Waves inside Solidarnosc THE FOLLOWING is from the October 22 issue of Tygodnik Mazowsze No 185, a national underground paper close to the leader ship of Solidarnosc.
Before August 1980, Henryk Wujec was one of the leaders of the working-class activity of the KOR [Committee to Defend the Workers]. Subsequently he was a leader of Solidarnosc in Warsaw. He is now a member of the regional leadership operating above ground. HENRYK WUJEC
POLAND political situation.
Two projects were proposed at a meeting held in Warsaw on September 20, in which Lech Walesa participated.
1. Lech Walesa, Zigniew Bujak, Wladyslaw Frasyniuk and Bogdan Lis made a joint statement on the new situation. Subsequently, this group of four issued statements of principle from time to time. Aside from that, nothing changed. Gorny, Kulerski and Muszynski stayed in the TKK, which remained underground.
2. Lech Walesa set up a Council of Solidarnosc, to which adhered, in addition to open activists, underground activists who put their names to the positions taken by the TKK. The latter could take advantage of this opportunity to come out of the underground, if they wanted to. The TKK would then be made up only of anonymous regional represen- only ot anonymous regional representatives. Two variants were envisaged for the Council: a narrow group, made up only of former TKK members; or a broader group made up of represenof the regions (proposed by their region). In the first case, the Council would have ten members, in the second, nearly 60.
The first project was approved by Walesa and his advisors. The second by the former TKK members. After a long discussion in which an effort was made to conciliate the different points of view, it was decided that the TKK would be asked to set up the Council and that Walesa would simply approve it. The TKK then received a letter containing a slate of candidates proposed by the Council (broad variant) and a detailed account of the September 20 meeting.
The TKK members did not accept this proposition, on the grounds that the project was incoherent (a clandestine institution setting up an open one), that it was difficult to define the respective authorities of the TKK and the Council, and for ethical reasons. It was impossible for them to expose colleagues hardly out of prison to new arrests. The TKK thought that it was rather up to the chair of the union to establish the Council and it appealed to him.
The situation had to be analyzed yet again in Gdansk on September 29, and after a tempestuous discussion, Walesa decided to form a Council made up of seven people, all former members of the TKK.
In his public statement on the formation of the Council, Walesa said that it was necessary to "work out and define a new mode of action, an open and legal one." His statement, like that of the Council, was marked by a spirit of conciliation and dialogue, but in no way went back on any of the fundamental ideas of Solidarnose.
Despite differences of opinion among the activists, the creation of the Council seems to me to have been a success for the union. It demonstrated that the will to cooperate to find solutions was still strong. It is
15
What is happening in the union I would call a real earthquake - the formation of an open Provisional Committee of Solidarnosc, the spontaneous appearance of several regional councils and the multiplication of often contradictory statements. All this turmoil is not without its dangers, but it can nonetheless be good for us, if the activists and bodies of Solidarnosc make an effort to act in concert and seek together solutions respecting the various tendencies and forms of activity. In order to be able to participate actively in the initiatives, all members and supporters of the union have to understand what is happening. I think that those who have taken part in the recent events must take account of this.
The setting up of the Provisional Council of Solidarnosc took public opinion by surprise but not many leaders. For a long time, discussions had been going to open up new forms of action for the union leadership. The problem was to give new momentum of Solidarnose without costing it a single one of its gains (underground commissions in the factories, author structures, the TKK).
We had all observed that the movement was losing its momentum. The ranks were thinning and the losses were not compensated by new arrivals. There was a lack of youth in particular. This problem is inherent in all underground movements, which have to be based in reliable, determined and effective elites. You cannot just sign up people for underground structures! But to persist on this path would lead to becoming a fossil within a living social organism.
The • situation was all the more dramatic because our colleagues had been living underground for years. I personally was imprisoned, and I knew that at the end of my term I would be able to resume a more or less normal life. But they and their families had no idea when their terms would end. A solution had to be found that would enable them to come out of the underground without the union suffering or even better a solution that would enable the union to extend its impact.
Last May, after long discussions, the idea was born that is now being put into practice. The only difference is that in our minds the whole thing should have been carried out in the cohesive way, without conflicts. The idea was to set up an open Council of Solidarnosc made up of prominent activists in the union, including all the members of the present TKK. Once this council was set up, a new TKK would be formed, with representatives of regions whose names would remain secret.
The Council would be responsible for coordinating trade-union, political and social activities, and the TKK would be responsible for organizational questions - the allotment of technical resources, money, etc. All the union's structures were to be maintained, including its office in Brussels. The Council and the TKK were to act in close collaboration. Since the TKK would be anonymous, its initiatives would have to be endorsed by the Council and the chair of the union. Wave of arrests
The accomplishment of this project was impeded by the wave of arrests that took place at the end of May. But on September 11, the great personalities of the union, whose names are known to every Pole -Bujak, Frasyniuk, Lis, Borusewicz and Jedynak - regained their freedom. In the eyes of the population, this went without saying. It was they who embodied the union and it was they who were its leadership, with Walesa at the head of course. They had urgently to find a form of action capable of responding to the new
International Viewpoint 22 December 1986
in fact in that spirit that the union has sought to respond to the new political situation. It is, moreover, in this way that this decision was perceived by the great majority of unionists.
The reaction of activists in the underground structures has not been entirely the same. As for the TKK, its reaction was diametrically opposite. The underground activists, surprised by the partial abandonment of clandestinity and not knowing how far that would go, feared for the union's gains. The TKK interpreted the creation of the Council as an attack on its position. It was able to make this interpretation because unfortunately Walesa's statement and that of the Council did not include a word about the TKK and the role it was called to play. Nor did these statements make it clear that the underground structures would remain in place until it was possible for the union to really operate openly. Euphoria following the amnesty
This situation was further complicated by the spontaneous creation of open regional representative bodies in Warsaw, Lubin, Upper Silesia, Lodz and other cities. Obviously, the activists were only waiting for an opportunity to form these representative bodies, given the speed with which all this happened.
Undoubtedly, people acted in too precipitate a way, and this contributed to the confusion in the underground structures. We, the leaders of the Warsaw region, are partially responsible for this, inasmuch as the coming out into the open of our regional commission in the wake of the Coun cil's formation opened up the way for other regions. This precipitance is explained by the euphoria that followed immediately after the amnesty, no realistic analysis of the situation having yet been made.
Nonetheless, the formation of open regional councils is a healthy and, in all, positive process because it makes it possible to activate the regions and carry out open trade-union activity (defence of the standard of living, health and safety on the job) as well as self-management and social action. The declaration of the regional executive commission of the Warsaw region (October 8) contains the outlines of such a program.
It is important that the creation of regional councils increase cohesiveness and not be the source of conflicts, that it not generate personal quarrels or rivalries among the groups. The Lublin and Upper Silesia regional councils seem to be positive examples. The former includes leaders not only from the city of Lublin but also from other cities in the region, such as Chelm and Zamose. The situation is similar in Upper Silesia, Poland's 16 largest region, where the inclusion of leaders from various zones gives it a chance to unify its region.
The formation of regional councils immediately following that of the Provisional Council has somewhat been interpreted as meaning that there should be a followup - the creation of factories and open interenterprise structures as well. Some clandestine commissions openly talked about this. It is clear, I think, to everyone that such a frenetic course would only put the activists in the factories in danger. It is not surprising that the underground activists felt very worried and that it was necessary to meet with them, to explain things, and so forth.
The Warsaw regional executive commission in its statment advised the factory commissions and base structures of the union against coming out into the open suggested other forms of action -self-management councils and groups operating in the open in the factories to intervene in concrete questions important to the workforce.
The fears of the underground activists, particularly strong in those regions where communications between the underground and the "surface" leave something to be desired or where cleavages owing to different points of view are especially sharp, were reflected in statements marked by nervousness and incoherence.
The prime example was given by the TKK, which, rightly correcting the error of the Provisional Council, stressed the maintenance of the underground structures but expressed its position in such vehement terms that it created the impression that it thought that the entire union should take refuge in the underground. The Lower Silesia regional strike committee also did not speak softly.
While insisting on the need to reinforce its role and the role of the other clandestine structures, the TKK nonetheless pointed out in the same text that the two last persons to sign their names to its statements (Ian Gorny and Marek Muszynski), would come out from underground. It is difficult to find any consistency in all this.
All these events I have just spoken of sowed confusion among Solidarnose activists, which is harmful in the long term. But in the negative consequences of the events, I can discern the seeds of a positive solution. Everyone went too far. It is time to recompose our minds and harmonize our activity.
The responsible people in the union, who fortunately are many, have to explain calmly and intelligently the roles of the Provisional Council and the TKK and define their respective authorities. We need a TKK made up of representatives of the regions and a Provisional Council made up of people such as Bujak and Frasyniuk. We obviously need collaboration between these two bodies. It is also necessary to smooth collaboration between the clandestine structures and open structures in the regions. Our objective, we should not forget, is to activate Solidarnosc, because only a strong and vital union will be able to respond to a changing political situation and impose changes that will get the country out of crisis.D TYGODNIK MAZOWSZE From the review of the underground press published in Tygodnik Mazowsze, No. 186, November 5, 1986.
The statement of the TKK has sometimes been interpreted in the union press as an attempt to undermine the role of the Provisional Council. In the article entitled "The Chair's Aboutface" [this refers to Walesa), Przeglad Wiadomosci Agencyjnych of Warsaw (No. 73, October 26) writes that "not only has it killed the political initiative linked to the formation of the Provisional Council but - which will have still graver consequences - it has largely undermined the confidence up until now accorded to the public and the underground leadership of the union." Such a catastrophic judgement is isolated, but the disorientation seems general.
The magazines Wola and CDNGlos Wolnego Robotnika have published a list of concrete questions. We republish the most important:
1. Why did the Provisional Council in its founding statement fail to make clear that it was going to work parallel to the TKK, and why did it not clearly define the respective authorities of both bodies?
2. Why did no delegate of the Warsaw region attend the last meeting of the TKK with Lech Walesa?
3. Why did not the statement issued at the conclusion of this meeting mention clearly the Provisional Council and the regional councils? Did it not put them in an ambiguous position?
4. Some regions are not creating councils but are reactivating organs that existed before the state of siege, and Wroclaw [Lower Silesia] has not created any open structure. Is this not proof that there is discord, confusion and a power struggle among the leaders of the union?
Why did the Warsaw Regional Executive Commission, formed September, not include any known activists of the regional leadership except Bujak and Kulerski, although the co-optation of other persons had been announced?
We also in the editorial board of Tygodnik Mazowsze would like to be clear about all these questions. Likewise, we agree with the last question that we published: "Should all these statements, which are often contradictory and incomprehensible to readers, really be published? So many important news reports end up the wastebasket for lack of space!"
International Viewpoint 22 December 1986