Transition to Democracy in Poland

Hongsub Lee
{"title":"Transition to Democracy in Poland","authors":"Hongsub Lee","doi":"10.5860/choice.31-2911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION Political change in Central and Eastern European countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s has been beyond our imagination. Its dramatic change has really stunned us by its speed and range. It took only from several months to a few weeks for most countries in this area to change from one-party dominant authoritarian regime to multi-party parliament system. In this process, the Communist Party has given up its dominant role. For instance, on January 29, 1990, the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP) declared its dissolution after 41 years of its monopoly rule. The resolution of the 11th Congress of the PUWP stated, \"the delegates being aware of the impossibility of regaining social confidence by the Polish United Workers Party have resolved to end the activity of the PUWP.\"(1) The resolution simply reflected political realities in Poland: the PUWP's failure in the elections, its loss of control over the government and its dramatically low level of public support. This situation was similar in other Eastern European countries. Confronting this radical change, many Western experts on political change lamented their lack of preparation for the wave of change in Eastern Europe.(2) Part of this difficulty stems from our long dependence on the totalitarian model in the analysis of communist regime which, for several decades, \"denied the possibility of conflict within communist societies because it saw them as based on dogma and repression.\"(3) In retrospect, the revolutions of 1989 that brought down communism in Eastern Europe seem to have been inevitable. By that year, the corruption, economic decay and staleness of the ideology had become apparent to all. Poland was not exception. Suffering from years of divisiveness, managerial inefficiency and political corruption the communists had weakened their control of the country. As a result, through several round-table talks between government and Solidarity leaders since February of 1989, they agreed to the restoration of legal status to Solidarity, the establishment of a second legislative chamber, and the creation of an executive presidency. A decade into the transition, Polish people had the chance of most essential element of democracy, participation in the free elections in more than four decades. Despite these, however, genuine democracy has not yet to become firmly established. In other words, the political regime in Poland is democratic, but it is far from being consolidated. By attempting to answer the substantial questions such as what made possible the rise of Solidarity and how it grew and contributed to the transition from authoritarianism to democracy, we will examine how and under what conditions the transformation toward democracy was possible in Poland which has suffered from authoritarian rule. This paper regards the Polish democratization as a mixed outcome of internal and external factors. CONTEMPORARY THEORIES ON DEMOCRATIZATION When we study democratization, we meet the problems of defining this concept. Most of the definitions are so normative that it is difficult to apply them to the practical world. For example, Peter Bachrach defines democracy as maximization of the self-development of every individual.(4) On the other hand, Dahl defines democratic political system as completely or almost completely responsible to all its citizens.(5) In another way, Schmitter states \"Democratization ... involved the progressive extension of the citizenship principle to encompass a wider range of eligible participants and a wider scope of domains in which collective choice among equals can make decisions binding upon all.\"(6) By judging these several definitions, we can assume \"contestation and participation\" as two most important standards of democratization.(7) These standards might be visualized by the activity of free elections. In this context, Poland has achieved some degree of democracy. Democratization should be distinguished from liberalization, which is led by state-elites. …","PeriodicalId":81138,"journal":{"name":"East European quarterly","volume":"35 1","pages":"87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East European quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.31-2911","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Political change in Central and Eastern European countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s has been beyond our imagination. Its dramatic change has really stunned us by its speed and range. It took only from several months to a few weeks for most countries in this area to change from one-party dominant authoritarian regime to multi-party parliament system. In this process, the Communist Party has given up its dominant role. For instance, on January 29, 1990, the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP) declared its dissolution after 41 years of its monopoly rule. The resolution of the 11th Congress of the PUWP stated, "the delegates being aware of the impossibility of regaining social confidence by the Polish United Workers Party have resolved to end the activity of the PUWP."(1) The resolution simply reflected political realities in Poland: the PUWP's failure in the elections, its loss of control over the government and its dramatically low level of public support. This situation was similar in other Eastern European countries. Confronting this radical change, many Western experts on political change lamented their lack of preparation for the wave of change in Eastern Europe.(2) Part of this difficulty stems from our long dependence on the totalitarian model in the analysis of communist regime which, for several decades, "denied the possibility of conflict within communist societies because it saw them as based on dogma and repression."(3) In retrospect, the revolutions of 1989 that brought down communism in Eastern Europe seem to have been inevitable. By that year, the corruption, economic decay and staleness of the ideology had become apparent to all. Poland was not exception. Suffering from years of divisiveness, managerial inefficiency and political corruption the communists had weakened their control of the country. As a result, through several round-table talks between government and Solidarity leaders since February of 1989, they agreed to the restoration of legal status to Solidarity, the establishment of a second legislative chamber, and the creation of an executive presidency. A decade into the transition, Polish people had the chance of most essential element of democracy, participation in the free elections in more than four decades. Despite these, however, genuine democracy has not yet to become firmly established. In other words, the political regime in Poland is democratic, but it is far from being consolidated. By attempting to answer the substantial questions such as what made possible the rise of Solidarity and how it grew and contributed to the transition from authoritarianism to democracy, we will examine how and under what conditions the transformation toward democracy was possible in Poland which has suffered from authoritarian rule. This paper regards the Polish democratization as a mixed outcome of internal and external factors. CONTEMPORARY THEORIES ON DEMOCRATIZATION When we study democratization, we meet the problems of defining this concept. Most of the definitions are so normative that it is difficult to apply them to the practical world. For example, Peter Bachrach defines democracy as maximization of the self-development of every individual.(4) On the other hand, Dahl defines democratic political system as completely or almost completely responsible to all its citizens.(5) In another way, Schmitter states "Democratization ... involved the progressive extension of the citizenship principle to encompass a wider range of eligible participants and a wider scope of domains in which collective choice among equals can make decisions binding upon all."(6) By judging these several definitions, we can assume "contestation and participation" as two most important standards of democratization.(7) These standards might be visualized by the activity of free elections. In this context, Poland has achieved some degree of democracy. Democratization should be distinguished from liberalization, which is led by state-elites. …
波兰的民主转型
20世纪80年代末和90年代初中欧和东欧国家的政治变革已经超出了我们的想象。它的巨大变化让我们惊叹于它的速度和范围。该地区大多数国家从一党专政到多党议会制,只用了几个月到几周的时间。在这个过程中,共产党放弃了自己的主导地位。例如,1990年1月29日,波兰统一工人党(PUWP)宣布解散,结束了41年的垄断统治。波兰工人党第11次代表大会的决议指出,“代表们意识到波兰统一工人党不可能重新获得社会的信任,决定结束波兰工人党的活动。”(1)该决议只是反映了波兰的政治现实:波兰工人党在选举中失败,对政府失去控制,公众支持率极低。其他东欧国家的情况也类似。面对这种激进的变化,许多西方政治变革专家哀叹他们对东欧的变革浪潮缺乏准备。(2)这种困难部分源于我们在分析共产主义政权时长期依赖极权主义模式,这种模式几十年来“否认共产主义社会内部发生冲突的可能性,因为它认为共产主义社会是建立在教条和镇压的基础上的”。1989年推翻东欧共产主义的革命似乎是不可避免的。到那一年,腐败、经济衰退和意识形态的陈腐对所有人来说都是显而易见的。波兰也不例外。由于多年的分裂、管理效率低下和政治腐败,共产党削弱了他们对国家的控制。结果,自1989年2月以来,通过政府和团结工会领导人之间的几次圆桌会谈,他们同意恢复团结工会的法律地位,建立第二个立法院,并设立一个执行总统。在过渡十年后,波兰人民有机会获得民主的最基本要素,参加40多年来的自由选举。然而,尽管如此,真正的民主尚未牢固地建立起来。换句话说,波兰的政治体制是民主的,但还远未得到巩固。通过试图回答一些实质性的问题,如什么使团结工会的崛起成为可能,以及它如何成长并促进了从独裁主义向民主的过渡,我们将研究在遭受专制统治的波兰如何以及在什么条件下实现向民主的转变。本文认为波兰的民主化进程是内外因素共同作用的结果。在研究民主化的过程中,我们遇到了如何界定这一概念的问题。大多数定义都是如此规范,以至于很难将它们应用到实际世界中。例如,彼得·巴赫拉赫(Peter Bachrach)将民主定义为每个人自我发展的最大化。(4)另一方面,达尔(Dahl)将民主政治制度定义为对所有公民完全或几乎完全负责。(5)换句话说,施米特(Schmitter)认为“民主化……(6)通过对这几个定义的判断,我们可以假定“竞争和参与”是民主化的两个最重要的标准。(7)这些标准可以通过自由选举的活动来具体化。在这方面,波兰实现了某种程度的民主。民主化应该与由国家精英主导的自由化区分开来。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信