Lech Walesa : Eager to Scale Another Wall: The Presidency of Poland

Lech Walesa, who helped launch the democratic revolution that reshaped the political map of Eastern and Central Europe, has a new mission. After more than a year on the sidelines, the Solidarity chairman has returned to the center of his country’s tumultuous political life by announcing his candidacy for the presidency.

Walesa, 47, would barely resemble the man who scaled the wall of the Lenin shipyard in August, 1980, to lead a strike that resulted in the legalization of Solidarity--except for his trademark mustache and warm, sparkling eyes. Still, the qualities that made him a leader then--his nose for what the common man wants, his political savvy and never-quit attitude--are as sharp as ever.

In recent weeks, Walesa has raised the political temperature by striving to undo the April, 1989, roundtable agreement, to force new elections in which Poles can elect all their parliamentary deputies, to accelerate economic reforms and to purge government agencies and industry of holdover Communists.

The unfolding presidential campaign will be filled with contrasts. It pits Walesa against Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki in a battle that will be less over ideas than styles. The self-made electrician vs. the learned writer. The sharp-tongued labor leader who relishes the limelight vs. the quiet, taciturn intellectual who regards the camera as a burdensome necessity of modern political life.

The campaign will be laced with irony as well. It was Walesa who first invited Mazowiecki into his inner circle of advisers and pressed last summer for his then-ally to become Poland’s prime minister.

A public-opinion poll published in mid-September showed Walesa trailing Mazowiecki, 50%-35%, with 15% undecided. But no one should dare count Walesa out: Tens of thousands of Solidarity activists are eager to work for his candidacy.

During the interview, Walesa was self-assured, relaxed, cheerful and, above all, at peace with his place in the world. As he was 10 years ago, Walesa was convinced that Poland needs him.

Question: In recent weeks, you have deliberately tried to split Solidarity into various political parties and movements. Why?

Answer: The beautiful child Solidarity has completed primary school. Now we’ve got to choose the secondary school to which it should be sent. The school that I propose is the school of democracy. I propose pluralism. I propose a division that will be a guarantee of democracy.

Before Solidarity even came into existence, I always used to say that Poland has to stand on two legs--the right and the left. Others think differently. They think that because I am trying to divide our movement into its political tendencies, I am somehow opposed to democracy.

Q: Are you happy with the people you and Solidarity helped to install in high office? A: I have great misgivings against those whom I designated to make the reforms. When the Communist Party dissolved itself, they should have authorized new elections. In failing to do so, they made me into a clown; they made society into a clown.

Now we’ve got a situation in Poland where the Communist Party has vanished, there are no other strong parties, the new authorities are fiddling about and I’m on ice.

So this isn’t a matter of personal ambition. It’s just that I promised the people 100% democracy. What we have now isn’t democracy. Sixty percent of the people didn’t even bother to vote in the local elections--and (the nation’s leaders) tell me “Don’t do anything.” But I’ve sworn an oath to faithfully lead my country to democracy. . . . I’ll only be satisfied after real elections.

Q: Then you want to be president?

A: No. I am well aware of how difficult a job it is. I wouldn’t mind being president of the U.S. or another country where democracy already is well-established. But in Poland, it’s the worst job of all--worse than that of a street sweeper.

It would be far easier if I could just travel to the U.S. on a holiday or a lecture tour, gabbing about how I ruined communism, explaining how I built Solidarity. I would be living a better life, and I would have more, too.

But my patriotic responsibility tells me that world opinion has invested a lot in me. . . . I’ve got to pay back this investment of trust that people have made. It’s not that I want to be president. It’s that the people want it, and so I will have to be president.

The problem is whether I will be president with 60% of the vote or whether I’ll win an even greater majority. I am convinced that I will be able to defeat any potential opponent. After all, I have 10 years of experience in waging a political fight.

But if I win the presidency without an overwhelming mandate, it will be difficult for me to implement the necessary reforms. I want to be president with at least 80% support, because, as president, I will carry on my shoulders a very heavy burden. . . . Fifty-one percent support is not enough.

Q: How do you envision the future of Solidarity if, as Poland’s newly elected president, you are required to leave it?

A: The union needs to be strengthened. If, after the Communist Party fell apart, there had been fully free elections, the union could have gotten on with the business of being a trade union. It wouldn’t have had the right to say that it is an all-encompassing social and political movement. It would have given over these political tasks to other organizations. Only after fully free elections are held can the union recede from politics.

I relish the idea of having a strong union as a negotiating partner. I even envision the possibility of some disagreements between me and the union. . . .

Q: Is there tension within Polish society?

A: There is great unhappiness. In a short while, it will grow to be even greater. All the price rises for foodstuffs, gasoline and coal are simply intolerable. . . . I know what workers are going through. A social explosion is very possible. And it could happen very quickly, more quickly than even I expect. One can take no delight in this.

I’m not speaking against the government or the parliament when I say this.

Q: You’ve been accused of being anti-democratic and autocratic. Is this the result of your style of leadership during the difficult years when Solidarity was an underground movement?

A: Yes. It’s true that I like to move fast to authorize certain things. In that difficult time, with the police on our backs, in the middle of repression, I often had to.

It just proved impossible to act openly and in full accord with democratic practice.

Q: You’ve also been accused of being anti-Semitic.

A: Only now am I beginning to understand the root of the problem, the root of these accusations. First, the facts: I’ve put up a plaque to the memory of the victims of anti-Semitic pogroms. I’ve interceded with the minister of culture to ensure that historic Jewish sites be preserved as landmarks. I nominated Elie Wiesel for the Nobel Peace Prize. I was detained while trying to attend commemorations of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Why, then, am I accused of anti-Semitism? I finally have figured it out.

There are two approaches to this question. Our elite of political leaders--Poles and Jews alike--believes that the Jewish question should be left alone, that the very mention of this matter is anti-Semitic. But I am close to the people. And the people keep turning to the Jewish question.

I was at a meeting recently, and someone sent up a foolish, anti-Semitic question that my press spokesman tried to hide. In the end, I asked him to read it. The note leveled accusations at various Jewish advisers and leaders. In such a circumstance, isn’t it my obligation to deal with such a question?

You see, I can’t make the Jews into a non-issue. I’m not the one raising questions of ethnicity or faith. But some people are raising these issues. Some people have expressed their doubts (about Jews), and if I take on these doubts, I’m accused by some of fanning the flames of anti-Semitism by giving them undo attention. Yet if I don’t confront these issues head-on, others charge me with ignoring anti-Semitism.

Q: If you are elected president, are you prepared to sit back while the workers you’ve long represented suffer the deprivations of the difficult transition to a market economy? Are you prepared to adopt unpopular and difficult economic decisions?

A: I . . . come from the masses and understand them. It’s not true that the masses are opposed to wealth. The workers are the ones who want to press ahead with privatization. However, the people have to fully understand what really is going on. I have interceded in stopping recent strikes and I’ve done so in a peaceful way, in a way that serves Poland.

On the other hand, the government’s experts, who claim they know how to deal with the masses, have used the militia to break up protests by farmers’ leaders and their parliamentary deputies.

I was able to persuade, by force of argument, ordinary workers to abandon their strikes. But the government wasn’t even able to persuade parliamentary deputies to abandon their protests. Who can persuade the masses to accept necessary change? You’ve got the proof.

Q: You’ve said on a number of occasions that you want to rule by presidential decree.

A: I’ve said no such thing. All I’ve said is that while you’re in the process of changing a system, there are a number of loopholes and a lot of injustices, and some people are getting away with murder. So I proposed that, in those circumstances, there is the need to resort to decrees.

. . . I suggested this not in place of legislation, but in circumstances where there are loopholes. I simply suggested that in circumstances when there are such loopholes, I can close them and then turn over the matter to the parliament for permanent action. This I suggested not in opposition to democracy, but rather to aid democracy.

If my suggestion had been followed, we wouldn’t be facing a situation in which the old party elite is going into private business by signing sweetheart deals with the old state-owned enterprises or engaging in corrupt practices. In such circumstances, the president would issue a decree and then quickly the parliament would adopt appropriate legislation to deal with the matter.

Q: Do you think the Poland that now exists was worth the 10 years of struggle?

A: It has been worth it. But we haven’t pressed our advantage. Now we’re being blamed. More and more people say, “You haven’t established a full democracy. You haven’t included other groups that have come on to the political scene. You’ve not established a moral order. The order you’ve established is immoral.” I don’t see why we should continue to cling to the roundtable agreement that was signed over a year and half ago between us and a partner (the Communists) who no longer exists.

But this hasn’t been done. . . . Everything that’s gone awry--all the public dissatisfaction--springs from the fact that the chance for full democracy hasn’t fully been exploited.

. . . For a long time, I didn’t speak out. I didn’t do anything about the long delay in holding fully free elections. I was convinced that (former advisers and colleagues) are people smart enough to know how to exploit the situation. But they didn’t take advantage of the opening. . . . They are not up to the task of taking the cake that was handed to them on a silver platter. . . .

I’m a good student of Western democracies. And I know that interest in politics grows during election campaigns. So if you in the West tell me that elections awaken the public, then I’m ready for new elections.