Polish Memory

The issue of orally reported history relating to events that took place during Communism has, in the recent debates in Poland, become an increasingly problematic matter. Not least because the actors involved in the events are becoming aged and the memory of those events is slowly drifting from our horizon as they die or reinterpret facts. The issue relates to the change in political order in the country that abolished or rather phased-out Communist authority in the governing bodies and replaced it with a democratically elected sovereign system. In a way, Communism gave societal advantages to some citizens. The system was set up to allow some to abuse the political context to benefit financially and educationally. After the change in government in 1990 the political system that followed immediately after (liberal democracy) had no regulatory system that would be able to openly equalise

acquired advantages. The government embraced all Polish citizens and drew what Tadeusz Mazowiecki (the first Polish Prime Minister of the IIIrd _{Polish Republic) famously called a ‘thick} line’ beyond which neither the government nor the Polish society should seek reparations from immoral situations that were made possible by Communism (but ones that were not, defined as illegalities at the time). Mazowiecki’s approach laid the ground for what Stark and Burszt call a ‘negotiated revolution’ (quoted in Misztal 1999 33).

The reasoning of the ‘Union of Freedom’ (Mazowiecki’s political party) was on one hand to defeat the Communists without loss in human life, but on the other was incredibly forward thinking in that Polish people, regardless of their political beliefs, should be represented in the Polish Parliament. Mazowiecki and his party also suspected that the Communist archives documenting all the privileges and benefits could not be trusted (Misztal 34). This approach of compassion and deep analysis of the Polish situation at the time allowed avoiding bloodshed however this liberal embrace opened the door for demagogical propaganda. The problem lies in the nature of democracy which implies a demand of convincing the public opinion to the politician’s position in order to attain a ruling majority. Artur Lipiñski, a judge and academic from the University of Poznañ, argues that there was an amplification of anti-Communist attitudes enforced by right-wing Conservative-Christian propaganda, particularly in the late 1990s (2012 77). The paradigm set out in the propaganda material fell on potent ground that was composed of feelings of mistrust of the former Communist

government and the ways it conveyed unjust ways of handling political matters. Those ways, as perceived by first hand witnesses might have infringed what we might now see as human rights. Lipiñski suggests that the information that was circulated ordained the character of the discourse that called Communists and even the democratic government that came to replace it as one serving an ill-defined ‘conspiracy’2 _{and a ‘post-Communist salon’}3 ₍₂₀₁₂

2 _‘układ’ 3

80). This ideology defined the IIIrd _{instalment of the Polish Republic as merely a post-} Communist state where the liberal law aims to adapt to the functioning of the alleged ‘conspiracies’.

Barbara Misztal suggests that the vulgar and aggressive language of debate was not only to purge all public posts of former Communists but it consolidated a firm foundation for political parties pursuing their own interest (1999). Misztal argues that a key tool in this was the

adoption of the lustration laws that were designed to target secret collaborators by a prosecution which would render them incapable of functioning in the government. Similar legal frameworks were set up in most post-Communist states and each time they were introduced to law they raised controversy (Kritz 1995). The Polish law came into effect in June 1997 and concerned candidates for presidential, parliamentary, and public official seats (Williams, Fowler and Szczerbiak 2007 27). It also touched on senior functionaries, judges, prosecutors, the media, and teachers. According to Kieran Williams, Brigid Fowler and Aleks Szczerbiak, lustration was a tool to regulate the inherited inequalities that gave the

Communists and their collaborators the upper hand in social networks. The lustration trials, through a thorough analysis of the individuals’ lives, were also to ensure that public officials would be trustworthy. However, in spite of their noble intentions the trials came to be used to the political gain of demagogues.

Ludmiła Stanek points out that the lustration legislation was associated with the role of the country to rectify caused harm implying that the former Communists were all linked with immorality (2013 43). This laid ground for a definition of a subcategory of citizens, inconsistent with the principles of a liberal democracy. Stanek notes a legal term: ‘nocens sed innocens’ which means ‘one who does harm yet one who is innocent’ (2013 48). This implies a certain degree of moral relativity which the lustration trials do not accept. The trials were also to be kept secret from the public. This made the legal act a perfect tool for articulating

accusations without the necessity of backing them up. Language that was and still is used by politicians was and still is informing the way of articulating accusations and allegations which fed into Polish slang and was taken up by xenophobic circles that readily adopted the language of hate and started calling for the eradication of ‘Jewish Communists’4_.

Maurice Halbwach is a sociologist who writes on the notion of the role of collective memory in the formation of personal opinions (1992). He suggests that modalities of enunciation most commonly used in public will generate ways of acting upon information and recognising noteworthy knowledge in a selective way. Chris L. Smith, in his book, Bare Architecture uses the metaphor of the net to showcase how even the most robust methods of enquiry and engaging with knowledge are selective and let some information pass through without consequence to the research question (2017 22). In this way he suggests that the language

and argumentation of (in his case scientific) discourse will determine what information is relevant. Foucault might call this a power-knowledge network. Foucault writes:

‘Since memory is actually a very important factor in struggle... if one controls people’s memory, one controls their dynamism. And one also controls their experience, their knowledge of previous struggles.’ (Foucault 1989 89-106)

In the context of the vulgar and insensitive language that was set out by right-wing

propaganda, memories of a time which is much more complex can be misinterpreted. The history of lustration trials implies that in some cases it might be difficult to point out a former secret collaborator with the Communists (TW) or interaction with a security service

representative (SB). In spite of this it will always be reprimandable to even be called out as such. In this light it might be difficult to share any memories from the Communist period. It might also be assumed that the memories might be repressed or misinterpreted to protect a constructed image of self-righteousness as defined by the net of the right-wing

propaganda.

A specific example of the complexity of this problem is Zyta Gilowska’s trial which rendered her role in the government of the country as a highly positioned Minister politically tied when forced to stand trial and answer accusations of the collaborator stigma (Wlazłowska, 2006). The trial revealed that the documents which were held on her were gathered without her permission and that they are incomplete as the officer, who was managing her alleged work stole documents from the archive before Communism fell (to protect himself and his family). In past years this affect of a bi-partisan political struggle came to function in a somewhat arbitrary matter as people who did not even have a chance to participate with Communist authorities due to their age are publicly accused of collaboration.

The following section outlines how I navigated through the difficulties of obtaining information from the Communist period.