed to gain a prominent position on the SLD list in Warsaw. Biedron has subsequently decided to stand as a candidate for the populist liberal Palikot Movement. Also the regional trade union leader, Barbara Kramarz, has resigned as an SLD candidate stating that by signing an agreement with the BCC then the SLD has shown that it is left-wing only in name.

There remain some real left-wing activists on the SLD list, that deserve the support of all those hoping for a renewal of the left in Poland. These include the Green Party and Womens' Party candidates, ex-Health Minister Marek Balicki and Michał Syska from the Ferdinand Lassalle Centre For Social Thought.

The more that such candidates get elected, the stronger the left's chance is of opposing the current political course of the SLD and its aim of entering a coalition government with Citizens' Platform.

Poland's Parliamentary Elections - Behind the Antics

2011-09-02T02:59:00.000-07:00

The summer draws slowly to an end, the leaves begin to brown and whither, the nights draw in, we return to work and an election looms.

Poland has entered the silly season, with the parliamentary elections little over a month away (9th October). Unfortunately the level of debate displayed in the mainstream media has so-far fallen short of what should be expected for such an important election. The major issue to dominate has been about how, where and when the politicians will take part in debates, rather than discussion about the real issues facing Poland. There are however some underlying issues affecting the trivial games being played out by the politicians on our TV screens.

1. It is almost certainly known in which order the main political parties will end up following the vote. This will be: First, Citizens' Platform (PO); Second, Law and Justice Party (PiS); Third, Democratic Left Alliance (SLD); Fourth, Peasants' Party. It is highly probable therefore that PO will again be in a position to form a government, which would be the first time in Poland's post-communist history that a governing party has been returned to power and would therefore represent a significant victory for PO and its leader Donald Tusk.

2. However, it is extremely unlikely that PO will be able to achieve an overall majority and form a government alone. Therefore, a major part of this election campaign concerns who will enter a government with PO. PO's favoured partner in government remains PSL, with whom it has governed for the past four years. When the PSL had previously been in government (with the SLD - 1993 to 1997 and 2001 to 2005) it left the coalition shortly before elections were due. In this way, it expressed its independence and tried to convince its electorate that it was against the unpopular decisions of the government. This time it seems as though PO has allowed PSL to express its discontent more during the last few months of the government and to push forward some of its own projects. PO understands that a strong vote for the PSL will be good for it, both because it potentially provides a reliable partner for government and also because the PSL are often competing for the support of rural voters with PO's major rival PiS.

3. The major division in the election continues to be between PO and PiS and more precisely between its leaders Tusk and Kaczyński. Polish politics continues to be dominated by the artificial division between two right-wing parties, which in reality agree on a number of fundamental issues. These parties are mutually dependent upon one another and their rivalry maintains a right-wing hegemony within Polish politics.

- PO are attempting to return to the political situation that dominated the elections in 2007, when it was able to win the support of the majority of those that wanted to eject PiS from power. These were mainly young, urban voters who feared that PiS were eroding the country's liberal democratic practices and freedoms. The turnout of 54% was the highest in any election since 1990 and reflected how PO was able to mobilise a section of the electorate that had previously been inactive. It is unlikely however that PO will be able to galvanise voters as they had done four years ago.

- PiS are trying to focus on the economic hardships experienced by some due to such things as rising inflation. Although they are attacking PO for not successfully investing in the country's infrastructure, people remember the PiS government that almost entirely failed to push forward infrastructural development. Despite existing socio-economic problems, PO can claim that they have managed to maintain economic growth throughout their term in office. PiS have refused to take part in any of the televised debates and it seems as though their strategy is to maintain their core and usually loyal vote, which would swell in conditions of a low electoral turnout.

If PiS have a disappointing election then the future of the party with Kaczyński as leader is in doubt, as it would be the fourth election in a row that they have lost. A question is raised as to whether the party - or part of it - would consider entering into an alliance with PO if the possibility arose. It is difficult to imagine that this could happen with Kaczyński in charge. Also this would be the last resort for PO, as it relies on keeping Kaczyński and PiS as the bogey men to that maintains PO's strong support.

4. The leader of the SLD - Grzegorz Napieralski - has failed to build upon his success during the Presidential election and form a broad and progressive coalition of the left (more to follow on this in the next blog post). He is hoping to repeat his success at the Presidential elections, where he managed to run an energetic campaign and travel the country meeting the electorate. It is doubtful whether this strategy will be as successful during a parliamentary campaign and I am sceptical that SLD will improve on their score of 11.5% in 2007. The unspoken aim of the SLD leadership is to gain a high vote in order to negotiate a strong position in a future coalition government with PO.

5. The attempts by splinter parties from PiS and PO are unlikely to cross the 5% threshold needed to enter parliament. 'Poland is the Most Important Party' (PJN - I know they really have kept this name!) and the Palikot Movement are running high profile and well funded election campaigns but have so-far been unable to make any real impression in the opinion polls.

With the summer recess over, Beyond The Transition will be following and analysing the elections over the next few weeks. Keep tuned folks.

Finish Wages, For Polish Workers

2011-08-11T23:02:00.001-07:00

A lot has been said recently about the effect of workers from Poland and other Central Eastern European countries entering the labour markets of Western Europe.

The far-right have targetted them as scapegoats and the government have Holland has proposed that those that are unemployed be expelled from the country. Depressingly, some within the trade union movement and on the left have jumped on this bandwagon and blamed Polish immigrants for their lack of jobs or poor working conditions. This was encompassed in the UK through the slogan "British Jobs For British Workers".

It is therefore heartening to see that trade unionists in Finland have taken another approach. The Finish Construction Workers Union has called for a boycott of a German firm that pays its Polish workers less than that allowed in Finish law (the minimum wage in Finland is 65 euro an hour.) The boycott means that members of the trade union will refuse to work for any company that pays workers less than the minimum wage.

Bravo!

Here Comes the Sun....

2011-08-01T02:02:00.000-07:00

For those in Poland preparing to fly out to warmer climates (a blessed relief with the weather we've had this year) comparisons of holidays during Communism are simple.

No longer do people have to go to an office to request access to their own passport. No longer are people confined to travelling mainly within the former eastern bloc countries. Their holidays are not restricted to the camps provided by work-places. They are no longer packing their belongings on top of a 'Mały Fiat', making sure that they have their ration cards with them or working out how they will obtain a beer for the evening. No things are simpler now and people's options are wider. Travel is freedom embodied.

Yet memories of the past are always tainted by the realities of the present.The reality in today's society is that the majority of Polish society will not be going on any holiday this summer. The latest research carried out by the Polish Public Opinion Research Centre showed that in 2007 62% of Poles did not go on any holiday at all. 38% were able to take a vacation although only 17% managed to go away for more than a week. 70% of those who went on holiday did so in Poland and just 12% who went abroad travelled by plane.74% of the respondents who did not go on holiday revealed that the primary reason for not doing so as a lack of money. Research also shows that 43% of children in Poland did not go away during the summer holidays for more than one week.

Perceptions of holidays during Communism is different from this vantage point. Workplaces subsidised holidays which families could afford; children could spend weeks with their peers on organised holiday camps and the option was open to many to fly to the coast of Bulgaria or Romania, visit the lakes in Hungary, etc.

As the old Buddhist saying goes: 'For those that wear shoes, the world is covered in leather' (or something like that)

Happy Holidays :)

Terrorism Against the Norweigan Left

2011-07-26T06:42:00.000-07:00

As in other countries, many commentators in the Polish media were quick to point their fingers at supposed Islamic terrorists for the attrocious attacks carried out in Norway this weekend.

In contrast, in an interiew carried out today, Michał Syska, from the left-wing think tank 'The Ferdinand Lassalle Centre for Social Thought', gave his views on recent events. Below I translate some of the extracts from this interview:

In Norway the darkest nightmares of the Polish extreme right are coming true. A red-red-green coalition is in government - the Labour Party with the Socialist Left Party and the Agrarian Centre Party. The government has a clear left programme, which includes the aim of integrating immigrants into Norweigan society. Research from 2009 shows that the majority of Norweigans are highly supportive of the Labour Party's policies and that it is seen as the most competent party in terms of its immigration policy.

The Interviewer asked Syska whether he thought the actions of Anders Breivik are similar to the phraseology popular amongst the Polish right, such as using the offensive term 'Komuch' against people from the left

The Communist Party was never strong in Norway. From the end of the 19th Century the largest political party in Norway has been the Labour Party, which for years dominated, competing for power with the centre-right.

Scandanavian society is strongly connected to the Welfare State. The right-wing are however highly popular because they say that 'we also want the Welfare State, but we want to reform it' - read: demolish it

The most right-wing party in Norway is the populist Progress Party. This was formed in the 1970s as a right-wing party against the Welfare State, the bureaucracy and high taxes. Before long it had incorporated anti-immigrant themes. For example during the recent elections the party produced a poster showing an Arab immigrant aiming a revolver.

Closing Europe's Borders

2011-07-14T08:01:00.000-07:00

The European Union has been built upon the free movement of capital, goods and people between the member states. However, recently, the ideal of European unity has come under threat, predominantly through the richer states seeking to impose new restrictions on the movement of people within the EU.

During the transition from Communism - when the Central Eastern European (CEE) markets were opened up to the Western European economies - a major incentive for the region's populations was the prospect of joining an enlarged EU. Being able to move, live and work freely in the EU was a strong motivational pull for the populations of CEE and was regarded as an historical gain in the region.

Even although the CEE markets had long been opened up to goods and capital from the West, most of the Western European states retained restrictions upon people from CEE working in their countries after EU enlargement. It was at this time that the stereotypes of the 'Polish plumber' began to be spread and it was not until May of this year - seven years after joining the EU - that the labour markets were fully opened up to the CEE countries that joined in 2004. To this day, workers from Bulgaria and Romania are unable to work legally in most EU countries, although of course capital and goods from the West can enter these countries without restriction.

A disturbing development in European politics is the trend towards introducing new restrictions on people moving and working inside the EU. Recently, the Dutch government has announced plans to deport people from CEE who are unemployed and whom it deems have little prospect of finding work. This has been accompanied by a new xenophobic offensive against people from CEE living in Holland, led the by far-right politician Geert Wilders.

The other threat to the movement of people inside the EU has come through attempts to restrict the free movement of people within the Schengen area, that encompasses 25 European (not all EU member) states. Firstly, the enlargement of the Schengen area to Bulgaria and Romania was delayed in June. Despite Bulgarian and Romania meeting the criteria for entering the Schengen area, their entry was opposed by the richer states of France, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and Belgium. One of the justifications for this decision was restricting the arrival of immigrants from North Africa coming through Bulgaria or Romania and also to prevent the movement of Roma from these countries. Politicians such as Nicolas Sarkozy are using such issues as a way of boosting their political capital at home as they take up political ground previously occupied by the far-right.

Another example of this trend has been the unilateral decision of Denmark to re-impose controls on its borders. This has been pushed through by the far-right Danish People's Party (DPP), which is a member of the current government.

The issue of Schengen came to the fore at the last EU summit. Here it was agreed that there was a need to re-introduce some border restrictions in 'exceptional circumstances'. This was quite rightly opposed by CEE countries such as Poland, who feared that it could be used to discriminate against their citizens. However, in face of this opposition, an amendment was agreed that the border controls would only be applied to people who are not citizens of or have permanent residency in an EU country. Quite how border guards will be able to determine whether someone is an EU citizen or not is unclear. It opens up the possibility of people being stopped because of their perceived nationality, race, etc. Polish PM Donald Tusk made the totally unsuitable comment following this decision that 'we do not have an influence on whether the security services of particular countries will implement these regulations in a politically correct manner'.

Rather than making concessions on these issues countries such as Poland - especially as it currently holds the EU Presidency - should be opposing all attempts to renegade on the Schengen agreement. It is naive of politicians such as Tusk to believe that such moves will not affect his own citizens. For example, the mayor of the German town Guben - situated on the Polish border - has recently called for the reintroduction of border controls in Germany similar to those introduced in Denmark.

The attempt to constrain the movement of people within the EU acts against one of the greates achievements of the European Union, is an infringement on people's human rights and is being promoted by a resurrgent far-right bent on promoting division, racism and xenephobia in Europe.

Apologising for being Critical

2011-07-12T13:03:00.000-07:00

An interview with Roman Kurkiewicz, journalist and participant on the current voyage to Gaza, has caused a minor political storm in Poland. Missions from over 20 countries are on their way to Gaza, carrying medical supplies, in order to break the blockade of Gaza. The boats departed on the first anniversary of the attack by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara that left 9 people dead and over 50 injured. The fleet this time round has met numerous obstacles organised by Israel and other states, not least the boats being impeded by Greece.

In an interview for the influential left-wing website Krytyka Polityczna Kurkiewicz described his reasons for taking part in the action and the obstacles that the voyage has met. In the interview Kurkiewicz criticised the Polish daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza and the critical stance it takes towards the issue of Palestine. In particular he pointed to an article written by Paweł Smoleński about the book written by the British Palestinian solidarity activist (who has Polish roots): Ewa Jasiewicz.

This article repeated the oft-repeated opinion that anti-Israeli attitudes are a 'fashion' which have been imported from the West (sic). Kurkiewicz said in his interview that he was horrified with the form of the text and that it was not comprehensible how Gazeta Wyborcza - a place where he had previously worked - could publish an article that was similar in tone to those published in March 1968.

It is this last opinion that has particularly caused outrage amongst some. March 1968 refers in Poland to the time when the authorities - under the leadership of Władysław Gomułka - launched a campaign against the opposition through expelling a number of intellectuals - the majority of whom were Jews. This campaign drew upon existent anti-Semitism in Poland and is a shameful episode in the history of the Polish People's Republic.

It is true that Kurkiewicz's words could have been chosen more wisely. However, his metaphor referred to the form of censorship and one-sidedness that exists in public debate over Palestine and the demonising of those who express alternative opinions.

Shortly after the appearance of Kurkiewicz's interview, Krytyka Polityczna published a reply by the press-officer from the Israeli embassy in Poland. The article includes a criticism of Krukiewicz's opinions, questioning the humanitarian nature of the Flotilla and the opinion that Gaza exists in a prison like state. The article also launches a new attack upon Jasiewicz - whom is described as being naive, ignorant and hating everything that is connected to Israel. In many ways the article confirms the pretensions expressed by Kurkiewicz in the original interview.

Rather than leaving the matter there, Krytyka Polityczna then published on its website an apology to Paweł Smolenski for the reference to March 1968. Quite why Krytyka felt the need to do this is anyone's guess and this is to my knowledge (and I may stand corrected) the first time that they have published such an apology. It seems that this has caused some divisions within the organisation as they shortly afterwards published an explanation as to why they could not apologise to Jasiewicz for the opinions expressed by the Israeli embassy - because, they explain, the interview had been commissioned by Krytyka Polityczna. Then, coming under criticism from some who identify with Krytyka Polityczna, it bizarrely produced an ironic poem about 'apologies'. Unfortunately such flippant humour has no place when discussing an issue of such seriousness. After all 1,434 Palestinians were killed during the war in Gaza in 2008 - of which 960 were civilians, including 288 children.

Krytyka Polityczna has made a great deal of headway in recent years by bringing together a number of individuals and intellectuals who are seeking to build an alternative left. Their greatest breakthroughs have been in the arena of culture and they have also managed to introduce some degree of pluralism into a public debate dominated by the right. One of its declared achievements has been that it has partially managed to break the dominant right-wing discourse in Poland. Previously it had not shirked controversy and it came to prominence a few years ago when it published a collection of Lenin's writings included in a book by Slavoj Zizek (something that was almost considered a crime by some in Poland.)

While a debate about the use of Kurkiewicz's language is a legitimate one, it seems that on this issue Krytyka Politcyzna have bent to pressure and avoided challenging the dominant discource that is preventing a real debate on the issue of Palestine in Poland.

Hungarian workfare - a new army of slave labour

2011-07-08T09:02:00.000-07:00

Below I reproduce an interesting article published on the Labour Representation Committee blog:

The Hungarian government has announced a new Hungarian Work Plan aimed at increasing the low employment rate in Hungary. As a post-communist country, subjected to Shock Therapy in the 1990s, some areas of Hungary have suffered unemployment rates over 40% continually over the last 20 years. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2011-01-24-rowlands-en.html

The package reduces employers’ payroll taxes and aims to replace welfare projects with public works projects. The government is attacking the rights of all employees and restoring a neo-feudal system whereby the current minimal levels of workplace of protection will be further reduced.

After 90 days of unemployment insurance, all welfare payment will be stopped to claimants. They will then need to enroll in public works programmes; and be assigned work such as cleaning sewers, building dams or stadiums. This will be done under police supervision. It is said that the conscripts will work only half-time, for less money than the minimum wage. If the work is more than six hours from the conscript’s residence, they will be given a trailer to sleep in, near the site.

These plans may represent the ultimate logic of the current capitalist trends across Europe - labour camps, guarded by the police; with the apparent blessing of the incompetents and scoundrels currently in charge of the European Union.

Solidarity Demonstration Warsaw

2011-07-06T08:13:00.000-07:00

Last week up to 80,000 Solidarity trade unionists marched in Warsaw a day before Poland took up its presidency of the EU. Amongst their demands was a rise in the minimum wage and more funding to fight unemployment.

Below are links to 2 short films I took on the march - although I don't think I'll be winning any prizes for them somehow!

Here

And also here

Anti-Abortion Offensive

2011-07-04T07:19:00.000-07:00

Poland already has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Yet for the conservative right it seems that even this is not enough.

Last week a bill - presented via a citizens' petition - was presented in parliament seeking to completely outlaw abortion. It passed its first hurdle and now will be sent to a commission in order to work on it further.

The current abortion law - passed in 1993 - allows for legal terminations only in a small number of cases:
- When the pregnancy constitutes a health threat to the mother
- When medical certification confirms that the foetus is terminally damaged
- When the pregnancy is a result of rape.

The proposed bill wants to get rid of all of these exceptions and completely outlaw abortion in the country.

The bill was passed in a parliamentary vote on Friday, with 254 MPs voting in favour of the bill and 151 voting against. Scandulously, the ruling Citizens' Platform (PO) allowed the bill to pass through parliament to the next commission stage. Its inability to vote en-bloc against such a restrictive bill, exposes the mockery of the party's attempt to present a left face in recent weeks.

The strong anti-abortion lobby in Poland managed to gather 600,000 signitures to force this vote in parliament. Nevertheless, its proposal runs against public opinion in the country. Only 14% of society believe that abortion should be completely illegal. This is against 36% who believe it should be illegal but with certain exceptions and 38% who feel it should be legal with some exceptions.

The women's activist and writer Agnieszka Graff has described the bill as being an 'aberrant cruelty, a kind of madness and hysterical misogyny'. She believes that the conservative right would like to move the whole debate in Poland to the right in order create a fear within the political mainstream against any attempt to even slightly liberalise the current restrictive law.

The Democratic Left Alliance organised a pro-choice exhibition outside of the parliament and are collecting signitures in order to present its own bill in parliament to liberalise the current abortion law. As the SLD MP and ex health minister - Marek Balicki - has stated:

If half of the PO and PSL MPs voted in order that the parliament deals with the matter of abortion now, in a pre-election period, then we appeal to them to ensure that our project progresses as quickly as possible to its first reading

If You Had the Luck of the Polish?

2011-07-01T00:10:00.001-07:00

You can find my article published in the journal Social Europe on Poland taking over the EU Presidency here.

Balcerowicz's Tragic Revolution (Part 2)

2011-06-30T00:12:00.000-07:00

Below is the second part of Piotr Szumlewicz's article published on the website Labour Notes.

In the years 2001-2007 Leszek Balcerowicz was the chief of the National Bank of Poland and because of that position he had to tone down his comments. Shortly afterwards he went back to political quarrels. Without any particular position in government Balcerowicz was still present and active in public debates. Even though he had a lot of experience in handling the economy Balcerowicz during this time as well presented himself as an economist who made one mistake after another in most of his diagnosis.

Hardly anyone remembers that just before the economic crisis in Ireland, he was praising the achievements of the Irish government; that the Baltic republics — just a few months before the gigantic collapse — were an example to follow. A number of times he prophesied the collapse of Scandinavian countries at a time when these countries were leading and still lead in the rankings of competitiveness, technology development and the standard of living. For a number of years Balcerowicz has been misleading the public, talking about the supposed high spending on social security in Poland, though the amounts of money put aside for such purposes are amongst the lowest in the European Union. He gives also false information on the huge fiscal loads, the GDP is 6% lower than the European Union average.

Balcerowicz has become to be known as a dogmatic ideologist who defends compromised ideas, not caring about the consequences of their implementation. The main objects of his attacks are those who are under social welfare, the jobless, pregnant women, mothers, workers in the public sector. In every quarrel he was on the side of the strong against the weak, he promoted unequal redistribution, his solutions were to reward those who are already successful and take welfare from those who did not make it.

In the last few years the popularity of Balcerowicz has been on the wane. Continuously repeating the same things, he is not attractive anymore even to the liberal media given the fact that the same ideas have been announced by government representatives. With the help of Balcerowicz there is a crisis. The private sector disappoints and without the intervention of the state it is difficult to work against negative trends. This is when the ministers in Donald Tusk’s government admitted that there was a need to undermine the neoliberal dogma and raise taxes as well as expanding the role of the public sector in the pensions system. In this situation Balcerowicz became one recognizable defender of neoliberal orthodoxy. A number of journalists speak about the big quarrel between “old liberals” and Balcerowicz. Everyone can see that Balcerowicz’s views are a sign of free market fundamentalism, which no one treats seriously in Western countries. How can you defend OFE in a situation when, in only a space of one year they have lost 20 billion PLN and their servicing is much more expensive than ZUS? How can you defend the lowering of taxes in a situation where the deficit in public finances is going up and the taxes in Poland are among the lowest in Europe? How can you demand cuts in social spending, when it is one of the lowest in Europe and the indicators of poverty among the highest? How can you demand that there has to be a reduction in aid and for the tightening of the criteria for giving aid when it is already the lowest and the most selective in the European Union? How can you demand for a reduction in the minimum wages despite the fact that they barely pass the social minimum? How can you dogmatically campaign for the privatization of public companies which bring in millions for the country every year?

More than twenty years have passed since Balcerowicz started his career in big politics. His present proposals are not in any way different from those that drove the country twice into economic and civilizational regression. Balcerowicz wants to limit the worker’s rights again taking help from the jobless, farmers, pensioners and the sick. At the same time he wants to support businesses, banks, pension funds. The rich are to get richer at the expense of the poor. Do we really need that model? Is it worth our time to treat Balcerowicz’s views as a sensible programme for reform? One of the advantages of a democratic system is the ability to learn from mistakes. Leszek Balcerowicz has already had two chances. He has not used even one of them and he has not learnt anything. He does not deserve another chance given the fact that he will not propose anything new.

Piotr Szumlewicz
Translation: Marlon Nziramasanga

Climate Change Deniers

2011-06-25T09:34:00.000-07:00

True the floods last year were not as bad as some experienced in areas of China or Pakistan. There were no mud-slides and thousands were not killed. Nevertheless Poland experienced a series of floods, especially in the south of the country, that should remind everyone of the urgency facing the world over climate change.

It is never possible to convince everyone. Despite the consistency of climate change projections and the increasing regularity of unpredictable weather patterns, some will prefer to claim a form of conspiracy is at work. By whom and for what reason no one is clear.

One of the region's great climate change deniers is the Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Klaus is a conservative in the tradition of Hayek and Thatcher. He believes that ‘freedom’ is most threatened by the political ideologies that seek to control and regulate the market. He refers back to the experiences of communism and social welfare capitalism as examples of constructivist ideologies that promoted equality and non-discrimination but led instead towards totalitarianism. In the modern world Klaus identifies a number of new enemies: what he calls humanrightism and NGOs, political integration within Europe and also environmentalism. For Klaus the environmentalists are the new party commissioners - demanding controls, setting targets, interfering with people's individual freedom to consume and pollute as they wish.

Klaus has a friend in the European Commission: Janusz Lewandowski. Lewandowski is a strange breed. He emerged out of the Gdańsk Liberals along with Tusk during Communism. During the 1990s he was a leading advocate of extreme Thatcherite economics in Poland. An example of this was his claim that the Polish intelligentsia will be able to fulfil its historical mission only by supporting the “empire of capital” and that it would betray this task if it concentrated on caring for the needs of the losers of the transition and socially excluded.

So after spending two decades explaining why there should be no economic redistribution in Poland he became the EU budget commissioner in 2010. In this job he has been doing his best to convince the richer states to maintain their payments into the EU budget so that funds can be - yes you guessed it - transferred to the poorer states in the EU, not least Poland. A noble task indeed, but quite why economic redistribution works at a continental and not a national level is anyone's guess.

Perhaps Lewandowski's sense of economic fairness and redistribution extends yet further nowadays. EU environmental ministers met last week to discuss the European Commission's 2050 roadmap towards a greener economy. The roadmap had agreed to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, 60% by 2040 and 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. All were agreed except one country: Poland. Now there is a case that poorer countries such as Poland, which is heavily reliant upon coal, should be receiving help in meeting the targets set in this package. However, when expressing his support for the Polish government's decision Lewandowski remembered his Thatcherite roots and claimed:

We already have overambitious agreements on CO2 emission reduction. There is a notion that the thesis that coal energy is the main cause of global warming is highly questionable. Moreover, more and more often there is a question mark put over the whole [issue of] global warming as such.

As a spokesperson from Greenpeace stated: "It's terrifying that the man in charge of Europe's budget is someone you might expect to see in Sarah Palin's Republican party"

Those Who Hold Power

2011-06-24T02:14:00.000-07:00

‘Those who hold power’ was a derogatory phrase commonly used during the term of the last SLD government. It reflected the feeling of many that the SLD was made up of people who were primarily concerned with maintaining their positions of influence and privilege, rather than on matters of principle or changing society for the better. It related to the belief that a network (układ) dominated public life – bringing together politicians and business people in an unholy and dishonest alliance.

It was in this atmosphere that the two parties of the right that currently dominate Polish politics – PO and PiS – rose to prominence. Both claimed that they were opposed to corruption and that the problems in the country were primarily due to the corrupt elite that control public life. Prior to PiS forming a government in 2005, both parties supported the creation of a new Fourth Republic out of the ashes of the decaying Third Republic.

Much has changed since this time. PiS became discredited due to its authoritarian style of government (2005 – 2007) and its willingness form a coalition with the extreme right-wing party - the League of Polish Families (LPR). In these circumstances PO was able to take up the mantle of the defenders of democracy and, now opposing the project of the Fourth Republic, galvanise the opposition to the PiS government at the 2007 parliamentary elections.

PO was formed in 2002, bringing together a range of personalities and currents that were looking for a home after the break up of the Solidarity Electoral Alliance (AWS). It claimed to be different from other political parties, presenting itself as a citizens’ movement, formed from the grass-roots that would bring a new quality to Polish political life. The party combined liberal economics and democratic politics with social and cultural conservatism. Behind the leadership of Donald Tusk and co was a strong ideological conviction, emerging as they had from the ‘Gdansk Liberals’ – a small opposition group formed during Communism that reproduced the works of Hayek and Friedmen and believed that ‘capitalism without democracy would be better than socialism with democracy’.

Political power always brings with it responsibilities and also the need for compromise. When in government Tusk and his main advisor and mentor Jan Bielecki have proven themselves capable of understanding this reality much better than their neo-liberal predecessors, who are now confined to throwing criticisms from their well-funded Think Tanks. The fact that the PO government could stand back from its previous convictions and introduce a positive – although limited – reform of the pension system reflects this reality. However, this pragmatism has another side.

Since 2005 PO’s major selling point has been that it is the only viable alternative to PiS. It therefore tends to highlight the negative features of Kaczynski’s party – of which there are many – and attempt to gain from the fear of a return of PiS to power. Even its main attack against the SLD nowadays is the fictitious claim that it would like to form a coalition government with PiS after the next elections.

Beyond this the party attempts to show itself as being competent and trustworthy. Tusk presents himself well, shows a humour and self-distance in public and appears confident on the international stage. At times he reacts proactively and aggressively to perceived (or created) threats: such as the spread of the sale of ‘smart-drugs’, football hooliganism, gambling corruption and so forth. He attempts to skirt ideological issues and present his government as one of pragmatic stability. Primarily it promises to use the opportunity presented by an inflow of EU funds and the up-coming 2012 European football championships by investing in the country’s infrastructure and pushing forward Poland’s development.

Just as hangers on and opportunists flocked to the ranks of the SLD ten years ago – so the same is happening to PO. It’s membership has increased to above 50,000 (from around 30,000 in 2008) – small in comparison to many parties in Europe but large in Polish terms. The leadership of PO has also engaged in a number of high profile political transfers in recent weeks. As reported previously, the former MP connected to the SLD – Bartosz Arłukowicz – has been given a symbolic post in government in order to provide PO with a left face at the forthcoming elections. During the recent PO convention Arłukowicz was sat – resplendent in his new blue tie – alongside two new recruits: Joanna Kluzik-Rostkowska and Dariusz Rosati.

Kluzik-Rostowska rose to fame as the manager of Jarosław Kaczynski’s Presidential campaign last year – as she attempted to present the former Prime Minister in a positive and more centrist light. She then led a break away from PiS – forming a new party under the ludicrous name: Poland is the Most Important. The party predictably failed to make any impact in the opinion polls and now Kluzik-Rostowski has jumped ship and is looking for a safe seat to contest as a PO candidate. She now claims that the main priority for the next election is to keep Kaczynski out of power (sic). Rosati had been advisor to the last PM during Communism and became a strong advocate of the Shock-Therapy reforms at the end of the 1980s. In 1989 he naively claimed that there would be no serious problem with unemployment in Poland – 2 years later those without work had soared above 12%. In 2004 he was elected as MEP as part of the Social Democratic Party of Poland (SdPL) – but then lost his seat in 2008 after running on a joint slate with the liberal Democratic Party. After helping take the left down a blind-alley he also is seeking to enter parliament as a PO candidate.

PO has now become the party that holds power. It has sought to avoid controversy and attract support from different political currents in order to create a party of the centre-right that can dominate and hegemonise the Polish political scene. Many fear that a new form of political system has been created, where there are no real choices between the political parties on offer and where principle and conviction have been replaced by technocratic manipulation. Such an opinion was recently aired by the leader of Krytyka Polityczna: Sławomir Sierakowski. Sierakowski’s thesis states that politics has been reduced to a façade, where there is no true political pluralism in the country and PO are creating a ‘post-political’ party in which public relations has replaced political programme. Sierakowski writes that PO has given up its political ideals in order to create a pact with society by showing they can deal with issues such as the economic crisis and road building.

There is much to agree with in this opinion. However, its weakness is that it assumes that PO will be able to manage the practical issues of government and therefore maintain political power. Sierakowski compares the project of Tusk to that carried out by other European leaders such as Berlusconi and Sarkozy. Yet leaders such as these are now facing grave political problems and it is highly likely that they will lose power at the next elections. All governing parties in Europe are facing the quandary of how to maintain political support in a period of economic crisis when it is not so easy to buy off different sections of society. So-called post-political democracy will difficult to maintain in the post-crisis age.

The Tusk government is trying to delay facing up to this contradiction until after this autumn’s parliamentary elections. However, cracks are already beginning to show. As mentioned above one of this government’s main selling points has been its claim to be successfully managing the inflow of EU funds and carrying out investments in the country’s infrastructure as part of the preparations for next year’s European football championships. However, a report produced last week shows that this claim is far removed from reality. Last year only 1/3 of all planned investments were completed (instead of ZŁ95bn only ZŁ35bn was spent.) The report predicts that more than 403 km of roads will not be completed as planned by the start of the tournament. The A2 highway, due to link Warsaw and Germany, is unlikely to be ready for the tournament and there have been insufficient investments in the rail networks.

The problem for PO is that their economic strategy is unviable. They are attempting to carry out one of the largest investment programmes in transport and sports facilities in the country’s history, whilst also endeavouring to bring down the budget deficit from nearly 8% this year to around 2% next year. Quite simply, these two simultaneous projects do not add up and is leading to less money being assigned to these investments (especially through making local governments reduce their spending) alongside more pressures to cut expenditures in other areas of economy and raising regressive taxes such as VAT. With inflation rising, unemployment remaining high (particularly for youth) and the government planning a new round of spending cuts, then PO’s attempt to be the ‘party for all’ will become increasingly difficult.

In these circumstances it is worthless for opponents of PO to bemoan its successes and gripe about its popularity. Rather it should be highlighting the failures of PO to actually deliver what it promises and preparing its own programme of economic development that can unite different social layers. Investment not cuts and protecting low and middle wage earners from further economic hardship can form the basis of such an economic programme. For behind the gloss and PR, PO is promising economic solutions that will divide and not unite.

Baltic Collapse, Polish Growth

2011-06-21T04:21:00.000-07:00

An article contrasting the economic performance of the Baltic States and Poland can be found here. The article does not cover all areas of this topic but it is an interesting read.

In light of the crisis in Greece and the eurozone at the moment it is worth reflecting on what has happened in Central-Eastern Europe. The article shows the economic catastrophe that occurred in the Baltic States , which was partly due to the huge credit bubble that had been inflated prior to the global financial crisis crisis. These countries then carried out extreme austerity policies (pushed by the EU) leading to soaring unemployment and collapsing economies.

In contrast in Poland, there had been no such credit bubble prior to the crisis (although there are signs that this is now being inflated) and once the crisis impacted on the country it carried out a devaluation of its currency instead of maintaining a currency peg to the euro as was done in the Baltics.

Balcerowicz’s tragic revolution — The failure of Polish transition (part 1)

2011-06-13T03:54:00.000-07:00

I reproduce the following article by Piotr Szumlewicz from the website Polish Labour Notes

From the beginning of the transition in Poland (1989) Leszek Balcerowicz plays a very important role in Polish public life. It just so happens that the political career of the “father of Polish reform” above all has been characterized by failures and tragic mistakes with far reaching consequences.

The most spectacular act was the beginning of systemic transition. At that time Balcerowicz initiated and unfortunately was successful in putting into practice his plan free-market reforms. The effects of the Polish “economic miracle” were terrifying. In the years 1990-1991 the Gross Domestic Product fell by about 18%, the level of inflation was in triple figures, in the space of two years unemployment went up to above 2 million. Already in the first year of transition, the number of people living under the social minimum more than doubled — from 15% in 1989 to 31% in 1990. In the first two years of transition production, investment, production capacity as well as labour productivity went down radically. Production drastically fell in all sectors of the economy. In electromechanical industries it fell by 37,8% in light industries by 40,7% and maybe most importantly in the grocery industry by 25%. Wages for farmers were reduced by more than half in the space of two years.

The transition led to a number of other negative results of which a lot of people talk about even today. The reduction in the number of apartments built, mass liquidation of libraries and cultural facilities, closing down of a number of pre-schools, kinder gartens and nurseries. Huge number of suicides, alcoholism and explosion of prostitution followed. All of these events and phenomena are presented by Balcerowicz’s people as the necessary effects of change for which the state cannot be held accountable for. The pauperization of society, lack of jobs and life perspectives, segregation in education, lack of cultural finance… The guru of Polish liberalism was not interested those types of things.

Balcerowicz’s defenders like to repeat that there was no alternative for the neo-liberal reform. This time even the International Monetary Fund proposed three scenarios for reform in which Poland chose the one that had the most drastic effect on society. The strategy that Balcerowicz chose was no necessity at all. For example the government itself increased inflation by raising the price of energy six-fold. For unknown reasons customs control was removed and this caused a number of national companies to go bankrupt. Balcerowicz was stubborn in his quest to destroy the public sector, so taxes for state companies were two times higher than that of private firms. A significant part of the social infrastructure was liquidated, the money to fight poverty and tackle social exclusion was reduced and mass unemployment was seen as a necessary consequence for the transformation to a free-market.

In 1989 the Polish People’s Republic did not lose its potential to develop, nor was it on the edges of breaking up. In the mid 1980’s the economy started to expand relatively quickly. Production as well as consumption went up and the infrastructure was developing. The budget at this time was balanced and there was no threat of experiencing a deficit. In foreign trade exports were more than imports. A lot of other countries in the region had far much smoother transformation than Poland. In Czech, Slovenia, and in Hungary the level of unemployment was by far lower than in our country. Smaller also was the area where there was poverty, lesser also was the social stratification level.

Balcerowicz played an important part not only in the very begining, but also in the years 1997-2000 when he became the vice-premier and the minister of finance. Again the effects of his policies just like for the first time affected a large part of Polish society. The politics of ”cooling the economy” reduced the dynamics of development. In 1993-1997 the GDP rose by above 5% annually, however in 2001 only by 1%.The second edition of Balcerowicz’s government brought about a drastic rise in the level of unemployment. In 1998 1,83 million people were unemployed and four years later 1,3 million people more. In accordance to his declarations Balcerowicz did not do anything to fight against poverty. In effect the number of people living under the minimum existence level rose from 5,4% to 9,5%. The number of people living under the minimum social subsistence went up considerably from 50,4% to 57% of the population.

At this time the stratification of income went up, the social spending was limited and state property was intensly commercialized, at the same time taxes for firms were reduced although that did not have a positive effect on the macroeconomic indexes. It is also important to note that in between 1997-2001 the national debt went up considerably. From 22% of the Gross Domestic Product to 25,6% and the deficit of the public financial sector went up from 2,9% to 5,1%. The politics of “cutting” and “cooling” did not correct the state of national finances — very much on the contrary.

Jerzy Buzek’s government in which Balcerowicz steered the economy also made four unsuccessful reforms. They brought fatal effects, which up to today, successive governments have not been able to deal with.

Piotr Szumlewicz
Translation: Marlon Nziramasanga

WikiLeaks on CIA Prison Allegations

2011-06-12T06:19:00.000-07:00

The following article has recently appeared on the WikiLeaks Website:

Poland is under increasing pressure to investigate fully whether the CIA operated secret torture and detention facilities in Stare Kiejkuty. As Peter Kemp predicted, the European Parliament has now intervened. In a resolution from the eighth of June it says that it:

"5. Reiterates its call to the US authorities to review the military commissions system to ensure fair trials, to close Guantánamo, to prohibit in any circumstances the use of torture, ill-treatment, incommunicado detention, indefinite detention without trial and enforced disappearances, and reminds the EU institutions and Member States of their duty not to collaborate in, or cover up, such acts prohibited by international, European and national law;"

"7. Calls on the EU and Member States authorities, as well as the US authorities, to ensure that full, fair, effective, independent and impartial inquiries and investigations are carried out into human rights violations and crimes under international, European and national law, and to bring to justice those responsible, including in the framework of the CIA extraordinary renditions and secret prisons programme;"

In the meantime, former MEP Józef Pinior reiterated his allegations against former members of the Polish government, claiming that there was a document signed by the then prime minister Leszek Miller regulating the operations of a secret CIA detention facility in Stare Kiejkuty, also defining the status of corpses inside the facility.

Pinior admits that he never saw the document with his own eyes, but credits a very trustworthy source with this information who he refuses to name. Asked whether this was a source from within Polish intelligence services, he refused to comment. He added that with 30 years experience in politics, he was fully aware of the implications of such a statement.

He describes the document as brief, outlining logistics, and being addressed to the Polish Secret Service, who operates the base in Stare Kiejkuty.

Pinior also claims that Zbigniew Wassermann and Zbigniew Ziobro, who were part of the PiS government succeeding Miller, saw and discussed this document along with four other officials, and that there are minutes of this meeting.

During his work on a European Parliament investigation into CIA rendition, Pinior states to have spoken to members of the Polish Secret Service, who were uneasy about the fact that their facility was used for purposes which were not in their interest.

These revelations, and the new European Parliament resolution follows a turbulent month in which lawyers acting for Abd al-Nashiri filed a complaint against Poland with the European Court of Human Rights, Warsaw prosecutor Jerzy Mierzewski planned to file charges against former members of the Polish government and was subsequently removed from the case, documents were leaked to daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, Gdansk prosecutors opened an investigation against the paper and President Obama visited the country and promised the deployment of F16 as a protection against Russia.

Secret Prison Allegations Cloud Obama Visit

2011-06-06T02:58:00.000-07:00

And so the Barak Obama show came to town; and then went away again. After sprinkling his gold-dust in Ireland, Britain and France the US President then headed through the mainly empty, although heavily policed, streets of Warsaw. Once he arrived at his destination he proceeded to once again say the right things and make his hosts feel special. Poland, he reminded us, is an example to the rest of the world, a success story and the leading country in the region.

His words were carefully chosen although only delivered to the select few. There was no mass rally – as when Bill Clinton spoke to an enthralled throng in 1997 as Poland was about to join NATO – but only specially arranged meetings with politicians and their alike. The major shock was Lech Walesa declining to meet the most powerful man in the world – declaring, nonchalantly, that he had better things to do than take part in a photo opportunity. How he could have passed up the chance to have been told he was an example to the rest of us, a success story in his own right and the leading example of freedom in the region is anyone’s guess.

On the nitty-gritty of policy matters nothing much seems to have changed. Obama once again promised that he would be seeking to address the issue of visas for Polish citizens visiting the USA and that he hoped that Poles would soon be free to shop on Fifth Avenue (sic). The expected signing of a military agreement between the two countries has been delayed. This would have allowed for the permanent stationing of 20 US soldiers in Poland, servicing F-16 and C130 Hercules airplanes, with the agreement that Polish pilots would also be able to have a go on them 4 times a year. The proposed agreement would also include plans to build a missile shield in Poland (SM3 rockets are due to be placed in the country from 2018) – although this time with the agreement and participation of Russia.

So with nothing to sign Barak again praised everyone around him, smiled, said everyone was great, smiled, reminded everyone that they were his best friend, smiled, and jumped back on his plane to head home. Despite the banality and consistency of form, this meeting did reveal some of the differences that exist between the Bush and Obama administrations. For sure, if a US President named Bush had arrived in Poland engaged in at least 2 wars (I’ve kind of lost count) in the Middle-East and proposing to station more troops and military equipment on its soil; then the protests may have been larger and louder than the hundred or so demonstrators that greeted Obama and were met with tear gas by an over-the top Police determined that no one would spoil the party atmosphere. However, two fundamental things have changed– that are more to do with pragmatism than anything else – in US-Polish relations.

One of the first decisions of the Obama administration was that it would seek to reduce tensions with Russia. The USA was already over-stretched both militarily and economically and only the most rabid Republican hawks could really conceive that it was in a position to take on its old Cold-War foe. The re-set button was pressed, the Star-Wars Two programme in Central-Eastern Europe scaled back and adjusted and Russia brought into a new strategic alliance with the USA against Iran. America’s leading ally in Central-Eastern Europe had to adjust itself accordingly. Fortunately, the more Russophobic government in Poland had already been replaced by 2007, with the new government better understanding changed Realpolitik. Although the Smolensk tragedy has opened up old wounds between Poland and Russia – the Tusk administration has done its best to soothe them and allow some ‘normalisation’ of relations.

The second related issue concerns the USA’s role in the Middle-East and its relation to the evolving Arab Spring. This was a perfect opportunity for Obama to spin the line that America has been at the forefront of supporting the Arab uprisings and the movements for democracy. In order to accept this new historical truth, one has to forget how for decades the USA backed up the region’s dictators, how it sat on the fence throughout the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions until the last possible moment and at how it has continued to cave into an Israeli administration that refuses to make even the slightest concessions towards a lasting peace and justice in Palestine. Yet the invasion of Libya has signified one important shift in America’s foreign policy. This is not that it no longer supports regime change in foreign countries through military intervention, but that it is no longer prepared to do this alone. Bogged down by wars, recession and debt the US administration has insisted that the leading military powers in Europe (primarily France and Britain) take up some of the slack. And Poland – having actively participated in the Afghan and Iraqi wars – has decided to sit this one out too and let ‘Old Europe’ get its hands dirty.

Side by side in Warsaw, Obama and Tusk waxed lyrical about the great democratic opening in the Middle East, how both countries supported this process and at how Poland provided a great example for the Arab world. Despite this attempt to gloss over reality, history refuses to give up its ghost. Obama is still engaged in the wars started by Bush and he has even failed to close down Guantanamo Bay. Also, Poland’s own murky history of collusion with the Bush administration continues to rear its ugly head

It is worth reminding ourselves about what was happening in 2003. Poland was then governed by the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) – the Polish representative of the Socialist International. While the majority of European social democracy turned away from supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Polish social democratic Prime Minister (Leszek Miller) and President (Aleksander Kwaśniewski) followed Blair’s example by giving the USA their full support. It was in this context that Donald Rumsfield famously coined the phrase ‘New Europe’.

Beyond the recent platitudes exchanged between the leaders of the USA and Poland, lies the lingering controversy about whether Poland hosted CIA prisons on its territory in which torture was carried out. Despite denials by the Polish side, these allegations have been circulating since 2005. A European Parliamentary report in 2007 revealed that CIA prisons had existed in Poland between 2002 and 2005; and last September the Associated Press produced information that it claimed proved that torture had been carried out in these prisons.

On the day that Obama departed Warsaw, the daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza (hardly a bastion of anti-Americanism) carried new information about this affair on its front page. Referring to information from secret documents that it had obtained, the newspaper revealed that the prosecutor leading the investigation in Poland has recently been replaced, just as he was preparing to charge government officials (including possibly Miller and Kwasniewski) of having committed crimes against humanity.

One politician who has consistently sought the truth on this issue is the former MEP Jożef Pinior. Pinior had been a member of the European Parliamentary commission investigating the possible existence of CIA prisons in Europe. In an interview in this weekend’s Gazeta Wyborcza he explains how he has had access to a classified government document that contains instructions concerning the regulation of the secret CIA prisons in Poland. According to Pinior there is no doubt that the Polish government was aware of the activities of the CIA in these prisons.

Pinior also explains how the investigations carried out by the European Parliamentary commission was continually impeded and blocked by the Polish government. Furthermore, this was happening after the SLD administration had fallen and when PiS was leading a new coalition government. Therefore, according to Pinior, information about the existence and activities of CIA prisons in Poland was known by the PiS government who helped to protect its predecessors from investigations. The fact that PiS has never wasted an opportunity to condemn the ‘post-communist’ left for betraying Poland’s national sovereignty, one can only speculate as to why it may wish to protect them over this issue. Leszek Miller has reacted strongly to the accusations made by Pinior, claiming again that there were no such prisons based in Poland and that Pinior is a ‘liar’ and a ‘scoundrel’. The suspicion remains that the whole Polish establishment is closing ranks on this matter.

Whatever the actual truth may be, a cloud of uncertainty continues to hang over this topic. Next month Poland takes over the Presidency of Europe and has identified the promotion of democracy in areas such as the Middle East as one of its top priorities. It’s claim to be a bastion of hope for all those struggling against repression and dictatorship can only be harmed as long as this issue is not resolved.

PO Attempt to Delay Civil Partnership Reform

2011-06-02T00:17:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks Citizens' Platform (PO) has been acting left. In an attempt to stem the threat of the SLD, PO has both tried to poach some of its politicians and present itself as a progressive left of centre party.

After defecting to PO, Bartosz Arłukowicz claimed that he would be attempting to win support for left policies within the government and PO. In particular he argued that he would be seeking to gain its backing for the state funding of in-vitro treatment and for a new law on civil partnerships.

Well now PO has a chance to prove its new left credentials, as the SLD has put forward a bill in parliament on introducing civil partnerships in Poland. These would include the right (including those in same sex relationships) to form civil partnerships - giving joint property rights, joint taxes and the right of inheritence. The SLD prepared the bill in cooperation with the Campaign Against Homophobia in Poland and it is based around the French system of civil partnerships (Pacte civil de solidarite).

The problem for PO is that its move to the left is more cosmestic than real. For sure, there is a section of its membership that would like to see PO take up the centre-left ground (at least on cultural and social issues) and most of its young, urban electorate are supportive of policies such as introducing civil partnerships. Also Polish society as a whole is becoming more open to such policies. A recent opinion poll showed that 54% of Poles are in favour of civil partnerships being introduced in Poland, with 41% opposed (in 2003 only 34% were in favour and 56% against).

The problem is that PO contains a strong conservative wing that opposes any such reforms. Its programme states support for the traditions and customs of the 'traditional family'. Previously PO politicians have actively supported and even introduced the banning of gay parades in Poznań and Kraków (thankfully it seems this shameful period of banning such marches is behind us). Last year the President of Warsaw and PO member Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz refused to back or support the Europride parade that was held in the captial city. This is not to mention the openly homophobic comments made by PO politicians such as Robert Węgrzyn. The list is long and for those who can read Polish it can be found here.

PM Donald Tusk has indicated that he is prepared to consider the issue after the election - as he tries to avoid such potentially devisive controversies before this autumn's parliamentary elections. MP Jarosław Gowin - the leading representative of PO's conservative wing - has stated that he will do all he can to prevent a law on civil partnerships ever being passed. The SLD are correct to push the issue at this time, primarily because it is important that Poland comes into line with the majority of EU countries on this question and provides rights to those who are presently unprotected by the law. It also exposes the empty gestures made by Tusk and his party as they attempt to widen their appeal to their left through cosmestic changes rather than substantial political actions.

It's A Bad Time to Be Young and Polish

2011-06-01T04:14:00.000-07:00

An interesting article by Adam Leszczynski on the situation facing young people in Poland was published in the Guardian today. Read here

Strikers Hold Back Economic Growth

2011-05-28T02:52:00.000-07:00

A small yet powerful group is holding society to ransom. Its continuing strike is damaging the economy as it puts its own interests before those of society and the nation at large.

Sound familiar? Well this does not refer to the trade unionists who took to the streets this week in Poland and were met with widespread criticism in the press. Here I refer to the ongoing 'investment stike' being pursued by private businesses in the country.

In the first quarter of 2011 the combined income of companies in Poland grew by 12% from the comparative period last year. Although costs also increased by 11.6%, profits went up on average by 4.3%, with 61.3% of all firms enjoying growth throughout the year.

Despite these positive results, Polish businesses are still refusing to invest these profits in the wider economy. In the words of an expert from the Polish business association Lewiatan: 'companies are accumulating money instead of investing it.' Therefore although large businesses in Poland enjoy a number of privilleges - paying a low flat-rate of national insurance and business tax - the economy and society at large are not seeing a benefit of their high profit rates.

Yet media and political scorn has been reserved for the trade unionists and not for these 'investment strikers'. This week the Solidarity trade union federation (supported by the OPZZ) organised a series of regional demonstrations of workers employed in state industries. Their slogan was 'Your Politics, Our Poverty' and their demands included raising the minimum wage to half of the average wave; reducing tax on petrol, halting the planned wave of privatisations and raising the salaries of state sector workers.

As an example of the criticism faced by the trade unions we can consider the two simultaeous opinion pieces published in Thursday's Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (DGP) newspaper. These commentaries combined a number of criticisms made against the trade unions.

Firstly Joanna Soldska argues that those working for the state and public sector earn relatively well in Poland. She describes how workers in the private sector are often under more direct economic pressure to compete in the global economy and that their wages and work conditions are severely repressed. She is obviously right to point out how the lowest salaries and worst working conditions are found in the private sector - although many public sector salaries remain very low - however she of course does not refer to the extremely high salaries that some private sector workers earn in Poland. Her supplementing argument is that the profits of state firms belong to us all (sic) and not to the trade unions. The only logical conclusion of Ms Soldksa's line of thought, is that in the name of fairness the salaries and working conditions of state workers should be lowered to those of the most exploited private sector workers.

The accompanying article - written by Paweł Rożyński - accuses the trade unionists of being overly 'politicised'. He expresses horror that the trade unions are in some way connected to political parties and dare to express an opinion on matters such as what should or should not be privatised. However, research has consistently shown that participation in civic and political life in Poland is at an extremely low level. In sociological jargon civil society is considered to be poorly developed and social capital weak. One would have thought, therefore, that when employees decide to voluntarily join a trade union, participate in its activities and put forward their own politicial ideas and demands that this would be welcomed. The fact that this needs to be pointed out in a country where the Solidarity movement arose is a great shame. Furthermore there is nothing unusual in a trade union playing a strong role in politics. Throughout Europe this is the case - with trade unions exerting a political influence on parties as diverse as the British Labour Party or German CDU. We may question the choice of the trade unions' political allies - particularly Solidarity's close connection to PiS - but not their right to make such alliances.

The majority of the rest of Mr Rożyński's text refers to the damage he perceives that the trade unionists' demands would cause. Raising the minimum wage would of course put up the costs for businesses who then would not erm.. invest in the economy. Also increasing the salaries of state sector workers would be unfair as it would further raise the privileges of this group of workers. Of course no mention is made of the high profits currently enjoyed by state industries nor the extremely high salary rises that the management of some of these companies have received (see here).

The one criticism I can partly agree with concerns the trade unions' call for the government to reduce tax on petrol. The problem with this is that it scratches the surface of the more fundamental problem of constructing a fair and efficient tax system in Poland. The basis of such a tax system should be one that is progressive and encourages investment. This would mean introducing a progressive tax for businesses (both on income and national insurance). It is a ludicrous situatation that millions of people who are often forced to become self-employed are paying a similar rate of tax as the largest corporations. This could be combined with tax incentives for those companies that invest in the economy and create new jobs. Secondly, the trade unions should demand reversing the regressive tax reforms introduced by the previous PiS government, and bringing in a more progressive income tax system in its place. These measures could be implemented whilst simultaneously reversing the increases of VAT introduced recently and help to protect low and medium wage earners.

The Polish economy has kept growing despite (and not because of) a fall in private business investment. The twin engines of this growth have been domestic demand and public investment. It is not the trade unionists who are threatening this growth, but those companies who are continuing to horde their profits and enjoying preferential tax rates; whilst demanding that the government cuts its spending and raises taxes that most negatively affect consumer demand.

Womens' Unpaid Labour

2011-05-26T07:00:00.000-07:00

Extracts taken from an article published at Lewica.pl

The consulting company Sedlak & Sedlak have presented a report on the topic of women's domestic work, which analyses data taken from the Central Statistics' Office (GUS) for the IV quarter of 2010.

This shows that there are over 16.6 million women living in Poland aged over 15. From this group 7.2m are working, 0.79m are unemployed and 8.6m are economically inactive. From this last group 3.97m are retired, 1.61m are studying and 1.2m are unable to work due to a sickness or disability. As many as 1.42m women do not work due to their family obligations related to running a household. In other words, 1.4 million Polish women have full contracts as Mothers, housewives and carers, the vast majority of whom do not receive any payments and are also therefore unable to gain a pension or health insurance.

The authors of the report refer to estimates made by GUS in 2005 that show how the work of an employed women is worth on average zł270 a week, i.e. 1200zł a month; and the work of those who are not employed is worth around 310zł a week, i.e. 1350zł a month. According to research carried out by Beata Mikuta at the end of the 1990s the domestic work carried out by wormen is worth the same as a high average wage in Poland, which if paid would add about 23% to the country’s GDP.

Czech Pension Plans Spark Protests

2011-05-23T01:17:00.000-07:00

Around 50,000 trade unionists demonstrated in the Czech capital Prague on Saturday against the government's plans to further privatise the country's welfare system.

At the heart of the right-wing coalition's plans is the proposal to introduce a new "second pillar" private-sector pension scheme to compete with the state pay-as-you-go system. This blog has previously analysed the effects a simliar reform that was introduced in Poland at the end of the 1990s. As well as further repressing pensions and introducing more inequality into the system, it also contributed to a large increase in public debt.

In anticipation of such an outcome, the Czech government has simultaneously proposed a series of reforms to compensate for this loss of income. These include raising the pension age; creating an increased flat-rate of VAT; introducing a new wave of privatisations; increasing payments for health care and cutting social benefits. This means that large areas of the country's social services will be removed from the public sphere and made available for private profit.

The Czech trade unions are threatening a new wave of protests against the government's plans. The coalition government is already unstable and it is unclear whether it will be able to last the remaining four years of its term in office and push through these proposals. It plans to take them to parliament in June.

Tusk Picks Up the Scraps

2011-05-18T04:11:00.000-07:00

As Poland's parliamentary elections loom in the Autumn the game of political musical chairs has begun. The most significant development so far has been the high profile left MP - Bartosz Arłukowicz - joining Donald Tusk's government. Although Arłukowicz was not a member of the SLD he was an important and high-profile member of SLD leader Grzegorz Napieralski's team.

In recent days persistent rumours have also been circulating in the media that Donald Tusk is going to offer a number of other prominent left figures positions on PO's electoral list at the forthcoming elections. The majority of these are from the Social Democratic Party of Poland (SdPL) and include people such as Dariusz Rosati, Isabella Sierakowska and Józef Pinior. It seems that Tusk is attempting to incorporate parts of the left into the ranks of PO. Why would he want to do this?

PO were able to win the 2007 parliamentary elections by riding the popular wave of anti-PiS sentiment within the country. PO was seen as being the only party capable of defeating PiS and was therefore able to win the support of a significant section of the SLD electorate who were most concerned with removing Kaczyński's party from office. PO are now trying to repeat this trick through firstly weakening the SLD, by bringing some well-known left figures into PO and thus giving the party a left face during the elections. Secondly, they are spreading fear in the media that if PO do not win the elections then the SLD is likely to form a governing coalition with PiS. This strategy is dangerous for Tusk and PO for two reasons

1. By reaching out to parts of the left, Tusk is potentially isolating and building hostility within other sections of his party. Tusk has attempted to build a broad centre-right party capable of dominating Polish politics and within PO there exists a strong conservative wing. PO has always been a conservative party on cultural and social issues - opposing for example the state funding of in-vitro treatment for couples and refusing to liberalise the country's draconian abortion law or recognise the legal status of same sex relationships (the SLD have put forward a bill in parliament on this issue this week.) As Jarosław Gowin - the major representative of PO's conservative wing - has stated: 'I joined a conservative-liberal party, not a left-liberal one'

PO has also been built upon a political base that has a strong ideological commitment to liberal economic policies. The party has already disgruntled part of this electorate, when it partially nationalised the private pensions system earlier this year. Although in reality this electorate has no other serious political option other than voting for PO, Tusk must ensure that it mobilises its core electorate to come out and vote for it this year.

2. Also the incorporation of individuals connected to the SdPL (of which Arłukowicz was formerly a member) into PO may conversely strengthen the SLD. Let's remind ourselves of the history of this party.

The SdPL was formed as a breakaway from the SLD in 2004, in the wake of the collapse of the Miller government. Led by the then Speaker of the House, Marek Borowski, the SdPL promised to build an authentic, broad and democratic social democratic party in Poland. Many honest activists of the left were drawn to this project in the hope that it represented a potential breakthrough for the Polish left. However, it quickly transpired that the SdPL was not constructing a social democratic party but a social liberal one that sought an alliance with the now evaporated liberal centre. It is a popular political myth that Napieralski has led the SLD into a political cul-de-sac and reduced support for the party. Although the SLD should certainly attempt to broaden its political appeal, the strategy of reaching out to the liberal centre has continually reduced support for the left not increased it (see my previous post on Blairism in Poland).

Therefore while the SLD only won 11% of the vote at the 2005 elections, the SdPL gained less than 4%. Likewise when the two parties ran on a common slate with the liberal Democratic Party (PD) in 2007, the combined vote for the left was just 13%. Many on the left have not forgiven the SdPL for splitting the left and with PO looking like the destination point for many of its leading figures it will increase hostility towards them. The SdPL has now ended up as a collection of generals with no army, desperately seeking a new political home. So much for building a new kind of genuine social democratic politics in Poland.

As the parliamentary elections approach, with only the SLD as the sole left representative, it is imperative that it attempts to unify the left vote around it. Rather than trying to manoeuvre itself into positions in any future hypothetical governing coalition - with either PO or PiS - it should be clearly setting out an alternative to the right. This would mean laying out clearly a set of political principles on which it refuses to compromise in any future coalition negotiations (e.g. against the privatisation of hospitals or for the state funding of in-vitro treatment). In this way the SLD would show how it is a party of political principle in contrast to its defectors who are already involved in the unseemly game of seeking political office at all costs.

The Defeat of Blairism in Poland

2011-05-17T02:35:00.000-07:00

Below I publish a translation of a presentation that I made at a conference on the Polish left, organised by the Ferdinand Lassalle Centre For Social Thought at the end of 2009 in Warsaw.

This paper considers how Blairism and the theory of the Third Way were an attempt to halt the general decline of classical social democracy in Europe and at how its failure has opened up a political and theoretical impasse within the European left. In turn it analyses the defeat of the post-communist left in Poland and at looks how its adoption of policies close to those espoused by Tony Blair in the UK helped to cause its decline and isolation.

Crisis of Social Democracy

The crisis of social democracy is a crisis of capitalism. Moreover, this is a double crisis that reflects the breakdown of the two models of capitalist development existent in post-war Western Europe. The first of these is the coming to an end of the nation based social welfare model, which had been dominant in Western Europe from the end of the Second World War until the mid-1970s. As Zygmunt Baumann has stated: ‘It is no longer possible to construct a ‘social state’ that guarantees existential security to all its members within the framework of the nation-state.’ The failure of social democracy to realise the deficiencies of this model, as the economy increasingly globalised, meant that it assumed a conservative stance of protecting a system that could no longer be defended. The mantle of ‘progress’ was handed over to the right – with the left failing to promote an economic model that could have both retained and expanded upon the very real gains of the post-war period.

The social democratic consensus, built in Western Europe after the Second World War, was based on the surmise that the extremities of the market economy had been controlled and that capital accumulation (and investment) was at one with full employment and the Welfare State. However, the slowdown in the world economy, starting in the late 1960s, opened up questions which many thought had already been answered. The existence of permanent inflation had been a feature of the post-war boom, but this situation became unsustainable, especially after the oil crisis in 1973/74. By the late 1970s Western European social democracy was in decline as growth rates fell, inflation accelerated and unemployment rose. Keynesianism was unable to reverse the economic downward spiral in the major European industrial economies and a monetarist reaction blamed social democracy for excessive state spending, inefficiency and stagflation.

The resulting slowdown in European economic growth and the return of phenomena such as mass unemployment, convinced European capital that there needed to be a transformation in the West European economy to make it more competitive with the USA and Japan. High wages, trade union rights and welfare benefits were once again viewed as being particularist and something which restrained further growth. However, a class compromise had existed in Western Europe since World War Two and in the 1980s the dismantling of this compromise was seen as being politically dangerous. This situation was dramatically changed by the events of 1989 and the collapse of Communism in Central Eastern Europe. No longer potentially threatened by communism from the East, European employers felt they had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take on the domestic forces resistant to what they saw as the indispensable rationalisation and integration of the West European economy. One of the results of this opening was the completion of the Maastricht treaty by the end of 1991, which set out a monetarist framework for European economic and political integration.

A New ‘Third Way’

The social democratic consensus was broken up by the entwined events of the ending of the post-war economic boom; the ensuing neo-liberal offensive and the collapse of ‘real-socialism’ in CEE. This first crisis opened up a widening schism between social democratic parties and their traditional electorate. These parties were unable to provide their populations with socio-economic guarantees of progress and protection, leading to a contraction of their electoral base. This reality was partly recognised by Tony Blair, expressed in the theory of the Third Way, which was used as the theoretical justification for the New Labour project in the United Kingdom. It understood that we are living in an expanding global economic and cultural environment. It realised that social structures are changing and that in order for social democracy to survive and prosper new alliances had to be made and that social democratic parties must widen their social and political base.

Blairism, and the project of reforming the British Labour Party, was the ideological expression on the left of the attempt by European capital to open up a new era of neo-liberal reform in the continent. This required the building of a new political hegemony, that incorporated part of the left, especially in conditions where the right had suffered a political contraction. This was the case in the United Kingdom, where the British Conservative Party, after 18 years of governance, only managed to gain 25% of the parliamentary seats at the 1997 elections. In such a situation the Labour Party assumed the mantle of continuing the course of neo-liberal reform, with Blairism standing as a model for other European social democratic parties to emulate. This reached its peak at the end of the 1990s, when Tony Blair published a joint manifesto with the German SPD leader, Gerhard Schroeder.

Despite the fact that Blairism represented a rightward version of social democracy it is not correct to state that it was simply a new face of neo-liberalism. The political base of Blairism continued to be the electorate and membership of the left. Therefore, Blair had to appeal to and win the support of this political base by claiming that its new adherence to free-market economics was a means to implementing policies that adhered to the traditional principles and values of the left. Blairsm sought a theoretical justification for its policies in the theory of the Third Way, developed by the renowned British sociologist Anthony Giddens.

The Third Way is built upon many of the theoretical assumptions made during the post-war period; most notably that industrial capitalism has structurally changed, as it moves from first to second stage modernisation. Such ideas were given further impetus through the spread of the world-wide communications revolution, the arrival of the so-called ‘weightless’ knowledge based economy and the realities of a post-1989 world, after the fall of communism. Accordingly, the trading of information and knowledge was seen as being the essence of this ‘dematerialised’ economy, as what is important is not how or where a product is manufactured but what its ‘definition’ is. Modern industrial society is therefore seen to have entered a ‘post-materialist’ era, which has been accompanied with the downsizing of the industrial working class. Giddens argues that voting behaviour no longer conforms to class lines which, alongside the decline in the size of the industrial working class, means that social democracy’s traditional electoral base disappears. These ‘shifting sands’ cut the traditional connection between political parties and social classes and transcend the established left-right dichotomy. Accepting this reality means social democracy looks towards the political centre, termed by Giddens the ‘active middle’ or ‘radical centre’.

For Third Way theorists this decline in class-based politics helped to cause the death of socialism as an alternative system, whilst the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe furthered the need for social democracy to break from the past. The changing international environment means that the left has to accept some of the policies of the right, just as the right had to adopt some from the left (such as the Welfare State) in the post-war era. This principally includes supporting the process of privatisation and being ‘critical of an over extended state and welfare system.’ Supporters of the Third Way believe that social democracy should retain some of its previous values (such as solidarity, social justice and protection of the vulnerable) but that the ‘old strategies and institutions can no longer deliver these.’ In the post-communist world, Third Way social democrats have become strong advocates of the market, as a means for furthering social justice. Capitalism and an efficient, dynamic market economy are seen as going hand in hand with fairness and social justice and in turn social justice helps the smooth running of a market economy. The Third Way variant of social democracy claims it wants to use the tool of the free market to increase social justice. In fact, it is argued, the Third Way assumes the mantle of reform from the right, which holds back further modernisation due to their social conservatism, nationalism and/or extreme neo-liberalism.

Assessing Blairism and the Third Way

When we analyse of the Third Way, in retrospect, I believe that we can identify some positive features this theory. These include:
1. Its understanding that the previous model of social democracy had been exhausted and that the nation state, within a globalised economy, is no longer able to defend society as it once had.
2. Connected to this is the conception that the left has to think and act globally.
3. The belief that the left should attempt to expand its social base of support and build a new political hegemony.

However, these positive features are outweighed by its negative elements which prevented it from becoming a model for a renewal of European social democracy. These include:
1. The idea that capitalism has fundamentally changed and that only the free market can ensure steady socio-economic development.
2. That the new middle class has grown to be a majority of society and that we now live in a post-class society where the individual is prominent and the concept of social class is no longer applicable.
3. That the left should seek to expand into this new middle class and the growing political centre.

This paper does not provide the space to adequately assess the impact of Blairism and the Third Way on British and European social democracy. Briefly we may note how initially they contributed to the British Labour Party taking advantage of the collapse in support for the British Conservative Party and winning three general elections. For the first eleven years of the Labour Party government, the British economy enjoyed continued economic growth and unemployment declined. Simultaneously the Labour government heavily invested in some public services (such as health and education) after nearly two decades of neglect. However, the present economic crisis has hit the British economy hard and revealed how its growth was dependent to a large extent on a credit boom that had been expanded during the years of financial deregulation started by Thatcher and continued by Blair. Even where the Labour government had differed from the Conservative governments, as in increased public spending, this was often combined with a programme of part-privatisation and commercialisation of these sectors.

The third way was built upon a supposed pragmatism, whereby policies of economic ownership or taxation would be decided not a-prior according to principle, but by what actually works. However, the further that Blairism developed the more it became clear that it was ideologically attached to the free-market. Furthermore, its supposed pragmatism was exposed internationally after Tony Blair’s government supported the war against Iraq and formed an alliance with George Bush’s neo-conservative administration in Washington. This created a large political schism between the government and its political base, with many questioning their support for the Labour Party.

After some initial success the Third Way and Blairism lost support within the major social democratic parties in Europe. For example Schroeder was pushed to the left by the trade unions and his social democratic core constituency, leading him to oppose the war in Iraq. Schroeder distanced himself from Blairism, dropping references to his own New Middle theory. His adherence to a more interventionist economic policy helped him to return to power in 2002. However, after re-gaining office he once again announced the introduction of a new wave of neo-liberal reforms, including easing job protection, cutting unemployment and sickness benefit and relaxing the rules on collective bargaining, which contributed to the SPD’s defeat at the 2005 elections. In recent years there has been a turn to the right in European politics, with social democracy marginalised in most European countries and unable to capitalise on the discrediting of the neo-liberal model of capitalism inflicted by the present economic crisis.

Blairism and the Polish Post-Communist Left

Throughout its existence the post-communist left in Poland has sought external allies, something which has been particularly needed in the post-communist reality where the left has continually been threatened with isolation. The strategy of Aleksander Kwaśniewski has always been to build an alliance between the left and the liberal centre. After the 1993 and 2001 elections the Democratic left Alliance (SLD) proposed a governing alliance with the liberal centre, yet both times these approaches were rejected. This meant that the left had to form an alliance with the Polish Peasants' Party (PSL), which (especially during the first SLD government when the PSL was a large coalition partner) restrained the government’s ability to implement free-market style policies.

In 2001 the SLD gained power after the collapse of the right-wing AWS-UW government. The electorate had rejected the extreme neo-liberal policies of this government, which had led to economic growth declining from around 7% to 1% and unemployment soaring from 10% to over 17%. The left was therefore gaining power in similar conditions to those when Tony Blair’s government was elected in the UK – i.e. after the collapse of a right-wing government. In the run up to the 2001 elections, the leadership of the SLD began to openly associate themselves with Blairism and the Third Way. For example in 2001 the SLD leader, Leszek Miller, wrote:

I spoke with some theoreticians from the Labou Party about the 'third-wa' (...) and I asked them whether we are not actually moving ot the centre but to the right. In answer I heard that we are not going to the right but forwards. This is a nice saying, which doesn't explain everything but i our case makes sense.

When the SLD came to power in 2001, in contrast to 1993, the Polish economy was stagnating, unemployment was rising and the government had less resources to tackle these problems. The new SLD government inherited a financial crisis from the AWS/UW government, spurred by economic stagnation and rising unemployment. Shortly before the 2001 parliamentary elections the SLD’s Finance Minister elect, Marek Belka, had announced that he would push through austerity measures to rebalance the budget, an action that may have cost the party an overall majority. Belka was closely connected to Kwaśniewski, who represented the most neo-liberal wing of the post-communist left.

The second SLD government pursued a Blarite strategy of liberalising the economy, hoping that this would instigate economic growth which in turn would provide the resources to improve social services. However, in a state of constant conflict with the RPP over reducing interest rates, the government’s policies were unable to improve the country’s socio-economic situation. In the first two years of the SLD government, economic growth only marginally picked up and unemployment grew from over 17% in 2001 to 19% in 2004. When the government attempted to introduce a more interventionist set of policies (as for example when Grzegorz Kołodko was re-appointed as Finance minister) this was blocked by the actions of Kwaśniewski, the NBP/RPP and the demands connected to entering the European Union.

Facing a political crisis PM Leszek Miller (who historically had been connected with the more pro-social wing of the post-communist left) came out strongly in favour of neo-liberalism. In an attempt to strengthen his position he began to talk as a supporter of neo-lieralism a manner that even surpassed that of Kwaśniewski or Blair. In November 2003 Miller declared:

Generating national wealth and its redistribution are to a large extent separate spheres. the first is decided by the hard and objective laws of economics an dthe maret and the second by social justice. Policies must have a liberal character becuase the market can only fulfill its potential in conditions of a free economy. The problems of society must not be placed on the market not should ideology be an impediment for the free market. Economic growth will be quicker through low taxes, a low budget deficit and better management of budget resources.

Concurrently Miller’s government took a sharp neo-liberal turn – personified by the replacement of Kołodko as Finance Minister by Jerzy Hausner. At this point we can in fact say that the SLD government moved from a Third Way position to a clear neo-liberal one. The so-called Hausner Plan (presented by the government to solve the economic crisis) proposed a package of neo-liberal reforms that included liberalising the labour code, decreasing social benefits and reducing the business tax.

We can see therefore how the second SLD government was unable to follow a Third Way social democratic programme and ended up adhering to a classic neo-liberal one. This can be shown by the failure of the government to increase spending in public services, which in fact declined during the course of the SLD administration. For example while in 2001 spending on education equalled 4.6% of GDP, this had declined to 4.1% in 2004. Similarly, government health spending reduced from 3.3% in 2001 to just 3.1% in 2004. The SLD government also moved away from its left values on a number of other issues. The SLD government became strong supporters of the USA, sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and signalling its interest in supporting a National Missile Defence System on Polish soil. The reality of a host of new ‘pro-US’ states entering the EU was driven home when the signatures of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to the UK sponsored letter supporting a war against Iraq. Donald Rumsfield’s subsequent definition of ‘old Europe’ and ‘new Europe’ helped to crystallise this division. The government also failed to live up to its social-liberal policies – by not, for example, liberalising Poland’s draconian abortion law.

The inability of the government to meet its social democratic pledges, and the growth of corruption allegations, led to the break up of the government and a split in the SLD. After standing down as SLD leader, Miller resigned as PM on 2 May 2004, i.e. the day after Poland joined the EU. Kwaśniewski appointed Marek Belka (who returned from his post as financial advisor in Iraq) to form a government of ‘experts’, as the SLD-led administration fell apart. The party opened up a process of verification of SLD members (whereby all members had to reapply for membership), as a public action against corruption in the party. Rather than clearing out a small, corrupt minority, the party initially lost over 35% of its membership. Also some leading members of the SLD left to form a new party: The Social Democratic Party of Poland (SdPL).

Once Again to the Third Way

By the 2005 elections a new younger leadership of the SLD had been created around Wojciech Olejniczak and Grzegorz Napieralski. This new leadership tried to present itself as being a break from the past, yet it essentially continued with the Third Way policies of Kwaśniewski and Miller. Olejniczak was promoted by Kwaśniewski as being the most suitable candidate for SLD leader and he openly declared that his role model internationally was Tony Blair. The SLD suffered a huge defeat at the 2005 elections (with its vote falling to 11% after gaining more than 40% in 2001) from which it has yet to recover. The 2005 elections pushed the left back to the position it had been in before 1991. For the first time after losing an election, the left was not the largest opposition group in parliament and it was unable to win in any of the country’s 41 constituencies. Despite this defeat, the SLD still won nearly three times as many votes as the SdPL, who failed to enter parliament; and the new leadership greeted the SLD’s result of 11% as a triumph.

Following the huge defeat in 2005 the left has been isolated with two parties from the conservative right dominating the Polish political scene. A debate within the post-communist left was begun shortly after these elections about what political and organisational strategy it should adopt. The major idea to emerge out of this discussion was that of creating a new centre-left alliance (centrolew) uniting the left and liberal centre against the project of the conservative-nationalists. This project eventually crystallised into the electoral alliance Left and Democrats (LiD) – which united, among others, the SLD, SdPL and Democratic Party (PD). Supporters of this project compared the situation in Poland to that which existed in the 1930s and argued that the Law and Justice (PiS) government was attempting to create a conservative-nationalist hegemony. In order to counter this, the left would need to build an alternative hegemonic project, though forming a strategic alliance with the liberal centre. While many of the fears concerning the building of a new conservative hegemony were justified (and have been vilified) the new left counter-hegemonic project was to be based upon a conception of capitalism derived from the ideas of the Third Way.

Protagonists of the centre-left project upheld the belief that capitalism had entered a post-materialist era and that the centre-left should seek to win support from the growing middle class. For example, Andrzej Celiński appealed to the young educated professionals, who are self-employed or work for new private firms. Likewise Napieralski (writing then as a supporter of building an alliance with the liberal centre) wrote that the industrial working class grouped in trade unions is no longer significant in modern society and that they have been replaced by independent specialists on the labour market. According to Napieralski the left should therefore support those individuals who are excluded from the market and increase their activities in the spheres of culture and education.

The concept of building a centre-left alliance, embodied in the political project of LiD collapsed after the 2007 elections when LiD gained just 13% of the vote. This was nearly 5% less than the combined votes of the parties that made up LiD during the 2005 elections. This strategy has led to the defeat and isolation of the post-communist left in Poland, as it is built upon a conception of the Polish social and political structures that does not fit reality. Shortly after the 2007 elections Olejniczak lost his position as leader of the SLD and was replaced by Napieralski. With the SdPL and PD suffering an even deeper isolation and contraction the SLD now stands as the only major party of the centre-left in Poland. Since becoming SLD leader, Napieralski has broken from the policies of the Third Way and the idea of forming an alliance with the political centre. However, his political strategy seems to be one of maintaining the parties core political support and presenting himself as a loyal representative of the party. Such a strategy may have helped to win the support of the party’s core electorate, but it has failed to expand into a party that could genuinely challenge the existing right-wing hegemony in Poland.

Conclusion

Blairism and the Third Way grew within European social democracy as an alternative to the declining nation-state centred model of social democracy prominent after World War Two. While it offered some genuine critique of this declining model, it adhered to many of the assumptions and precepts of neo-liberalism, which, when carried out in practice, led to the decline and not expansion of support for the left. The left is unable to expand its support through moving to the political centre but by understanding that although the social structure has changed over the past few decades this does not mean that we live in a post-class, individualist society where the free-market provides the means for economic growth and social justice. In fact the present economic crisis has shown that the opposite is true and that the left should begin to consider what economic model can be introduced to ensure the growth needed to build social equality and social justice.

Local Governments Invest More and Have Lower Debt

2011-05-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

As noted elswhere on this blog the Polish central government s pressuring local governments to decrease their debt. This is part of the government's general attempt to bring down its defict to below 3% by 2012. The Finance Minister has produced a plan that states that local goernments will not be able to have a deficit as a percentage of its income above 4% in 2013, 3% in 2014 and 1 % in 2015.

This has come under heavy criticism from local governments and others who recognise that local governments have most successfully managed to gain EU funds and invest in infrastructural projects in recent years. Representatives of local governments have rightly argued that it is their investments that have managed to keep the Polish economy growing throughout the global economic crisis and help it avoid falling into recession.

Today's Gazeta Wyborcza has published some interesting statistics that show how local government's have not only been investing the most but also how their level of debt is miniscule in relation to that of central govenrment:

Public Money (bn złoty):

Central Government: 300

Local Government: 170

Investment Expenditure (bn złoty):

Central Government: 15

Local Government: 40

Public Investment (%)

Central Government: 5
Local Government: 23.5

Share of Public Debt (%)

Central Government: 94.2
Local Government: 4.8

Debt in Relation to Income (%)

Central Government: 227
Local Government: 26

Referendum Against the Privatisation of Warsaw's Heating Network

2011-05-10T07:44:00.000-07:00

Below I publish an article concerning the campaign for a referendum in Warsaw on the privatisation of the company running the city's heating network. The article first appeared in Polish in the blog Zielona Warszawa

The Greens along with the Warsaw branch of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) and trade unions have initiated a campaign for a referendum on the privatisation of the company that runs Warsaw's heating network (Stołeczne Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej - SPEC). They now have sixty days to collect the signatures of Warsaw residents supporting the resolution for a referendum.

'SPEC is a company of strategic importance for the quality of life of Warsaw's residents. The local government should have complete control over this company. Only then can it have an influence over the development and investment in the company, the modernisation of the heating network and the quality of its service. The experience of other towns shows that the privatisation of public utilities leads to an increase in their price and a deterioration in the modernisation of their infrastructure' said Kristian Legierskia Warsaw Councilor and member of the Greens. 'The risk that the cost of heating will rise is very real when the Energy Regulatory Office does not guarantee the maintenance of current prices. The risk is even greater as SPEC is a natural monopoly. If Varsovians are not satisfied with the quality and price of service after privatisation they will still be compelled to buy from this private supplier of heating.'

'The decision to privatise SPEC is economically unviable. In an ad-hoc bid to rescue its budget the city government wants to sell off one of its most profitable companies. In 2010 the company made a profit of 82 million zloty, whilst simultaneously investing significantly in its infrastructure. The sale of SPEC would deprive the city of a guaranteed profit' - said Agnieszka Grzybek, a member of the National Council of the Greens. 'The local government unfortunately is deaf to all rational arguments and has ignored all attempts to discuss the merits of SPEC's privatisation. Even worse it has independently made the decision to privatise SPEC, bypassing the council. For this reason we believe that the residents of Warsaw should be able to express their own opinion on this matter.'

Trade Unionists not Hooligans

2011-05-08T07:57:00.000-07:00

Just as a hooligan cannot pretend to be a football fan so a hooligan cannot pretend to be a trade-union activist.

These are the words of PM Donald Tusk following a violent confrontation between Miners' trade unionists and security workers last week outside of the headquarters of the mining company KGHM. Comparing the demonstrators to the hooligans that have recently blighted Polish football, Tusk has identified trade unionists as the new 'enemy within'.

In recent months a number of political commentators have warned of the 'threat' posed by trade unions. It is claimed that these trade unions have held the country to ransom with unreasonable demands and are led by overpaid bureaucrats that do not sufficiently represent their membership.

The fact remains that only around 13% of all those employed in Poland - around 1.3m people - are members of trade unions. These tend to be based within the remaining state industries, the public sector or former state monopolies that have been privatised.

Trade unions are virtually non-present within the new private companies that have arisen throughout the past 20 years. This means that the vast majority of Poles do not have the option to join a trade union - with research showing that nearly a half of those questioned state that they are not a member of a trade union because there are no trade unions where they work.

The absence of trade unions has resulted in Poland having the longest working hours in the OECD apart from South Korea and has left millions of workers on unstable short-term contracts. This has meant that those who are covered by trade unions have been signalled out by the government and its allies as having 'unfair privileges'.

The Miners are a perfect example of this. In relative terms miners in Poland earn well and enjoy a number of bonuses and early retirement rights. These are derived both from the ardious and dangerous work that they do and from the high status that they had during Communism. Also the strong trade unions in the sector has meant that Miners have been able to retain these rights.

Last week around a 1000 Miners organised a picket outside the offices of the KGHM Mining company in Lublin. For over 3 years these workers have been demanding a 300 zloty a month pay rise, which has been consistently refused by the owners of the company. The anger of the Miners can be understood as KGHM recorded a record profit in 2010 of over 4.5bn zloty. Furthermore, the board of directors voted themselves huge pay rises last year. The monthly salaries for the Presidents of the company rose from 40,000 to 75,000 zloty a month (i.e. an increase of 90%). This salary rise was also supported by the representatives of the State Treasury that sit on the board.

With profits and board salaries soaring and inflation exceeding 4%, the request for a 300 zloty pay rise seems far from excessive. It was the the unfairness of this situation that led to the outbreak of violence at the picket last week. However, rather than the government recognising the realities of the situation, it has opted to score cheap propaganda points through further demonising the trade unions.

Poland Escapes Recession By Public Investment

2011-04-26T23:58:00.000-07:00

You can find an article by me on how Poland avoided an economic recession during the crisis here

Polish Goverment Protests Against Dutch Anti-Immigration Policy

2011-04-26T00:18:00.000-07:00

A political row is brewing between Warsaw and the Hague concerning the possible expulsion of EU migrants from Holland.

Holland is governed by a centre-right minority coalition government that depends upon the support of the far-right Party of Freedom (led by Geert Wilders). This government has followed a trend set in some other European countries of using the politics of Islamophobia and anti-immigrant prejudice to boost its popularity. Recently attention has turned to immigrants from Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) and particularly Poland. There are currently around 200,000 migrants from CEE living in Holland, of which an estimated 115,000 are from Poland.

Wilders has long campaigned against immigration from CEE. The issue is now being taken up by the mainstream parties, with the government announcing that it plans to send home immigrants from other EU states who had been unemployed for more than 3 months. The Polish government has quite rightly pointed out that this violates the EU directive (38/2000), which guarantees the free-movement and residence of EU citizens in other Member States.

The reality of life for most migrants coming from CEE to Holland is one of exploitation. Often they find low-paid insecure work through employment agencies and are housed in packed boarding houses. If they lose their jobs these migrants often end up homeless and therefore potentially reliant upon social benefits. Politicians (including some from the left) have been warning of a 'tsunami' of CEE immigrants overwhelming the Dutch social services. The reality is that only 690 people from CEE are currently drawing social benefits in Holland and just 1,527 unemployment benefits.

With the German and Austrian labour markets set to open up to CEE next month a dangerous precedent is being set in Holland. This restricts one of the most fundamental rights of the free movement of people within the EU. Coming on the back of the French decision to expel Roma immigrants from Romania out of France, it is important that this move by the Dutch government is opposed and that the principle of the free movement of labour within the EU is upheld.

Below I publish a recent article from the Financial Times on this issue:

Poles at sharp end of Dutch politics: Lukasz and Alicja left their native Poland for the Netherlands 10 months ago, expecting to find an open and tolerant society befitting their hosts’ reputation. They were disappointed.

Like most of the estimated 150,000 Polish migrants here, the couple found work through employment agencies, which put them in the tight-packed boarding houses known as “Polish hotels”. Alicja, 24, picked flowers while Lukasz, 26, who has a university degree in logistics, started picking tomatoes then moved on to repairing trucks.

After taxes, social insurance and rent, they were left with about €200 ($290) each per week. Salaries like these have attracted tens of thousands of young Poles such as Lukasz and Alicja since 2007, when the Netherlands opened its labour market to them.

East European migrants now provide most of the labour force for the Netherlands’ greenhouse-based agricultural industry. The Dutch experience is being watched by Germany and Austria, which open their borders to east European workers on May 1.

Unemployment in the Netherlands stands at 4.3 per cent, well below the European Union average of 9.5 per cent. But with the electoral trend to the right, politicians have begun attacking immigration from eastern Europe.

In provincial elections last month, Geert Wilders, the far-right anti-Islamic politician, accused Polish workers of crime, drunkenness and taking Dutch jobs. Even politicians from the Labour and Socialist parties have warned of a “tsunami” of east Europeans overwhelming Dutch social services.

Now Lukasz and Alicja fear that, like the Turkish and Moroccan migrants who came here in the 1970s and 1980s, the Poles have fallen victim to the Netherlands’ love-hate relationship with immigrants.

“They decided to open the borders themselves, and now they want us to go home,” says Lukasz. “It’s absurd.”

Until recently campaigns against east European immigrants were the exclusive province of Mr Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV). Since elections last year made the PVV the third-largest party, mainstream parties have taken up the issue. Earlier this month the rhetoric became government policy, when Henk Kamp, minister of social affairs from the governing Liberal party, announced plans to send back home east Europeans who had been unemployed for more than three months.

Mr Kamp’s plans have turned a domestic political issue into a European controversy.

The Polish government says deporting its citizens for economic reasons would violate EU rules on labour migration. Viviane Reding, European Commission vice-president, has warned that the Commission will “loudly and clearly” oppose Dutch rules that do not meet EU standards. Dutch officials admit their proposal to require five years’ residency before claiming unemployment benefits violates EU agreements.

Meanwhile, Polish officials point out that, like Lukasz and Alicja, most Polish migrants pay Dutch taxes and social insurance premiums. “We are talking about people who are entitled under Dutch law to receive such assistance,” says Janusz Wolosz, spokesman for the Polish embassy in The Hague.

Louis Bontes, a former policeman turned PVV member of parliament, cites complaints of public drunkenness and noise, and opposition to Poles claiming unemployment or other social benefits. “I get e-mails from citizens who say the problems keep getting worse,” he says. However, much of the antipathy to Polish immigrants reflects Dutch fear of ethnic and cultural change. Complaints that Polish migrants degrade neighbourhoods often refer not so much to their behaviour as to the fact that they are there.

“People can’t identify any more with the place where they live,” says Mr Bontes. “You can see why someone who lives in one of these streets in Rotterdam where only 20-30 per cent of the people are native Rotterdammers just doesn’t feel comfortable there anymore, period.”

Civic groups that provide services for Polish migrants agree a minority can create social burdens. Poles have become the “dominant group” at some homeless shelters, says Ernst-Jan Stroes, director of Den Haag East Europe Foundation.

But the groups say the employment agencies are partly to blame. The agencies often house their workers four or more to a room in squalid converted family housing, while others are housed in trailer parks, also isolated from Dutch society. “The employment agencies abuse them, the slum landlords rip them off and in the end they wind up out on the street,” says Mr Stroes.

After seven years in the Netherlands, Krystyna Cichon speaks fluent Dutch and works for a local water utility. “I can tell you stories about employment agencies you wouldn’t believe,” she says, recalling the problems she faced when she first arrived.

An agency brought her from Poland in 2004 with a promise of work folding clothes for a fashion label, Ms Cichon says. Instead, she and six other women were deposited at a meat factory and ordered to pack chicken parts on an assembly line. She says such deception is routine at the less reputable agencies.

Janusz and Alicja have now saved up enough to rent a small apartment. But, like most Poles working here, they still have virtually no contact with local people apart from supervisors at work.

“The Dutch think they are very open,” says Ms Cichon. “But they’re not.” Janusz and Alicja’s names have been changed to preserve their anonymity

Labour's U-Turn on Migration from CEE

2011-04-20T07:35:00.000-07:00

When the British PM David Cameron uses anti-immigrant rhetoric it's no surprise. After all we expect the Tories to be.. well Tories. However, recently there have been worrying signs that some within the British Labour Party are jumping on the anti-migrant bandwagon in an attempt to boost its popularity. Furthermore, migrants from Central-Eastern Europe (CEE), and particularly Poland, are beginning to feel the brunt of this rising anti-migrant sentiment.

Speaking about the previous Labour government's record on immigration , in a recent interview on the BBC, the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, said:

"I don't think we lied but I do think we got it wrong in a number of respects. I think that first of all we clearly underestimated the number of people coming in from Poland and that had more of an effect therefore than we would otherwise have thought. And secondly, I think there's this really important issue about people coming into the country and the pressures on people's wages. People aren't prejudiced but people say to me look I'm worried about the pressure on my wages of people coming into this country, I'm worried about what it does to housing supply - all those issues. Now some of that is real and some of it isn't but I think you have to address not just tough immigration policy but underlying issues as well."

This came on the back of previous statements made by Miliband about the pressure that immigrants have had on wages and living-standards in the UK. It also follows comments made by the influential Labour intellectual Maurice Glasman. The issue of immigration is a central theme of Glasman's concept of 'Blue Labour' - that attempts to marry Labourism with social conservatism. Glasman claims that immigration to Britain has helped to hold down salaries - particularly for lower earners - and acted as an 'unofficial wages policy' in the UK. He states that the government was underhanded about its migration policy and that they lied about the number of immigrants that would come into the country.

These are part of a trend within sections the British Labour movement of pandering to the anti-immigration policies of the Conservative Party and the far-right. This manifested itself in the run-up to the last General Election, when there were unofficial strikes called under the slogan of 'British Jobs for British Workers'. A phrase coined by Gordon Brown.

For years politicians on the right have argued that there needs to be an honest debate about immigration into Britain. The only honest debate they seem to want to have however is one that starts and ends with the idea that there are too many immigrants in Britain which is bad for its economy. An excellent article by Mehdi Hassan shows the hypocrisy of this debate and how it leaves out any discussion about the great contribution that migrants have made to British economic, social and cultural life. Hassan also points out how studies into the impact of immigration have shown how it actually boosts economic growth and wages (including low wages). Rather than trying to dress up the anti-immigrant policies of the right into a programme for itself, the left should be challenging the very assumptions and facts upon which these are based.

However, there is another side to the story of migration - which is that of emigration. Miliband and Glasman have argued that the Labour Party lied or underestimated the extent of the amount of immigrants coming from Poland and Eastern Europe. They also insinuate that the problem was caused by Britain's '0pen-door' policy to immigrants that allowed for this large inflow of migrants from countries such as Poland.

It is true that the amount of immigrants coming from Poland was underestimated prior to EU enlargement. This was the first time that the EU labour market had been opened up to workers from CEE; and therefore there was no real basis for estimating how many would come. However, this is not the crux of the matter. The real issue at hand is that 10 new countries had entered the EU and therefore should have right to move, live and work around the EU as they wish. This is one of the principles upon which the EU is founded and is one that any progressive should defend and support. After all, if Poles are to have restricted access to the UK labour market then by the same standards so should the Brits in say Spain or Portugal - or for that matter those of us living in Poland itself.

The Labour Party government should in fact be praised (its not often I say this) for its policy towards CEE immigration after EU enlargement. The scandal of this time was that it was only Britain and Ireland which initially allowed people from the new eastern EU states to work freely in their countries. All other 'old' EU states took up the option to maintain restrictions on the right of CEE migrants to work in their countries. This meant that the possible destination for labour migrants from CEE was limited. Seven years after EU expansion, it will only be next month that the German and Austrian labour markets are finally opened up to workers from CEE.

The other issue, that is little considered in the debate on CEE migration in the UK, is the huge profits made by Western European companies after the opening up of the CEE markets and economies. By the time that countries such as Poland had entered the EU, their economies had been liberalised and opened up to trade with the West. Many sectors of the CEE economies have become dominated by Western European capital. For example, over 85% of the banking sector in CEE is now in the hands of foreign banks. If goods and capital are allowed to move freely and Western companies have access to the CEE markets then people equally have the right to move as well. The fact that the economic policies being urged by the West and the EU had contributed to the creation of soaring unemployment in CEE (unemployment had reached 20% in Poland when it entered the EU) was a contributing factor to the large outflow of labour from 2004. Do the proponents of restricting immigration from CEE also believe that the Polish government should restrict British business in Poland?

In an age of austerity and economic hardship, the issue of immigration has become a useful distraction for governments in Europe. This has invariably been connected to racism and Islamophobia - which are on a rise throughout the continent. Similarly, a danger exists that migrants from CEE will be targeted as a scapegoat for the anti-immigrant right. It is imperative that the left does not allow itself to be lured by these divisive and regressive policies.

Left Unity Before the Election?

2011-04-17T04:39:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has taken an interest in seeing the creation of a strong alternative left in Poland, will have experienced the frustrations of seeing numerous initiatives fail almost before they got off the ground. With parliamentary elections round the corner then it seems that once again the left will be represented by one party: the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD).

It was not supposed to have been like this. After all this is the land of Solidarność - the largest alternative opposition movement to Communism, born out of a trade union movement and espousing a programme of the self-management of workplaces as a means to create a self-managed republic. Although by 1989 this movement had become lured by the market and dominated by the Church, a seemingly strong independent left current still existed within it.

Yet none of the left movements that emerged out of Solidarność were able to seriously challenge the 'post-communist' left. The grouping around left Solidarity activists such as Jacek Kuroń became swallowed up in the liberal-centre, becoming the human face for the shock-therapy reforms. The most serious attempt to build a left party out of the Solidarność left was the Labour Union (UP) - led by Ryszard Bugaj in the early 1990s. Despite winning 7% in the 1993 elections, this vote was dwarfed by the SLD gaining 20%. UP refused to go into coalition with the SLD and then failed to enter parliament in 1997, only returning once it entered an electoral coalition with the SLD in 2001. Ever since UP have been reliant upon and subordinated to its larger, more powerful partner.

A similar - although inverse - fate was experienced by the Polish Socialist Party (PPS). This party was built upon the traditions and structures of the PPS - a mass party before the war that had been formed at the end of the nineteenth century. The PPS stood as part of the SLD slate in 1993 and remained in parliament until 2001. It was initially heavily criticised by some for forming an alliance with the 'post-communist' left, yet was able to operate as a relatively independent left force both inside and outside of parliament. However, when the PPS decided to challenge the SLD in the 2001 parliamentary and presidential elections, it gained less than 0.25% of the vote, while the SLD surged to more than 40%.

When the second SLD-led government (2001 - 2005) began to fall apart - ridden with corruption scandals and implementing strong neo-liberal economic policies - another attempt to form an alternative left was made. This time it came in the shape of the Polish Social Democratic Party (SdPL), formed by a number of prominent SLD MPs. Although the SdPL claimed that it was going to build an true social democratic party in Poland, there was little to separate the two parties programmatically. Despite the SLD's vote falling to just over 11% in the 2005 elections, the SdPL won less than 4% support and failed to enter parliament. By 2007 it too had entered an electoral coalition with the SLD.

Since this time there has been no serious left challenge to the SLD - despite the fact that support for the SLD has remained relatively low. The group Krytyka Polityczna have certainly managed to exert some influence over the public debate and have helped to break the stranglehold that the conservative-right have over cultural life in Poland. However, they have failed to articulate a clear political project for the left and they presently seem uncertain and divided about whether they want to evolve as a cultural centre or real political force. The Polish Workers' Party (PPP) has some strong regional presence and trade union influence. They have been present in a number of important industrial disputes and social campaigns. However, the PPP has also been unable to register any notable electoral result.

Some have argued that the left should give up its electoral ambitions and concentrate on working within communities on social campaigns. The argument runs that the dominance of the political scene and media by a few elite parties makes it impossible for a viable left alternative to emerge. There is some merit in this argument, in the sense that for any progressive left alternative to emerge it must simultaneously build up local bases of support and grow through campaigning on issues that affect people outside of the arena of electoral politics. However, for the left to desert the field of electoral politics is to admit that they are unable to influence and change people's lives for the better where it really matters.

The question arises as to whether the left should once again attempt to build a left alternative to the SLD or ally with it. In recent days there are signs that those on the margins of the SLD are moving closer to it as the pressures of the forthcoming elections mounts. It is likely that the SdPL parliamentary group will be closed down, as there are now too few MPs after a number left to join the SLD. Concurrently, it has also been revealed that it is likely that UP will merge with (or more precisely be submerged into) the SLD to form one party. The leader of UP has explained: 'Poles associate the left with one party - the SLD. We accept this and there is no point fighting reality'. On the other hand Bugaj - now long departed from UP - has stated that this is the inevitable ending point for the political trajectory pursued by UP. He claims that the SLD - which did not want social rights written into the constitution, which introduced a flat-income tax for business, supported evicting people from their houses and introduced the most commercial model of social insurance in Europe - cannot be considered to be on the left.

The problem for the left is that both of these statements are essentially true. The left of Polish politics is dominated by a group that has often - although not always - betrayed its left credentials. The nadir of this was during the term of the second SLD-led government, when PM Leszek Miller openly moved to the right even of Blairism and the Third Way. Since this time a new leadership has emerged around Grzegorz Napieralski, which has underlined that it is building an authentic broad left-wing party in Poland. Yet the left electorate still has to endure the likes of Miller acting as the party's unofficial spokesperson and praising the economic policies of his government. Those who authentically stand on the left have long had to deal with these schizophrenic messages from the SLD.

It now seems certain that the left will compete this year's parliamentary banner with one dominating party - the SLD. In these circumstances the left inside and outside of the SLD has to place as much pressure on the SLD to maintain some of its left principles and programme. This will be particularly important as the SLD could well find itself having to decide on whether to join a PO dominated government. If the SLD does achieve a positive result in the Autumn yet decides to remain independent, then it would have the chance to help build a strong left-wing party in Poland.

Its the economy stupid

2011-04-14T08:56:00.000-07:00

In the run up to an election the last things you want are increasing inflation, rising interest rates and slowing growth. Yet this is precisely the lethal cocktail that may await Mr Tusk's government as the parliamentary elections approach in the Autumn.

Latest figures have shown that the prices of goods and services rose - year on year - by 4.3% in March. This is the highest rise in prices since 2008 and was higher than expected by analysts. Moreover, the cost of basic food products are growing the most - sugar 39.4%, poultry 9.9% and flour 4.9%. A rise in the price of such products obviously affects the poorest the

hardest

The rate of inflation is now higher than the growth in wages - which rose on average by 4.1%. The salaries of many employees grew less than this or even declined and salaries of public sector workers (excluding teachers) are being frozen.

The squeeze on people's incomes will be made worse by the probable decision by the National Bank of Poland (NBP) to raise interest rates. The NBP aims to keep inflation at around 2.5% and it is therefore extremely likely that base interest rates will be raised again by at least half a percentage point by the end of this year. With private debt having expanded rapidly in recent years, higher interest rates will further negatively hit people's living standards. Another effect of rising interest rates is the possible appreciation of the Polish Złoty, worsening the prospects for exporters.

PiS have already recognised that the rising cost of living is a potential vote winner. In 2005 they managed to convince voters that the economic policies of PO would worsen their material position. They are trying to repeat this again - with Jarsosław Kaczyński carrying out a publicity stunt by shopping in a local store to highlight the rising cost of food. This week PiS are putting forward a bill in parliament that would rule out the possiblity of a further rise in VAT.

Some may argue that these actions are populist and designed to win support for a more sinister political project. And they may well be right. Yet one of the highest VAT rates in Europe is certainly adding to pressure on people's incomes.

Donald Tusk is heading into this year's elections with a clear political advantage and faces an opposition that repels large sections of society. However, there is nothing like rising costs and falling living standards to turn political fortunes against a ruling party.

JSW Miners Vote for Strike Action

2011-04-11T11:16:00.000-07:00

Miners from Jastrzębskiej Spółce Węglowej (JSW) - the largest coke producing coal company in the EU - have overwhelmingly voted for strike action in a referendum held on 7-8 April.

Over 78% of all the miners took part in the referendum, with more than 95% supporting strike action. The miners are both arguing for a 10% pay-rise and are opposing the proposed privatisation of the company. As I noted in a previous post the sale of JSW is part of the Treasury's current privatisation drive in Poland.

JSW encompasses 6 different mines, employing over 22,600 miners. The mines made a profit of more than 1bn zł last year. The spokesperson for the trade-union at JSW stated: 'Privatisation makes no sense. The state treasury gains large revenue from us through taxes. If the company is privatised then these revenues will decline as the profits can be hidden in different kinds of costs'

The miners at all of JSW's mines will hold a 24-hour strike on 18 April.

Capital Returns to Central-Eastern Europe?

2011-04-11T02:05:00.000-07:00

One consequence of the global financial crisis was the flow of capital from the peripheries of the world economy back to its centre. However, there is some evidence that this is beginning to change. How may this impact upon the CEE economies?

The economic crisis most harshly afflicted those countries in CEE, that were most dependent upon an inflow of foreign capital. For example, in the Baltic States, there had been a huge rise in foreign borrowing to support the domestic private sector and consumption following EU entry. This helped to stimulate imports, facilitated by fixed and appreciating exchange rates and by the liberalisation of lending. The drying up of liquidity from 2008 therefore caused these ‘financialised’ economies to fall into a sharp downward spiral. Incredibly, in 2009, GDP fell by over 13% in Estonia and by over 18% in Latvia and Lithuania. Furthermore, unemployment rocketed in the Baltic States - increasing by 12% in just one year in Latvia. This outflow of capital also caused large depreciations in countries with floating currencies. Therefore, between September 2008 and September 2009 the Hungarian Forint lost 20% of its value, while the Polish Zloty devalued by 30%. This situation is especially dangerous in CEE as a large proportion of private loans are taken out in foreign currencies.

Over the past couple of weeks there have been some signs that funds are begining to return to emerging markets. The leading destinations for this capital have been Russia, China and S. Korea. Talking to people who understand these moves, then what seems to be occurring is that money is being borrowed in countries where interest rates are close to zero (e.g. the USA, Britain and Japan) and being invested in countries where these are higher. With little prospect for growth in these centres of the world economy - capital is moving to areas where there is greater growth and interest rates and/or commodity prices are higher.

While in 2009 capital inflows fell by 45% in 8 CEE countries - the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine and Turkey – they rose by 9% in 2010.The most successful of these economies has been the Czech Republic, whose manufacturing export-orientated industries have benefited from the strong recovery in the German economy. In Hungary inward capital flows have increased, as they have in Poland - particularly in government bonds. It also seems that the uncertainty in weaker eurozone economies has encouraged investors to locate money in CEE.

At a time when private investment is supressed it would seem that this is a welcome development for CEE. Yet, despite the increase in capital inflows to CEE this has not reversed the massive decline in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) that followed the global financial crisis. FDI fell in Poland from €16.7bn in 2007 to €8.4bn in 2009 and then down to €5.5bn in 2010. The vast majority of the current inflows to CEE are portfolio investments and not direct 'green-field' investments in the region's economy.

FDI in CEE has also often been bound up with privatisations and the domestic economies have faced problems once these sales have dried up. This was the case in Hungary in 1998 when it experienced its first financial crisis after FDI slumped once its major privatisation drive had been completed. Poland faced a budget crisis in 2001, as FDI - mainly connected to privatisations - slumped by 30%. In fact studies have shown that during the transition in CEE there was no positive correlation between FDI and fixed capital investment or economic growth. We may expect to see a formal rise in FDI in Poland over the coming year as the the Polish government attempts to carry through CEE's current largest wave of privatisations (this in fact may be the last of its kind as there is very little left to sell in CEE).

The other problem with such an inflow of capital is that it can leave as quickly as it arrives. Once investment and growth begin to pick up again in the USA and beyond then this capital will quickly shift back to the economic centres. The danger exists for the developing markets that they experience a bubble of 'hot money' (as occurred in CEE prior to 2008), which is then followed by a sharp economic downturn as this flow of capital is reversed. Countries are able to offset this somewhat - as Brazil has done through adding capital controls - but the room for such manouver is limited in CEE, especially for those countries belonging to the eurozone or whose currencies are tied to the euro.

Foreign investors are using their leverage to impose policy measures upon the CEE countries that are not necessarily beneficial to their economies. International investors have been quick to scorn the Hungarian and Polish governments for their sensible (and in Poland's case extremely moderate) pension reforms. Pressure is consistently being applied on countries such as Poland to 'bring its public finances into order' and to comply with policies favoured by international investors and financial institutions.

Investment is good for CEE and needed to help boost growth and development in the region. However, the experience of the past few years has shown that there is world of difference between investment and speculation.

Beer Cans Not Enough for the Lost Generation

2011-04-07T02:20:00.001-07:00

The article reproduced below appeared as part of the Guardian's Polish series and raises some interesting points about Poland's younger generation.

Adam Leszczyński describes how young people reacted to the protests around the raising of a cross outside the President's Palace following the Smoleńsk tragedy. He recounts how young people spontaneously responded - using new social media tools – by organising counter-protests to those 'defending the cross'. Leszczyński notes how this was significant due to the fact that young people have tended to be politically very passive in Poland.

Brought up during a period of market restoration, Polish youth bought into the demands and promises of the new system. They have educated themselves like no other generation in the country's history. However, new Polish capitalism has been unable to offer them the jobs and life-styles that their efforts deserve.

Around 2 million, mainly young, Poles have emigrated since Poland entered the EU - which has created a social safety valve in a country still plagued by very high unemployment and low wages. However, especially without an accompanying policy of encouraging immigration, this is creating large social and cultural problems as the country's population ages and de-skills.

Leszczyński identifies a light of optimism in these protests and hopes that one day this 'lost generation' will return to its homeland and help make Poland 'more liberal and open, a nicer place to live'. One can hope.

However, Leszczyński only focuses on one aspect of Polish life. He shows how young Poles are reacting against the cultural conservatism of a section of society and pushing back against those who want to impose their values upon them. The problem for the young generation goes deeper than this. If today's youth want to claim society for itself and shape it in its own image it needs to create an economy in which it can thrive. It needs jobs which both pay a decent wage and leaves people with some time and energy for other pursuits. It needs housing at an affordable price, a health service that looks after it, education for its children, transport to move it around, etc.

Importantly it has to find a way of bridging the growing cultural divide with the elder generation. The conflicts around the cross outside the President's Palace were an emotionally charged example of this schism that blights society. With two parties from the right dominating politics this generational cultural gap is growing and indeed encouraged. If the younger generation can rise above this and offer a positive vision and practical solutions for the country that all ages can benefit from then it will have been successful. Crosses made out of beer cans will not suffice.

A Very Polish Protest Party (Adam Leszczyński)

Perhaps the most telling symbol of Poland's younger generation – those 20- to 30-year-olds, born during the dark night of General Jaruzelski's martial law in the 1980s – is a Christian cross built from empty beer cans. The history of this cross is complex, long and very Polish. It started when a government plane carrying 96 people – among them the president and political elite – crashed near Smolensk, in Russia.

The catastrophe was a seismic shock for Polish society. A few days later boy scouts, accompanied by followers of the dead president – many supporters of his conservative Law and Justice party – erected a large cross in front of the presidential palace. It was a powerful symbol of mourning; but it was also a reminder of messianic, romantic ideals of Poland as a "Christ of nations" and our history of national suffering under Russian oppression. The national mood had changed. Many who were sharply critical of President Kaczynski before his death now appeared on national television saying he was a great statesman.

The self-proclaimed "defenders of the cross" guarded it 24 hours a day. Conspiracy theories flourished. The "Russkies", some said, conspired with Donald Tusk's government and killed our president! The authorities were clueless; officials hesitated; for days nobody could think of a way to remove the cross. This whole mess was a huge boon for Kaczynski's party and very delegitimising for Tusk's democratically elected government.

Then the unimaginable happened. One night a huge crowd of young people organised through Facebook surrounded the "defenders of the cross". A strange occurrence, but full of joy and jubilation: they mocked this cross and the pope, told rude jokes and laughed at the amazed defenders (though nobody touched them). They then erected their own cross made from beer cans.

This cruel act of parody was completely unprecedented. Young Poles do not usually join demonstrations – few of them vote, and sociologists say that they are apathetic towards politics. Poland is still ruled by the generation of politicians who started their careers fighting communism in the 1980s. This was the first act of protest in years, if not decades, organised by the young rather than for them.

Millions of young Poles now have experience of living and working in the west. Will they come back? And if they do, will they transform the country? The homeland needs them – but also fears and loathes them. And, of course, all the good jobs are already taken

The young generation is puzzling. They are open-minded and self-reliant. (Almost 2 million Poles, most of them young, have emigrated west since 2004, when Poland joined the European Union.) Almost half are graduates. Yet they do not expect much from life. According to a recent poll for Gazeta Wyborcza almost 70% of Poles aged 19- 26 are ready to move out of their native town to get a good job. They are ready to work for – on average – less than €600 a month. One in five of them would accept any job. But the jobs are not there: almost half a million under the age of 26 are unemployed.

In conversation they appear quite conservative. They tell you their most important values are marriage, family and a stable, peaceful life. Most of them are against abortion in principle. But in real life things are very different: almost universally they accept sex before marriage, and contraception; they live together for years before getting married – if they marry at all; and they seem much more tolerant of gay people than the older generation.

A nice house with a garden, an expensive car, a stable corporate job, ample savings and good holidays abroad – this seems to be the limit of their dreams. They don't dream about rebelling and changing the world. They are deeply suspicious of collective action: all solutions to their problems are private. Trying to make it in London or Dublin is the solution chosen most often, because it is so easy. They don't try to change the country – they leave it to rot.

However, in their own country they take exception to those who try to impose their ideas on them: that was the important lesson of the protest in front of the cross.

So far they seem to be, unfortunately, the lost generation. We raised and educated millions at enormous cost and effort. But the country seems to have little need for them: we just made their cheap, educated labour our main export. I still believe they will change the country and, hopefully, make it closer to their values – more liberal and open, a nicer place to live. When they come back. I am still hopeful – but I guess I need to wait