The Catholic Church's role in the Roundtable Talks
Annotation
In following letter, a Solidarity activist writes to Józef Cardinal Glemp, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Poland, to inform him of difficulties in setting up much-anticipated Round Table talks with the Communist regime. The correspondence provides some insight into the complicated relationship between Solidarity and the Catholic church. On the one hand, opposition leaders clearly saw the church as an ally, sharing the same basic principles and objectives. On the other hand, the church needed to serve as an honest broker, a “national” institution capable of mediating between Solidarity and the regime. The content of Stelmachowski’s letter also illustrates the differences in objectives that complicated the setting up of the Round Table talks and that remained a stumbling block even after they got underway. For the regime, the highest priority was achieving consensus on how to tackle Poland’s economic problems. Creating pluralistic institutions was secondary, perhaps even a distraction, and any attempts to stir public demonstrations were seen as a sign of bad faith. For Solidarity, by contrast, gaining legal recognition and guaranteeing the future survival of independent associations was paramount. Any “consensus’ on economic policies would be repudiated by the opposition’s grassroots supporters unless steps toward genuine pluralism were forthcoming.
This source is a part of the Solidarity Comes to Power in Poland, 1989 teaching module.
Text
Letter from A. Stelmachowski to Jozef Glemp, Primate of Poland
24 October 1988
24 October 1988
His Eminence
Jozef Cardinal Glemp
Primate of Poland
in Gniezno
Your Eminence,
In view of the prospect of Your Eminence’s talks with Gen. W. Jaruzelski, I feel it
is my duty to inform you about a crisis which has arisen in connection with the
“Roundtable” negotiations and the prospect of [their] breakdown at the very start.
First I am going to describe the difficulties which we have encountered:
a) Contrary to the impressions we received from preliminary talks held on 31
August and 15 and 16 September that the authorities were ready to come forward towards
“Solidarity’s” position, an acute press campaign has been intensified (particularly in
“Trybuna Ludu”), in which it is incessantly repeated that the “Roundtable” cannot lead to
the re-legalization of “Solidarity.” This campaign, conducted through the central party
daily, gives an impression that the authorities not only do not attempt to convince their
own “hardliners” on matters which were to be discussed at the “Roundtable,” but that
since that time they themselves have hardened their position, creating a general
impression that now, after setting up the Rakowski government, they are less interested in
the “Roundtable.”
b) Despite arrangements agreed upon with Mr. Czyrek, that each side decides on
the composition of its delegation to the “Roundtable,” we have encountered an attempt to
interfere with the list presented by Mr. Walesa. Nine persons were called into question.
They are: Jan Joef Szczepanki, Andrzej Szczepkowski, Stefan Bratkowski, Zbigniew
Romaszewski, Henryk Wujec, Jan Jozef Lipski, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Jacek Kuron, and
Adam Michnik. Now the opposition relates to the two latter ones. Lech Walesa takes the
position that the principle of mutual non-interference into the composition of delegations
should not be violated. However, in a letter that he sent over a week ago to Gen. Kiszczak
he stated that he would see to it that the whole “Solidarity” delegation will abide by all
arrangements and prove the will for a sincere and honest dialogue.
c) An objection has been raised that “Solidarity” representatives had been meeting
with the extreme opposition circles, such as the KPN, “Fighting Solidarity, ” and others.
This charge is biased and exaggerated on purpose. That meeting was not directed against
the “Roundtable,” but was aimed at making sure that those groups would not undermine
the idea of the “Roundtable” meeting and the position which “Solidarity” intends to take
at it. It is also a fact that “Solidarity” representatives at that meeting were rather under
attack.
Another charge that was raised was that [we are responsible for the] street
disturbances in Gdansk, which took place on Sunday, 16 October, when ZOMO made it
impossible for a group of demonstrating youth to pass through from the Saint Brigid
church to the NMP. Such events, which were also influenced by ZOMO’s attitude, testify
not so much of “inspirations” from the “Solidarity” side, but rather of radicalization of
the young generation.
Procedural difficulties and charges put forward by the authorities are—it seems—
of a fallacious nature. The real obstacles are as follows:
1) The question of goals of the “Roundtable.” Mr. Czyrek has formulated them (in
personal conversation with me) as an attempt to form a Council for National
Understanding, which would deal with all controversial problems. In our opinion the
“Roundtable” should adopt guiding resolutions on major questions and the proposed
Council for National Understanding should deal with the implementation of those
resolutions and technical matters, if need be.
2) The question of union pluralism. The prospects of settling this question are
more than unclear. The press campaign, as I have indicated, has been aiming for some
time at questioning union pluralism. The most important element here is a statement by
General Jaruzelski himself, published in today’s press, in which three premises for the
implementation of such pluralism are being defined. The most distressing one is
economic, which the General has defined as: “[The] achievement of indispensable,
funda-mental economic equilibrium, so that some kind of spontaneous social pressures
[licytacga roszczc, claim bidding] would not endanger a highly complex reform process.”
This means sticking to the theory that economic reform can be realized without social
support (in any case a meaningful number of workers), and union pluralism is a sort of
luxury, which should be realized later on.
3) The question of social pluralism. Last week Mr. Czyrek questioned the
advisability of setting up a team for social pluralism (despite the fact that earlier such a
team had been envisaged) explaining that some social organizations like the Polish
Literary Union, Union of Artists, or the Journalists’ Union of the Polish People’s
Republic do not want to sit at the same table with representatives of the previous
regime’s creative unions. Admittedly, he later expressed willingness to reactivate the
government-church negotiating group, which had been preparing a draft law on
associations, with the possibility of some enlargement of its composition. However, an
important question arises, which is whether the reserve shown [by some of the social
organizations such as the Polish Literary Union, Union of Artists, and the Journalists’
Union of the Polish People’s Republic] will adversely affect the drafting of the projected
law on associations.
4) The question of post-strike repression. Some time ago the Church
representatives became guarantors of job restitution for all those who had been dismissed
from work for their participation in the August strikes. At a meeting on 15 September,
General Kiszczak very solemnly promised to withdraw all repression. That promise has
brought about positive effects on the Seacoast (in Gdansk and Szczecin), while in Silesia
jobs have not been restored to 114 miners, and in Stalowa Wola to 2 people. A
communique of the press bureau and the Episcopate on this question was confiscated by
the censorship office last week and it has not appeared in the national mass media.
In this situation I would be extremely grateful to your Eminence for an
explanation of the essential prospects for the realization of both “pluralisms” (trade union
and social). The whole thing can be reduced to the question: “Are the reforms (economic
and political) to be realized jointly with an empowered society, which also means with
‘Solidarity’—or without it?” If the prospects are not encouraging, I don’t see the purpose
of further preparatory talks, which would only serve narrow purposes, instead of [those
of] the society.
With expressions of a son’s devotion,
[signed by Andrzej Stelmachowski]
[Source: A. Stelmachowski Papers. Translated by Jan Chowaniec for CWIHP.]
Credits
Andrzej Stelmachowski to Jozef Glemp, 24 October 1988, trans. Jan Chowaniec, A. Stelmachowski Papers, Cold War International History Project, Documents and Papers, CWIHP (accessed May 14, 2008).