Solidarity’s Major Task

Grumblings from Poland’s Communist Party in recent days have sounded somewhat ominous. All the same, they are less threats to Solidarity’s new position than sour grapes over the party’s loss of position. The grumblings actually emphasize the fact that, in the course of a few weeks, Solidarity has become Poland’s only political force with a mandate broad enough to lead a government. The party, therefore, “should stop rocking the boat,” Solidarity leader Lech Walesa scolded Tuesday, “and start doing its job.” Their job, it seems, is to sit quietly in the back of the boat while Solidarity tries to chart a new course for the troubled country.

This is no easy task, as Poles themselves recognize. Solidarity faces two sets of challenges, one technical, one social. The technical challenge is to adequately feed and clothe Poland’s deprived population. Weighed down by a rotting infrastructure, little capital and $39 billion in foreign debt, Poland’s economic difficulties are deepening. Western experts point out that solutions will require further cuts in wages and living standards.

This is bound to precipitate a dilemma for Solidarity which, like other unions, tends to protect workers’ wages and benefits at all costs. Cutting back on real income, whether through wage cuts, inflation or price reform, will be the most unpalatable aspect of the coming economic reforms. Anticipating this problem, Poland’s newly designated Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki said Monday that “if we have to make a choice between efficiency and the interests which the union upholds, then we will refer to public opinion.” But, he added, “if sacrifices are necessary, then people must accept them.”

The social challenge, consequently, is how to manage public discontent during this period of austerity. “We need bread, not a prime minister,” a young Pole hollered at Mazowiecki during his first speech to the Polish people. Mazowiecki agreed with the heckler, but added that history “has shown in several moments that Poles can strive for new solutions, unusual and innovative ones. I hope that such a psychological moment is arriving now, that people will feel that there is a situation in which our future depends on us.” In other words, the best thing going for Poland is her people’s very hope for the future.

But hope could backfire on Solidarity. If hopes rise faster than realities, if expectations increase without any sign that they will be realized, observers fear that Solidarity will lose its social support. And that might spell the end of Poland’s first popularly installed government since World War II.

So while Solidarity is trying to find the right mixture of austerity and incentive, of hope and hardship, the United States must do all it possibly can to help out. President Bush promised a package of $100 million in aid and economic programs when he visited Poland in July. There were budget constraints then and there are budget questions now, but nonetheless the government must do what it can to give more. Aid cannot fix the economy, of course, but it can help ease the austerity. Domestic instability, which is more or less certain in the months to come, should not be cause for alarm in the Adminstration; after all, instability is the birthing pain of history. This is a historic time for Poland and for Europe. The least the United States can do is play its part.