EASTERN EUROPE Between democracy and capitalism
Interview with Josef Pinior and Petr Uhl OVER the weekend of January 12/13, 1991, the Council of the Czech Civic Forum movement, which played an organizing role in the downfall of the neo-Stalinist regime in November 1989, and is now the largest party in the Federal Assembly, formally transformed itself from a coalition movement into a party with individual membership.
The new party, under Vaclav Klaus, has pledged itself to "reject socialism in any form" and build a capitalist society. According to Klaus this decision resolves the "conflict between the revolutionary period, which is ending, and the beginning of the normally functioning state and society"
As in Poland, therefore, Czechoslovakia is now seeing attempts to transform organizations born out of the mass struggle for democracy into instruments for the consolidation of the power of new elites. On December 20, 1990 — before the Civic Forum decision - Cyril Smuga spoke to Czechoslovakia's Petr Uhl and Poland's Jozef Pinior, both long-time anti-bureaucratic activists and revolutionary Marxists, about the crisis of the democratic revolution and its prospects.
support. Representatives of strike committees - intended to form the kernels of a new union movement - took their place in the OF. But the weight of the working class as such in OF was very weak, and in the course of time it has more or less disappeared.
There is now a renewed version of Czechoslovak-Polish Solidarity. [An initiative in which Petr Uhl and Josef Pinior were active, which used to organize meetings between Czechoslovak and Polish activists before November 1989] New people are active in the frontier regions. However, traditional anti-Polish sentiment has got worse in Czechoslovakia, due to the economic inequalities. In Poland, prices have been completely freed, so that everything costs twice as much in Poland as in Czechoslovakia, leading to much black market activity, and people react to this in a nationalist way.
Jozef Pinior: Don't you agree that East European emancipation, this traditional movement for political anti-bureaucratic revolution, has met with new and unexpected problems?
In Poland, it has come up against new mechanisms of exploitation and domination. There are no ready-made recipes for solving these new problems. And this may be one of the reasons for the frustration and disorientation and for the fact that this programme of emancipation no longer has the support that it had in Poland ten years ago, or a year ago in Czechoslovakia.
PU: We are faced with the fact that we have not achieved the goals we set ourselves. The anti-bureaucratic revolution has not been carried through. Certainly we nave iquidatea ine ola manas, but we have liquidated the old mafias, but new ones have emerged. The anti-bureaucratic struggle is gradually becoming an anti-capitalist struggle, and we are not used to this change.
JP: In both Poland and Czechoslovakia 1 can see a division within the anti-bureaucratic movement. A part of the leadership is in the process of modifying the original programme. This was not a capitalist programme, but an attempt to link up human rights, the ecological and anti-militarist alternative, social justice and liberty. This was, without doubt, not a search for a "third way" — such a formula would be too strong.
PU: I don't think it's too strong.
JP: But now things have moved on. The people who are coming to the fore in OF are a lot like those we know in Poland, Balcerowicz, the IMF programme and all that.
PU: Since the start, OF did not refer to a single ideology and did not use words such as "socialism", "capitalism" or the "third way". The programme on which the OF deputies were elected to the assemblies was clearly pluralist, both politically and economically. It was in favour of a plurality of forms of owner-
VER the past year we have seen profound changes both in Czechoslovakia and Poland, started by social struggles. Today, however, social mobilization has died down. Why?
Petr Uhl: There was a different level of struggle in our two countries. I worked for a long time in PolishCzechoslovak Solidarity and there were many more people involved in struggle in Poland than in Czechoslovakia. We should remember that in Poland, the struggle for the emancipation of the workers and the people and against the bureaucratic dictatorship was undertaken by a mass movement over ten years.
In Czechoslovakia, the struggle was the preserve of a handful of "dissidents" not more than a thousand strong before the revolution. They were interested above all in human rights, peace, culture, religion and ecology, much less so in intervening in the political or trade union 22 field. Timothy Garton Ash has said: "The revolution in Poland lasted ten years, in Hungary ten months, in East Germany ten weeks and in Czechoslovakia ten days". He was wrong. In fact in Czechoslovakia it lasted only seven days. In Czechoslovakia there was no formed vanguard, unlike in Poland. The Civic Forum (OF) was formed on November 9, 1989, two days after the big demonstrations in Prague.
It comprised two main currents: that of the dissidents (activists in independent groups, above all Charter 77, human and civil rights) and political clubs which began to emerge after 1987, but which had very little weight. Then there were the intellectuals and artists who had created independent groupings in the official structures in which they worked. Thus the OF was largely made up of intellectuals, the workers playing a marginal and secondary role.
After being formed the OF addressed itself to the population at large and specifically to the workers, and, thanks to the prevailing public feeling that it was necessary to put an end to the system, it was able to gain important working class
International Viewpoint #199 • February 4, 1991
ship of the means of production. There has been no new document by OF on this subject. However this is going to be debated in the conference at Olomouc in December 1990 and then at the OF congress in January 1991.
For the first time there is a possibility that OF will cease to be a pluralist movement and become a political party with a liberal or liberal-conservative line. When Klaus was asked if he was a liberal or a conservative, he replied that he was a conservative. What is involved also is the rejection of any social or social/ ecological dimension to our reforms. In such a situation, many of those who are still in Civic Forum - and many have already left in disillusionment — and are not in favour of such changes, will propose that those who support such changes form their own party. But this would mean the end and the disintegration of the OF. In any case, unlike Walesa, Klaus is no populist. • Klaus' project is clear - everyone knows what he wants. But I have the impression that his opponents have no clear project. They want to keep OF while the rise of Klaus is in itself proof of the limitations of this framework. Can the OF be kept in its original form or will growing awareness of divergent interests imply its breakup? The OF was united by the struggle against the bureaucracy - and this is no longer the main battle.
PU: When it was formed, the OF defended the possibility of organizing political life not on the basis of parties on the Western model, but via a civic movement where different groupings could form on this or that problem with a plurality of views. This would enable citizens to take part in political debates and decision making. In this way, a parliamentary system would be progressively enriched by elements of direct democracy.
OF has a reason for existing insofar as it is supported by the mass of the population. If it loses that support — as is happening today — Klaus' solution is a fake. We could of course develop another conception, for example, form a Bolshevik Party of the Soviets, but this would be artificial.
JP: I think that there is a more general and deeper problem here. I think that today in Poland - though not yet in Czechoslovakia — we are facing new forms of exploitation and domination based on the market and not on the political power of the bureaucracy. In fact this bureaucracy itself, which had previously ruled through political means and force, is now trying to maintain its positions through the market. This is new. Perhaps the efforts of all those who see themselves as an alternative to the right in the form of civic movements are not ade-
EASTERN EUROPE quate today. Might it not be that the ideological force of these new market methods is so strong that traditional answers are too weak and doomed to failure?
PU: If this alternative is too weak in Poland, then things will be ten or a hundred times worse in Czechoslovakia. With us many times fewer people have been involved in the civic movements than in Poland. We see only one solution. The mobilization of those who are against Klaus and who have never participated in the anti-bureaucratic struggles
- 99% of the working class.
The workers have not had the experience of anti-bureaucratic struggles in independent unions, it has had tolerable material conditions, while suffering violations of human rights such as the right to travel, and religious and cultural freedom. At the same time the country is ecologically ravaged by 40 years of bureaucratic mismanagement and there is a looming economic crisis.
Will this be enough to stimulate a movement that is both anti-bureaucratic, and does not demand a return to Stalinism, and anti-capitalist, that is, in favour of social justice. The question of the proper role of the unions and above all their role in management of the enterprises has not been resolved. There are traditions here that are positive - there has been a strong workers movement here for over a century and there are bourgeois democratic traditions as well.
In Poland on the other hand you can always count on the ten million workers who were in Solidarity and the tens of thousands of militants who were involved in day to day activity for years. They were 20 or 30 when they began, and now they are ten years older. We can discuss with old people about the anticapitalist struggles before the war and about the anti-Nazi struggle. This is a big difference. • Before the November 1989 events, Petr, you had pointed out the type of self-limitation in the model of democracy proposed by many of the intellectuals who went on to form the OF. You also underlined the problems with the definition of property. Has this debate continued in the OF?
PU: The debate on democracy has taken place between different political clubs - between Obroda, ex-members of the Communist Party, Christian Democrats, Left Alternative and others. It continues now in a different form in parliament. On the property question for example, the OF recognizes a plurality of forms of ownership of the means of production. However for the last few months, the majority of the leadership has oriented towards private property only, forgetting the support that it had previously expressed for cooperatives, ownership by
### OSCANSKÉ FORUM
OF communes of towns and workers' ownership of their enterprise. Self-management was abandoned at the start of 1990. • Has the anti-bureaucratic desire shown in Czechoslovakia during the "velvet revolution" given way to a perspective of capitalist restoration?
PU: Czechoslovak society is undergoing a process of very gradual differentiation. Some people, notably Vaclav Klaus, are for the restoration of capitalism — although they do not use the word. The left has not taken this as a reason for a break, but continues to defend pluralism.
Unorganized people are often supporters of capitalist methods because they are worried by the fact that the structures of the old regime are not totally destroyed and that the bureaucrats are trying to set up new limited companies, while political democracy — and thus political life — have not really developed. The laws that would give the people "at the bottom" economic guarantees are not there. This creates a pressure in favour of a more rapid progress towards a Western system which seems efficient to such people. At the same time people are anxious about the future, fearing unemployment, inflation, a decline in living standards and poverty. • Do legal limits exist in Czechoslovakia that would prevent foreign capital from buying up particular sectors?
PU: The "small privatization" envisages the sale by auction of hotels, garages and so on. However it does not involve transport, agriculture, industry or the health service. It only includes some service sectors.
Furthermore it only applies to enterprises belonging to the state and not those that have been confiscated from a commune or a private owner. In this last case, the goods are to be given back in money form and will not be privatized. Foreign capital will not have the right to take part in the first round of auctions, but only in any subsequent round. In my opinion there is no great danger in a foreigner buying a restaurant or a delicatessen.
Furthermore, in many resorts, hotels belong to the unions and nobody can touch them. The "big privatization" law (the "law on the transformation of state 23 property", towards which privatization is
EASTERN EUROPE only one of the roads, which could include share-holding by workers to create a limited company has not yet been adopted, and we do not know what limits will be set to foreign capital.
Klaus is defending his "coupons" scheme — a proposal under discussion, according to which between 20 and 80% of the property of the big factories will be distributed among the population in the form of cheap coupons — the equivalent of half the average monthly salary. We will see what people make of this.
These coupons can be used to buy shares, but they will only go to Czechoslovak citizens, who, according to the law, will only be able to sell them toother citizens. The share itself on the other hand can be sold to a foreigner. • Both of you are known as representatives of the leftwing tradition. Both of you have, at one time or another, been leaders in the opposition, Jozef in Solidarnos and Petr in Charter 77 and VONS (the Committee to Defend the Unjustly Prosecuted). Jozef found himself at a given moment outside Solidarnosc, and you, Petr are the subject of attacks.
PU: It is Vaclav Klaus who is most opposed to the presence of the left in OF. He is not a long-term activist, and only appeared 14 days before the end of the old regime. He is no ex-colleague of mine. He is supported by people I have never known. I recently went to the OF's Council meeting to defend my own position and that of the Left Alternative group to which I belong. Two thirds of the people there were totally unknown to me, and it is they who voted to exclude me. The people that knew me voted against
Poland is a year ahead of us in the liberalization of prices and economic reform. In the Polish situation, I could without doubt become a deputy in the parliament, but I could not be in the political structure of a force like Solidarity, or Civic Forum if it had the explicit mme of the former. At the momen was not spelt out such a programme. i:. for this reason that Josef has already been excluded from these structures whereas I am still involved.
JP: There are big differences between our two countries. What is the situation of the Czechoslovak workers' movement today? For we agree that it is the workers movement that will decide the future.
In Poland I put my hopes in the development of new movements from below, which will arise inside Solidarnosc and in the enterprises. These movements will seek an alternative to the economic plan of Balcerowicz, while organizing the workers for a struggle against such phenomena as chauvinism, anti-semitism and 24 Thope Satch sy wil die alop. yue istanis racism. Such structures already exist and the situation in Czechoslovakia? Is the union movement still controlled by the old Stalinist apparatus?
PU: There has been a complete change in the unions. I do not know if the old unions still have even a formal legal existence, or if they are still conducting their last battles in front of the tribunals on union property.
The people who hold the responsible positions in the new unions came to the fore in November 1989. They are the people who organized the threat of a general strike and the strike committees to prepare for a new union movement. In the old "Revolutionary Union Movement" there were some 16 to 18 sectoral organizations, today there are around 80, independent from each other, although coordinated by a relatively strong centre.
Most of these unions are, furthermore, federalized — one in the Czech Lands and another in Slovakia - with a level of coordination between them. Some are organized on an all-Czechoslovak level. There is no union pluralism - the workers don't want it. This means, for example, that there is one union for journalists in the mass media (radio, television, and the national press agency - CTK).
The printing workers at CT are in the printworkers union. But there are no unions which are more to the left or to the right. Of course there are some old bureaucrats in the apparatuses but they do not have decisive influence.
The unions have already protested against some laws. They express their ideas in the daily Prace, which used to belong to the old unions, and which is not the property of the new ones. They have been undertaking campaigns, as for example the one recently concerning the draft law on the right to strike, one paragraph of which forbade political strikes. At that time the unions appealed to the prime minister, Marian Calfa, asking: "how a government which was born out of a political strike can ban political strikes." The law was not adopted.
It is being discussed. This debate is structured through the political groups. Of course the Czechoslovak Communist Party is now 100% for union rights, but the five other forces — the Civic Forum, the Public Against Violence (the Slovak partner of Civic Forum), the Christian Democratic Movement, the Moravian regionalists and the Slovak nationalists - in the Federal Assembly are divided. Their votes go both ways. Inside OF some say: "these are Bolshevik arguments and it is necessary to put an end to the situation of the past 40 years, where the unions have had a negative influence on production." This is not true of course. There were no real unions under the old regime. It was a comedy.
JP: What did you mean by your remark that the anti-bureaucratic revolution had not been carried through to the end?
PO: The Czechoslovak process has not
International Viewpoint #199 • February 4, 1991 gone as far as in Poland, where the polit cal leaders of the old regime are reorg nizing themselves in a mark framework. With us there are analogo tendencies, but they are not general. the intermediary level, on the other han the old officials, factory directors, assis ants, heads of sectors and so on, are st in position. This poses a real problem responsibility, education and cadres.
People are fed up with this, and it beginning to change. All the structures a lower levels in the communes ar towns are going to be changed by ele tions. The management system impos by the state will be replaced by a syste of territorial self-management and certa officials will lose their power. In tr towns with between 10,000 and 20,0 inhabitants the mafias are still at wor They comprise the public prosecuto secret police agents, the president of ti local court, directors of factories ar local cooperatives, the mayor and so on.
Often these people are old — we a ruled by a gerontocracy. Sometimes th have kept their positions, or they ha been demoted a rung, but with all the o contacts still working. They are a parall authority.
People are well aware of this and sa "One year after the revolution, all th still exists." The most radical, the fa right Republicans come close to callir for "Stringing up the Communists." B these are marginal people. All this w become clearer when social conflic develop, when there is inflation ar unemployment, above all inflatio because people are not so sensitive unemployment. • There are local elections Czechoslovakia. In Poland thes elections have already taken plac The new local self-manageme structures are very restricted by th new state structure.
JP: In my opinion, the ant bureaucratic revolution cannot be mac in the framework of the moves towar new market mechanisms of dominatic and exploitation. It is clear that in tr context of the opening to the world ma ket, there cannot be an anti-bureaucrat revolution, since the ex-Stalinist bureal cracy is best placed to benefit from th new mechanisms.
To the extent that the bureaucrat structure remains untouched, the peop who join the local councils work on i terms. The people adapt to the structur not the other way round. Thus, the ne councils work in the old way. They ar inefficient, lazy, and are in no way und the democratic control of the electors. • One of the principle values of So idarnosc was that the workers an citizens should be social subjects.
PU: But this is an old Marxist ide Why hide that? *