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

AWS never acquired the sufficient strong leadership and flexible decision-making procedures. Thepolitical disagreements were too many and the party discipline too low. Under those circumstancesthe decision about transforming the party “alliance” to a unitary ”standard party” or still be a looseinstitutionalised alliance was never taken. Several times Jerzy Buzek was forced to act as amediator, trying to agree with all important groups before important policy decisions. In thegovernment Buzek had to fight with the Freedom Union’s (UW) and the powerful finance ministerand vice Prime Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. In other words, Jerzy Buzek became a “man ofreconciliation”, not like a man of “decision and action”. It was simply impossible to act – and think- long-term and strategic.As a result, the policy aspect was clearly neglected by the AWS leaders. With the fall in votersupport AWS was forced to present solutions of those problems which were “close to people”, e.g.to improve the health reform. A new ”pact for the agriculture” should limit competition frompopulist and extremist parties such as Leppers ”Samoobrona”. The need to improve the quality ofthe laws and the law-making process as a whole was recognised from all sides. Nevertheless MarianKrzaklewski declared that AWS’ crisis was mostly a question about discipline and “the rightattitudes”. The Solidarity elite simply tried to avoid discussions about issues linked to the policyprocess, i.e. the bad quality of decision-making procedures, the bad implementation of the four bigreforms and the many issues concerning the formation of a new ”post-communist nomenklatura”.The plans about foundation of a new unitary standard party were met with strong opposition. Theaim to put ones own interests before the interests of society have been widespread in the rightnationalcamp. As noted above, for many political groups the decision about joining the AWS hadprimarily been a tactical move. In opposition to the AWS-led government SLD was able to profitfrom the ongoing split inside AWS and the low quality of law making. In the official declarationsthe significance of institutionalisation and professionalisation was repeatedly underlined. Severalproposals about more efficient and flexible institutional structures were put forward, but too muchtime was wasted on discussions about the distribution of power and how many ”legs” there shouldbe presented in AWS. The final solution was never found. The strong focus on organizational andinternal personal questions damaged the programme and policy-formulation and as a result of thatalso the electoral support.AWS became still more power-oriented, focusing too much on the “technology of power”. Thepolicy aspects were neglected, as much emphasis was laid on appointments to strategic posts insociety. Thus the concrete day-to-day policy problems were pushed on the sideline. By manyobservers the sharp fall in the voter-support was explained by the advance of a new post-communistnomenklatura.At the same time criticism became stronger also from inside AWS. The then member of parliamentand the former powerful chairman of trade union Solidarity’s Mazowsze section MaciejJankowski 52 emphasized that the fall in electoral support was caused by the fact that the interests ofthe party were put ahead the interests of society and that the political style was in need of selflimitation.The appearance of a new ruling class might signify the end of AWS as such. AlexanderHall 53 expressed the opinion that appointments to important jobs in the public sector should not takeplace according to political criteria, but qualifications (”meritorycznosc”). The best of its ability52 Gazeta Wyborcza 18-19 September, 1999:8.53 Interview in Rzeczpospolita 20.9. 1999:A3.63