Thank you very much for coming.
Welcome, Morris. I'll start with the title Poland's Peaceful Revolution.
25 years after the Polish roundtable talks anniversary, this is usually an occasion not only to talk about past events,
but also to reach a real value, which they their importance.
And this is quite obvious that such a such a year, eight, nine.
Already the past, I think changed very much significance and it means today different thinks that at the moment of events I
remember I was then in France and I felt it dramatically in 1898 was 200th anniversary of the French Revolution,
and it was almost from one day to another. It was clear how dramatically the perception of the revolution was.
French Revolution change it, which was a foundation of day, of the French, of the French ideal of political thinking.
And if you are talking now about certain crisis in France,
I think that the part of the attitudes towards history and the question of French Revolution plays certain role very to us in a way,
what was happening in Central Europe and in Poland.
It was a dramatic shock for French.
I remember big events prepared by president.
We did how for Catholics year 14 4th of July it was enormous event was prepared it it was for four very great events and how it was diminished by
the by the revolution which were just the opposite to the model which was popularised model of French Revolution with with the role of utopia,
with the role of violence, mass mobilisations.
So I think that when we are talking about and I,
it can be good occasion also to talk about the changing significance about 8 to 9, but a few thoughts about the film.
Film is about incredible events around table negotiation.
For the first time, communist authorities accepted to to negotiate to negotiate with people who were presenting themselves
as a representative so they could so by definition that the estimates the Communist Party,
of course, was based on the on the conviction of the ideology of representing that the the masses, the working people.
So it was already quite obvious the recognition of the end of the of the power, communist power,
to accept such an estrangement and to negotiate with others as representatives of the forces.
By definition, Communists were supposed to represent why they were accepting to negotiate for quite obvious reason,
because the Polish economy was in dramatic situation.
Preparing myself I was thinking of all the time about what is happening in Ukraine today.
I would not say that this is a exactly similar situation, but there is a lot of similarities.
The problem is that the Polish communist authorities have chosen different way.
Actually, Poland was already dramatically indebted towards the West at that at that time.
And and Polish authorities, they knew very well that in order to impose certain I'm certain,
obstructive measures which are absolutely necessary and economic reform, they must have a larger social support.
They must have collaboration of the opposition.
It was the source, not only idealism,
it was the source of the recognition of the necessity of all of those of those negotiations to understand to understand
why we must go further to to the past when we are talking about Polish peaceful revolution that is in Poland,
even there is the problem which understanding what what exactly the moment was this peaceful revolution
that's that is this is the problem of idea Polish identity but also also some ideological conflict.
Which event is the most important? There are people who would attach the most important, the biggest importance to to round table negotiation.
And those are usually people who were very much contributing to the launching negotiation on both sides.
For them, this is funding means both are capable to talk, not to fight,
but to talk to each other and to find a political solution to all these problems.
But there's another which is gaining to say the truth as a sort of legitimacy of today's Poland.
This is the June fought. This is the Soviet free election of the consequence of of roundtable negotiation.
But it was not tightly controlled by elite roundtable negotiation.
It was the business by definition of ability, of course.
For June, it was a shock for both sides in a way that dramatically better results of governments who lost election.
It was a shock not only for the communists, it was the shock also for solidarity.
It was the source of the fear of so that it can provoke Soviet intervention.
But anyway, this for June, the same date of the tragedy on Gentlemen Square,
just to remind you also of the other possible model of the development in the communist in the communist country.
But but there are other dates which are very important the same year.
And this is why for post this is extremely difficult to say when it started through this is there
in September it denied this is formation of the first non-communist government of the day,
which must be a although with participants of appeal, the representative said quite an important representative of Communist Party.
Minister of Defence. Minister of Interior in Russia.
They would say celebrity those who controlled it sue the force at the last day.
Also very important. I will talk about it a little bit later.
This is the big reforms in December, but the rubbish reforms, this is practically economic revolution,
revolution, big bank economic, big bank economic revolution, abolition important.
But to say to to another date is much more important, I think, than those old days.
This is ten days, ten years earlier.
This is solidarity movement. We cannot understand the roundtable negotiation and accepted by the Communist Party to negotiate with other
side beat without the pact it in Poland we had in 1881 the powerful movement practically all society,
10 million members of the so-called workers solidarity.
Although it was not only workers, intelligentsia, employees that died, state employees and so on, plus one and a half million of peasant solidarity.
If you multiply by the number of members of the family, practically it was trade union of the Polish nation,
it was Organisation of Poland with the participation of more than 1 million party members.
It was extremely powerful movement which which practically questioned the existing
system and although it was broken down by the imposition of so-called in
Polish state of for this is that exceptional this state exceptional is the
police conditions this movement survived to big extent during those ten years.
This is also and most of all,
why authorities recognised the necessity of of of negotiating of of talking with the other side and looking for for the compromise.
Of course, there was another very important intervening factor.
Intervening factor. This is too weak to say this is Gorbachev factor.
Without Gorbachev, it wouldn't have it would have been possible.
Gorbachev accepted the negotiation practically in the 86.
He said to yourselves, You go on trial and teach you.
Some of you may be remembered.
It was famous sentence source spokesman Gerasimov, who said who use the term so-called Sinatra doctrine that everyone can sing his own way,
which was a recognition of the fact that each country, so called socialist country,
can go its own way and the Soviet Union will not intervene anymore.
So it allowed this experimentation by using buy, buy, buy, buy your students.
In the situation of mounting tensions already, I cannot enter into the details this decision.
To go to negotiate to to negotiate with the widow of their son.
That's a very interesting problem of interpretation of a two hour conflict, more general consideration.
In Poland, this is a sort of mystery that 89 is usually or almost always everywhere.
It's identified with the Berlin Wall. This is considered as a sort of profound historical, moral injustice, because that's true in Berlin.
It was not the result of it was not Basti, it was not 1789.
A city was destroyed by the people. The world was not destroyed by the people.
The wall was destroyed by the people. When the West entries to the West were opened already by delattre by the mistake, actually.
But it was that person. So in Poland there's a feeling of certain injustice, because that's true,
that Poland was first, it was the beginning was in Poland not only ten years before in 80,
but also in 89 round table negotiation, which after which we are imitated in Hungary, in some other countries.
It started in Poland. Of course, this is for the reasons which it's nothing against Poles.
This is just this shows the interpretation of reality which prevails in the West that the most important factor,
which was not the fate of the people of those countries,
but the geopolitical consideration that Berlin Wall was a symbol of divide, that Europe of divided war, destruction of Berlin Wall.
Reunification of Germany meant reunification of Europe.
The end of the world of the Cold War from the point of the West.
Of course, it was important, not the problem of the fate of the people or Poles, or even Germans for that matter.
So this is explained. So of course it is another factor which can be partly explained by the modern media logic that of
course the wall is much more picturesque and through subplots much more busted than round table,
which is quite annoying bureaucratic instrument of everyday sport, although not such a big, not such a big, not such a big table.
So it did not until today in Poland.
This is the subject of the political fights,
because this is this is the fight about the interpretation of the history and of the roles of difference of different occurrence.
And and there are certain elements trying to delegitimize.
I deny pretending that Soviet agents played a major role,
that the people representing solidarity were practically manipulated by the police, or if they themselves were not Polish police agents.
But in the same time, it it cannot work.
So even the people who are trying to popularise such an interpretation, they cannot they cannot to put something to society in such an interpretation.
It doesn't mean that the attitudes of the people you shouldn't.
You must be favourable to it. Enough already.
In 8 to 9 first century election, only about 63% of Poles participated in the election.
Actually, just of course, was one of the leading personalities of the opposition, very important to generally sort of to obstruct the parliamentarian.
You were saying that we didn't have support to be part of the population, that even of intellectuals quite were was quite sceptical.
And it was the case there was a fear of manipulation.
The first authorities that will try to build their own legitimacy of their policy,
heart harsh economic policy, and they will try to destroy afterwards opposition.
But afterwards, till today, actually there was a lack of interest in being part of the population, lack of interest in the politics in general.
Today, Poland is this very strange country with one of the lowest level of participation in the in that in the in the election.
So there is a certain paradox that it is the country which probably the biggest social movement in the history of mankind,
you know, to 12 millions out of 37 million.
So the population and in the centre. A country where it's one of the lowest in Europe, the level of mutual trust,
of the capacity to organise themselves and of participation intellectually.
So we can say that our time to difference moments and behaviour,
interdependence moment in exceptional moments of uprising of mass national movements, polls are mobilising otherwise.
Not very much. Not very much. Now, I would like. All right.
I would like to say a few words about what I would consider the second part of our peaceful revolution.
That is already I'm not entering into the problem of whether we can call it a revolution or not revolution.
So if there are certain ambiguities about the character, so I can last and last the concept and to speak about about fundamentals,
which are also one of the sources of today's Ukrainian tragedy.
Tragically, this is the problem of the transformation of social economic model.
This is the the most painful death,
the most difficult as see became obvious and a challenge to two new authorities after destruction of of communist of communist regime.
I remember we had common memories.
We had Timothy Garton Ash. We were we spent together in Woodrow Wilson Centre a year, 87 to 89.
And afterwards we participated in the conference in the block in the summer.
Audience Then we discussed the problem of the future of central central Central Europe.
I was sort of semi-official, representative opposition, so I couldn't speak to openly and to honestly.
So I said only some pessimistic things.
I had to say that I would like to to reconstruct my thinking then, because it's also the source of certain intellectual humility.
I make my perception of the situation. But the situation that was quite pessimistic in comparison,
especially with the countries neighbouring countries, Poles usually compared himself with Czechoslovakia.
And then it was one country and we try again.
Yes, you're right. I thought that it was before the big changes, but that that will be quite radical economic changes.
It was quite obvious not nobody knew how radical political change was, but economic, social, it was quite obvious.
Our first source of my pessimism was that that country, Poland, was in extremely profound crisis.
We had hyperinflation then in Poland. Then Poland was much bigger country, much more complex country than alpha dog countries,
less developed than Hungary and Czechoslovakia already before the war, but after the war as well.
Quite anarchic, sort of anti-state culture,
which is also the consequence of hundreds of years of of division of Poland between Germany, Russia and Austria, a country.
But it was very important also that during the war was eliminated,
upper class or emigrated and ends to big extent middle class, especially to ethnic groups.
Jews were killed and Jews are present. That two very important elements of the upper middle class in Poland before were Jews were killed.
The Germans were expelled just after the war, or they or to escape or they were expelled.
And even the working class in Poland, which was relatively small in and not very developed in Poland before the war, was the proletariat split.
It was patent country which very anachronistic type of pageantry, so to say,
to try to be passively optimistic about possible economic development in Poland.
It, you know, it either or or the excessive optimism or just not to think about certain objective objective facts.
You know, the gramsci's famous formula about the pessimism of knowledge and optimism of will
people of action have much more will than than than the analytical time for analysis.
And paradoxically,
even three factors which were extremely important in preserving polish much bigger much bigger freedom during Saddam's time than elsewhere.
Where did you come in? It was elements of my analysis.
The problem in the new Poland, which must be more liberal, which much adopted liberal model of developed market type economy.
First it was the church which was very conservative,
and today this is very conservative with a very ambiguous attitudes towards market economy, towards capitalism.
You know, there John Paul, the second he changed a little bit,
the attitudes of the whole Catholic Church till quite recently had two very ambiguous attitudes.
This was the case till today. After.