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

Has the Left any freedom of manoeuvre at all in the economic and social policy taking inconsideration the ongoing globalization and, not to forget, the adaptation to the European Union? 89The principial idea to create more unity on the Left was accepted by SLD. In 1993 SLD itself hadpresented the idea, inviting all important left parties and groups to a “big debate” about alternativesto the economic policy followed by the post-Solidarity governments. In addition, important for SLDwas to obtain the greatest as possible support for Aleksander Kwasniewski as president. Morecooperation among the different parties and groups on the Left might be helpful in order to achievethat goal.However, the plans about the formation of one single united Left platform could not be realized 90 .Instead Leszek Miller spoke about the need to establish an “opposition forum” (“ForumOpozycyjne”) that - with SLD as the leading force – would be able to unify the different parties andgroups in opposition to Jerzy Buzek’s government 91 . The discussions about more unity on the Leftwere not most important for SLD. Under all circumstances SLD remained the most important singlealmost hegemonic party on the Left. Thus, mainly for tactical reasons SLD took part in the “roundtable discussions” as UP might be decisive in the negotiations about constructing of a new left winggovernment. Only few meetings among the left parties took place, but the political rapprochementbetween SLD and the Works Union (UP) was deepened and resulting in an agreement about closecooperation at the 2001 election with common candidate lists and a common political programme.Important was not to repeat the mistakes of the former left wing government from 1993 to 1997.Evidence from SLD-PSL-government 1993-1997 suggest that a government led by SLD difficultiesmight come up when taking controversial but important policy decisions, e.g. concerning newpension schemes and reforms of the health sector. Under the previous SLD-PSL government alsoplans for administrative reforms had circulated, but the final decisions were never taken. The AWSled government took those controversial decisions, which were left over from the formergovernment, but it did not pay sufficient attention to the quality of the law making process and lawimplementation.The prospect of formation of a new centre-left government was facilitated by cooperation betweenSLD, UP and PSL at the local elections in 1998. After that election 9 of the 16 voivods were led bySLD, and 135 of the 235 powiatys had a mayor from SLD. In spite of favourable election polls SLDdid not show interest in a new parliamentary election before 2000 presidential election. The policyof the Buzek government was heavily criticized, but SLD distanced itself from strikes and protestdemonstrations organized by OPZZ and “Samoobrona”. At the 2001 election SLD-UP failed toobtain a majority in the Sejm alone, but SLD became the “hegemonic” party in the new coalitiongovernment. Furthermore, it had the control over the Senate, and close close links to the president(Kwasniewski). Like in 1993, SLD was forced to cooperate with the internally divided PolishPeasants’ Party (PSL), which after the 2001 election came under heavy fire from the populist“Selfdefence” (Samoobrona).At the 2001 election SLD was in the position to make profit from the AWS-UW government’mistakes implementing of the four big reforms, especially the health reform. Therefore, one of theslogans under the SLD 2001 election campaign sounded: “We (i.e. SLD) can do it (i.e. the same)89 Mentioned e.g. in Dominika Wielowieyska, ”Przez morze czerwone”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 9.3., 1999:16-17.90 About those plans, se also Eliza Olczyk, ”Socialdemokratyczna wydmuszka”, Rzeczpospolita 27.-28 March, 1999:3.91 Mariusz Janicki, ”Wylacznosc na lewice”, Polityka, no. 16 (2189), 17 April, 1999:26-28.96