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

The formation of AWS can be considered as an attempt to institutionalize the trade unionSolidarity’s control over the right spectre on the political scene. Krzaklewski's proposal that allpolitical groups inside AWS should dissolve themselves before the 1997 election and after that be aunified political party, did not obtain the sufficient support. If such plans had been carried out,many of AWS’ later organisational problems may have been avoided. But from the very beginningAWS was divided both politically and institutionally. Several right wing groups had tried to obtainparliamentary representation at the 1993 election, but in vain. These parties did not accept loosingtheir identity. The support for AWS was tactical, not value, policy or programmatically based. Forthat reason disagreement on the actor level became striking. In short, AWS can best be consideredas a negative political alliance, established with the explicit aim to join forces against the ”postcommunists”and limit the waste of votes, however, without a common political platform and acommon vision of the future and without the necessary cohesion and loyalty on the leadership level.As regards party institutionalisation the election alliance AWS appeared as almost copying ”postcommunist”party alliance SLD, at least formally. The Republic of Poland’s Social democraticParty (SdRP) constituted the organisational kernel in SLD, just as the trade union Solidarity insideAWS. At the time of the creation of AWS the trade union Solidarity had 1.5 mill members, a figureno other right wing party or organisation was able to match. All other attempts to build up acommon front on the Right against the “post-communists” and President Aleksander Kwasniewskifailed. As a result of that the trade union Solidarity obtained an almost hegemonic position insideAWS, but mainly because of the lack of sustainable alternatives.At the foundation the three main decision centres were• The trade union Solidarity’s leadership, i.e. the ”Komisja Krajowa” and the ”Rada Krajowa”• AWS’ political leadership, the coordination group• AWS’ representation in parliamentIn the National Council (”Rada Krajowa”) the votes were weighted equally between the trade unionSolidarity and the other groups. The daily work was conducted by a coordinating group (”ZespolKoordynacyjny”). Furthermore, the principle about parity between the trade union and the 30 othergroups was applied. The day to day leadership was composed by the chairman of the NationalCouncil.The chairman of the AWS council was the trade union Solidarity’s leader, i.e. Marian Krzaklewski,thus reflecting the trade union’s strong position. Marian Krzaklewski was both the chairman ofAWS parliamentary group and the trade union Solidarity. The trade union had the decisive word byappointment of candidates for election in 1997. The strong trade union position could only beupheld until the election in 1997. The defeat of Krzaklewski at the presidential election in October2000 changed the situation. The danger of more decentralisation was obvious; the likely outcome ofmore decentralisation was even more factionalisation inside the alliance and slower decisionmakingprocedures.Not only the trade union Solidarity, also the party movement AWS (RS AWS) moved away fromold ideals going back to 1980-1981. Like in the trade union Solidarity a centralisation of power took56