Development of Parties and Party Systems in ... - lah@sam.sdu.dk

Kaczynski, ROP Jan Olszewski and ZChN Hanna Gronkiewicz-Walz. In Solidarity a group led byZbigniew Wrzodak broke the party line and supported Jan Olszewski. Thus, evidence showed thatwithout greater unity on the Right the “power monopoly” of the post-communist would not bebroken.22 different parties and organizations subscribed the declaration of the creation of Election ActionSolidarnosc (AWS), at the 1997 election AWS was composed of no less than 38 different partiesand organisations. As noted earlier, AWS can best be considered as a negative alliance, first as anembryonic, later as a proto-political party with trade union Solidarity as the organizational core.During the election campaign the attempt to mobilise the old Solidarity ethos succeeded to a largeextent, and, most important, the waste of votes was substantially reduced. At the 1993 electionthose groups, which later formed AWS, had obtained 29 pct. of the votes, only 4 pct. less than at the1997 election, but at the 1997 election enough for the Right to obtain the majority in parliament. Asthe right wing “The Movement for Building UP Polan” (ROP) lost votes to AWS the real swing tothe Right was rather modest.The liberal Freedom Union (UW), still working outside AWS, constituted the social liberal parts ofthe Solidarity movement The Workers Union (UP), the centre-left orientated part of Solidarity hasbeen supported by reform-minded former communists. Nevertheless at the 1997 election AWSbecame the greatest single party with support from about one third of the electorate, more thanpredicted in the opinion polls before the election which showed almost “dead heat” between left andright.Thus, from the outset AWS can be considered as a broad right wing negative election alliance, withstrong elements of anti-politics, without the old “self-limitation” and with close links to thepresident (Walesa) and with strong support from the army and the church hierarchy.2.7. The organisational structure of AWSFrom the outset AWS’ different political groups and ”legs” watched zealously over their ownidentity. Several acted as veto-groups even obstructing even already adopted decisions and preventpassage of new. The prospects to form one united right wing party with a high institutionalisationand a common party culture were dark. Plans circulating in the spring 1995 to create an”independent trade union party” – only based on the trade union Solidarity - were impossible tocarry through. The experience from the 1993 election, where the trade union Solidarity lost all theseats in parliament, was frightening. The right wing parties were simply ”doomed to cooperate”.As noted above, the trade union Solidarity was AWS’ organisational nucleus and MarianKrzaklewski the political front figure. Tactical considerations, not ideological unity, were mostdecisive. The different political groups on the Right could easily agree on the anti-communistorientation with the aim to remove the ”post-communists” from power. Many in AWS expressedthe opinion that the round table decisions gave the ”post-communists” too much political influence.Also the support to the church was strong, e.g. in questions about abortion and religious instructionin schools. The close links to the church not only separated Solidarity from the ”post-communists”,but also Solidarity from its coalition partners, e.g. liberals and moderates in the Freedom Union”(UW).55