Legalization versus Re-legalization of NSZZ "Solidarity"
Annotation
Formed in September 1980 in Poland and recognized as a legal union by Communist officials in November, Solidarity was formally dissolved by Communist leaders on October 8, 1982, and forced to function illegally and underground. During the historic roundtable talks between Communist officials and leaders of the opposition that took place in February through April 1989, participants revisited the question of the legalization of Solidarity, a topic that was of utmost importance to Solidarity activists. In this document written in February 1989, at the time of the roundtable talks, to Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, a Solidarity activist (along with a group within Solidarity) exhibited his concerns about the discussions that were taking place behind closed doors. He feared that Solidarity representatives at the talks were compromising too much with party officials. This document demonstrates that tensions not only existed between Communist officials and Solidarity activists but also developed among the activists. It clearly points to the complexity of the events that unfolded in Poland over the course of the 1980s, and especially in 1989, showing that Solidarity, as a union, was not necessarily unified.
Text
Papers of the Working Group of the National Commission of NSZZ “Solidarity”
25 February 1989
Jerzy Kropiwnicki 106
ul. Jasna 2 m. 9
91-350 Lodi
Professor
Andrzej Stelmachowski
Dear Professor,
I would like to kindly ask you to act as an intermediary in passing the enclosed documents
to Lech Walesa. I am compelled to turn to you as I want to be sure that they will reach him and
will be treated seriously. Experiences of sending [documents] by other methods are not
encouraging.
I would also like you to know their content.
I apologize for this unusual request.
With best regards,
J. Kropiwnicki
[signed]
[Attachment No. 1]
25 February 1989
Working Group Lodz,
of the National Commission
of NSZZ “Solidarnosc…”
A Statement on the “relegalization” and [versus] “legalization” of the NSZZ “Solidarity”
1. The Working Group of the National Commission of the NSZZ “Solidarity” states with
satisfaction, that during the past few months a farreaching rapprochement between the advisory
bodies to Lech Walesa, which have a dominating influence on the policy of Chairman of the
National Committee and aspire to a leadership role of “Solidarity” by the National Commission on
the one hand, and the Working Group of the Commission on the other, has taken place.
In the fall of 1987 and still in spring 1988 (before the outbreak of the AprilMay strikes),
leading representatives of that political orientation, Jacek Kuron (see, e.g. “The landscape after a
battle”) and Andrzej Celinski (see an interview for “Newsweek” of 23 November 1987) have
clearly stated that they consider the history of “Solidarity” as a trade union over.
The strikes of 1988 have proved that the Working Group of the National Commission was
right to maintain consistently, from the beginning (i.e. from 1985) the position that “Solidarity”
is first of all and has to remain a trade union.
In the fall of 1988, Lech Walesa’s advisers and the National Executive Commission
(KKW) adopted a position close to that of the Working Group (GR KK).
In December of that year, a significant political event—the preliminary institutionalization
of the sociopolitical movement in the form of the Citizens’ Committee as a separate institution—
took place. The creation of the Citizens’ Committee, which all leading representatives of the same
political orientation as Lech Walesa and the KKW joined as members, will undoubtedly facilitate
the realization of their political ambitions on a more suitable platform for this purpose than the
trade union one. At the same time, it offers a chance to restore the pluralistic character of the
NSZZ “Solidarity.”
Still controversial is the question of [the] relationship [of Solidarity] to the law of 8
October 1982, which Lech Walesa’s advisers adopted as a basis for negotiations with the
authorities of the People’s Republic of Poland.
The subsequent rapprochement to the GR KK took place when the negotiators on behalf of
Lech Walesa and KKW adopted the position that:
1. The Union has to be registered as a whole (and with its original name), and as one set up
separately in each work place.
2. It has to have a territorial, and not a branch structure.
It remains controversial as to whether it is to be registered as a new Union, or restored as a
legal entity existing continuously since 1980.
It appears, based on the pronouncements of Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki to the mass media,
that the “social-solidarity side” at the “Roundtable” had assumed that it ought to be registered as a
new union (so-called legalization).
The Working Group of the National Commission is of the opinion that the indispensable
condition of both a lasting understanding (or a lasting compromise) with the PRL authorities and
the restoration of unity in “Solidarity” is [based on] the restoration of registration to the existing
union (its “re-legalization”).
2. The Working Group of the National Commission is of the opinion that “forming the
Union anew” will come in conflict with social aspirations, and may even lead to a breakdown of
the Union.
a) Many Union activists and members have experienced all sorts of repression— prison,
arrest, physical violence (some lost their life), dismissal from a job, unemployment, monetary
penalties, constraints in their professional career, all for their struggle in defense of the existing
Union. For them it is inadmissible to [consider] giving away at the table all that they [had]
defended and suffered for, and without even asking for their opinion.
b) For many, the adoption of the law of 8 October 1982 as a basis for restoring normal
Union activity would mean some sort of legitimization of martial law. It is different to avoid
this question “for the benefit of the cause” than to prejudge it (even indirectly) in a way
inconsistent with convictions of a great majority of society.
c) A “renewed formation” of the Union closes the possibility of revindication of the
property taken over by the PRL authorities. Many people think that the Union may give up on its
claims, but those rights have to be recognized.
d) Founding the Union as a “new one” will make it difficult or simply impossible to
rehabilitate the members who were sentenced or to restore to work those who were dismissed for
their defense of “Solidarity.” Many of them are ready to give up on seeking someone else’s guilt,
but not from recognition of their own innocence.
3. “Legalization,” that is a renewed formation of the Union (even on the basis of the
previous Statute of 1981) would mean recognition that the NSZZ “Solidarity” was really disbanded
on 8 October 1982. This “dissolution” has been recognized neither by the Union, nor by the MOP,
nor by trade unions in the democratic countries. The World Federation of Labor and the
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, guided by the principles of international law,
have carried out the affiliation of the NSZZ “Solidarity” as an existing trade union (though
deprived of domestic registration). In this way they have confirmed a universal norm that the union
exists based on the will of its members, and not by the grace of the authorities.
Giving up the demand for restoring registration of the union existing continuously since
1980, the NSZZ “Solidarity” would probably be the first trade union in the world, associated in
those bodies, which had recognized the right of state authorities to dissolve trade unions. It would
be a dangerous precedent both in political and moral meaning. Dissolution of the NSZZ
“Solidarity” could be done only by a National Conference of the existing Union, elected according
to its Statute and Electoral Law of 1981—and not a “solidaritysocial party,” the National
Executive Committee (KKW), or even a founding conference of a new Union.
Let’s keep in mind that organizations that had been suspended or dissolved inconsistently
with their own statutes (the last example: the Labor Party—SP, “dissolved” long ago by its own
Head Council and “united” with the Democratic Party—SD), are being reclaimed today
4. The Working Group of the National Commission appeals:
- to the “solidarity-social side” not to take decisions at the Roundtable, which are reserved for the
statutory authorities of the NSZZ “Solidarity.”
- to the leaders and sympathizers of the Union not to give away at the table what thousands of
Union activists and members did not give up during the martial law period and multiple
repressions,
- and in particular to Lech Wa»iisa, Zbigniew Bujak,111 Wladyslaw Frasyniuk 112 and Antoni
Tokarczuk 113 —as chairman of the KK 114 and members of [the] KK Presidium— not to be
unfaithful to their oath of loyalty to the Statute of the NSZZ “Solidarity.”
- to Lech Walesa, to remember that he has entrusted our Union to the protection of Our Lady of
Cziystochowa,
- to all others to be aware of their responsibility towards the society, the nation, God and history.
5. The Working Group is of the opinion that for the sake of our nation an understanding
with the PRL authorities is indispensable; it will be real if it is based on respect for the inalienable
and unalterable employee, citizen and human rights.
6. The Working Group is of the opinion that for the benefit of our nation, unity of the
NSZZ “Solidarity” is indispensable. Its basis can only be respect for its Statute and union rights, a
Statute [embodying the], democratic and pluralistic character of our Union.
[signed]
J. Kropiwnicki
[Attachment No. 2]
Working Group Lodz, 25 February 1989
of the National Commission
of NSZZ “Solidarnosc…”
A Position on Workers’ Self-Government
1. The Working Group of the National Commission is warning the “solidaritysocial” side
against treating workers’ selfgovernment as an objective, the only appropriate form of managing
the socalled allsocial or state property. The concept of replacing the state bureaucracy with
workers’ selfgovernment remains, within the socialist thought, as a postulate of “real socialization
of the means of production.” For nonsocialist political orientations this concept may be
unacceptable.
2. Building the economic system based on workers’ selfgovernment, the essence of which
boils down to bestowing the right of management of productions assets to an imprecisely defined
owner, toward whom the management, not being owners in any other sense than symbolic, should
feel responsible, would be an experiment on an unheard of scale, a solution without any useful
patterns and experiments whatsoever.
3. A self-governmental solution can be, at most, some form of temporary instrument in the
elimination of the nomenklatura from the economy.
4. Target solutions ought to be sought in those areas where there is maximal connection
between work and ownership. The first step ought to be the abolition of hitherto indivisible state
property. The second one [ought to be] dissemination of property—that is bestowing the rights of
property to particular work places, their conversion into jointstock companies and
enfranchisement of the nation through employees’ shareholding. The sphere of state management
in industry should be limited to an absolute minimum. In the area of energy and communications,
the scope of public ownership should be defined on the basis of the experiences of the developed
countries of Western Europe. Commerce should be gradually privatized (both retail and
wholesale).
5. Experience teaches that all forms of collective property, in which individual
participation is not secured by the alleged owners, are being treated as “nobody’s property” and in
the best case [scenarios] are becoming some form of bureaucratic property (in the case of
communist countries—the nomenklatura’s property). For conformity,
[signed]
J. Kropiwnicki
[Source: A. Stelmachowski Papers. Translated by Jan Chowaniec for CWIHP.]
Credits
Jerry Kropiwnicki to Andrzej Stelmachowski, 25 February 1989, trans. Jan Chowaniec, Cold War International History Project, Documents and Papers, CWIHP (accessed May 14, 2008).