15 minute read
Authoritarianism at the Gates
Roman Kuźniar, Photo PAP
Professor Roman Kuźniar, a political scientist from the University of Warsaw and a former longtime diplomat, talks to Witold Żygulski.
More than 30 years ago Francis Fukuyama
wrote his famous essay “The End of History,” in which he posited that humanity has reached an optimal political form, i.e. liberal democracy with a free market economy. However, the following decades have shown that tendencies toward authoritarianism are even appearing in the developed countries of Europe. Why is this happening?
This was very well described by Samuel Huntington in his book The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, published in 1991. In our good faith and a certain naivety, we believed democracy to be a system that would take hold and develop on different soils, on different cultural, civilizational or religious foundations. Meanwhile, Russia, for example, is less democratic today than it was before World War I. Lenin was able to prepare his Revolution precisely because Russia was relatively democratic in 1917. Today, Putin would nip the revolution in the bud. Countries with a developed democracy have difficulties with it today, but they are coping well with them. In Western Europe, right-wing nationalist parties exist, but they are far from dominant and, above all, they do not question democracy, nor are they openly opposed to the idea of the European Union. Take, for example, the history of Jorg
Fukuyama did not claim that everything would only go in the right direction. On the contrary, he warned of the inevitable emergence of vital and comprehensive atavistic tendencies, including the temptation of authoritarianism precisely, even on the part of great powers. He believed that because the synthesis of liberal democracy and the free market had succeeded in defeating the two greatest threats of the 20th century, fascism and communism, no new dangerous alternative would emerge in the world. And such an alternative has not appeared; what has appeared is an attempt to return to the past. This is nothing new; we have already had to deal with this in history, only in different decorations. However, there also appeared conditions thanks to which the present right-wing-nationalist wave could start moving and find fer-
tile ground. Democracy is not a system immunized against threats coming from within. This is due to its essence, its susceptibility to certain degenerations and extremes. Through the process of globalization generated by the United States and Western Europe, the free world has been creating a new liberal order in the last 30 years. Poland has been a great beneficiary of this process. In many regions of the world, countries have been given a new chance to develop, but they have begun to grow not necessarily according to the Western pattern. China, for example, has benefited enormously from globalization, but liberal democracy is out of the question there. The same can be said of Russia. Both of these powers have turned globalization against its creators and have decided to attack democracy, a clear example of which was Russia’s interference in the U.S. presidential election and the election of someone more to their liking: Donald Trump. Democracy is therefore in a difficult situation in the world; it is extremely fragile today.
What are the reasons for the rising popularity of authoritarianism in countries that seemed to be places of fully established democracy, like Western European countries or the United States?
Haider’s party in Austria: after he became part of the ruling coalition, a huge row broke out in the EU, sanctions were even imposed on Austria. But the Freedom Party did not at all question the Austrian constitution, EU membership, or the independence of the Austrian Constitutional Court. So, there is little evidence that right-wing nationalist parties in Western Europe are authoritarian. What was different was the assault on democracy that took place in the United States after the election of Donald Trump. The source of its success was a radical deformation of the social and economic system, resulting from the destructive influence of money. Big capital had gained virtually unlimited access to electoral processes; the election of governors, senators and members of Congress became a process that could be bought. The degeneration of American democracy had been evident for many years. It culminated in the election of a completely anti-democratic, anti-Western, actually anti-American president. Trump might as well have been president of the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Nigeria or Turkey. This is best demonstrated by what happened on January 6 in Washington, where Trump simply wanted to forcibly extend his power for another term, and then probably would have wanted another. The very position of money in the American political system led to all this. But the real problem with democracy today, unfortunately, is with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Some of them have never been democratic in their history, some regained democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the breakup of its system of satellite states. All are in massive trouble today. Each case is different, but there are similarities in how anti-democratic forces in power seek to wield power with impunity.
Are the authoritarian tendencies of those in power in the CEE region already a threat to the idea of the EU?
Definitely yes. The EU was simply not prepared for the emergence of its own member states that are no longer democratic. When Poland began its efforts to join the EU in the beginning of the 90s, it had to accept the Copenhagen Criteria, put forward in 1993, which are a set of democratic principles that EU members are obliged to observe. Of course, Poland met all of these conditions. Later the same was true of all the conditions that were set during the accession process. It never occurred to the founding fathers of the EU or to any of the founding states that a country that was entering the European community as a full democracy could cease to be one. There are no procedures to be followed in such a case. In the principles underlying the United Nations, we have Article 6, which says that if a member country acts in a way that is not in accordance with the principles of the U.N. Charter, it can be expelled. There is no such mechanism in the EU. After all, we are talking about a community of countries that are, in principle, homogeneous in terms of their political system. And suddenly it turns out that Hungary, followed by Poland, is turning its back on democracy. They are introducing a legal system that is completely incompatible with Europe. As a consequence, the other EU countries can no longer respect the verdicts of the completely politicized Polish and Hungarian courts. Such a situation, previously unthinkable, is becoming increasingly dangerous. It turns out that there are member states whose current governments show hostility toward the EU, do not want the community as it is supposed to be, and at the same time do not want to leave it. Poland under Law and Justice (PiS) is behaving like a wayward fare-dodger who gets on a bus and immediately starts a ruckus. He claims that he is entitled to a business class seat and food, but he is neither going to pay nor respect the rules. At the same time, he will not let himself be thrown out. The other passengers are confused, while he is against everything. Today’s EU has no answer to this new and totally unexpected situation. The mills of the EU, like the mills of justice, grind slowly. They are only beginning to squeeze the governments of countries that are moving away from democracy. This process is badly damaging the EU.
What might be the methods of this pressure, this persuasion toward countries that openly disregard the community’s democratic principles?
One can imagine several such scenarios. First, from a normal, rational point of view, if these countries are to remain in the EU, something has to change in them. They should return to respecting the commitments they made when they joined the EU and, of course, the already jointly adopted Lisbon Treaty. Its Article 7 deals precisely with the rule of law. Remedial measures should come quickly in these countries,
in Poland and Hungary above all. Both of these countries must now be considered to be moving in the direction of authoritarianism: both have authoritarian governments. Hungary is obviously closer to an authoritarian state, basically Viktor Orban’s private state. Poland is not such a country yet. In both cases, change can come in a simple way: their current governments can fall in an election procedure. The second scenario involves increasing pressure from EU institutions and states, which will lead to the Polish and Hungarian governments having to decide whether to leave the EU, which is possible under Article 50, after all. They may also change their policies, slowing down or halting the process of abandoning democracy, also under the influence of public opposition to the prospect of leaving the EU. I have to admit, however, that in the case of the Polish government such a scenario is unlikely; these are irrational people, completely obsessed with power at any price, power without time and without limits. A third scenario, which is also plausible, is that the democratic countries of the EU will move forward, integrating more and more, and leaving the recalcitrant free riders on the sidelines. The “dodgers” will therefore not participate in further projects that strengthen integration, nor will they receive funds, which will be particularly painful for those currently in power in Poland. Polish people want to be in the EU. If they didn’t, PiS would have succeeded in Polexit long ago, but even PiS voters are in favor of Poland’s presence in the EU.
But won’t such pressure from EU institutions, which are already criticized in the government media for obliging Poland to follow rules that are against its interest, paradoxically increase the number of votes for supporters of authoritarianism?
I think that only the hard right-wing electorate, that is, 30-something per cent of voters, is susceptible to this big lie served to Poles every day by government propaganda. Whereas, we are not dealing with communism anymore, when censorship and the lack of present-day mass media technologies enabled such lies to be hidden for a long time and effectively. Today we have free media that make this impossible. That is why the authorities have tried, so far without success, to liquidate or take over private television broadcaster TVN, which is sympathetic to the opposition; it is also why state oil company PKN Orlen bought the Polska Presse network of local printed media. All this is being done to deprive Poles of access to reliable information and diverse opinions. As long as Poles have access to free media, they can choose. For such a state of affairs to change, for the majority of society to believe in the nonsense the government is serving us, something really bad would have to happen on the media market. Those in power are trying, fortunately without success, to convince Poles that there is some kind of war going on with their country. It is hard to be surprised by this strategy because everyone knows that in conditions of war, conditions of external threat, the citizens gather around the authorities, whatever they are. But Polish society is still open and civil and such tricks simply will not work. The majority will not buy it. Therefore, if today the Polish authorities announced a referendum on EU membership or sent an Article 50 note to Brussels informing the EU about Polexit, we would have a revolt in the country. The government would fall the next day and those in power know this well, so they are not going ahead with it. Therefore, I don’t think that the possible imposition of hard conditions by the EU will bring an increase in the United Right’s popularity. On the contrary, I think that more Poles would see through it, would notice how harmful Warsaw’s policy toward the EU is to themselves, and that the Polish government is to blame and not the institutions of the European community.
You mentioned an external threat; in this regard, does the current migration crisis and events on the Polish-Belarusian border work in favor of authoritarian governance?
In the short term, yes. Any government in Europe today that would defend its borders against an attack mounted by Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko, who is trying to destabilize the situation in Europe, would enjoy the support of the vast majority of citizens. Thus, Lukashenko’s actions became a special treat, a real godsend for PiS. Hence their current fury after Europe jointly resolved this crisis by diplomatic means and without the participation of the Polish authorities, or at least seems to be on its way to resolving it. This took away PiS’ argument about the steadfast Polish defenders guarding the European border. Hence the visible rage of the prime minister, president and ministers, who are happy with a situation in which people - refugees - are dying on the border, but they can flex their muscles. Besides, the border crisis made it possible to obscure what was going on in the country: rampant inflation, failure to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, new scandals constantly being uncov-
Viktor Orban - owner
of a private state?, Photo PAP
Marine Le Pen - a troublesome
ally of the Polish right, Photo PAP
ered, etc. Totalitarianisms always support each other; what the Polish government did favored Lukashenko, what he did favored the Polish authoritarian government. But it is over; democracies have this in common that they seek dialogue: conflicts are resolved through negotiation, seeking a compromise. Meanwhile, an autocratic government will never go for such a solution because it is reluctant to compromise by its very nature.
Is it possible today to predict the future of this Polish authoritarianism? What path do you think those in power will follow in the next two years, i.e. until the next elections?
Always before an election, Jaroslaw Kaczyński [the leader of PiS] would suddenly turn into a gentle sheep, good-natured, liberal, and democratic. But the elections are far away, and, in my opinion, many more bad things will happen. This is perfectly obvious when we look at the new bills currently planned by the ruling right wing. Their content shows that PiS wants to rule for many decades, to create a state according to its own rules. Take, for example, the Polish Deal, the new flagship program of economic and social transformation. Soon everyone will come to pay for these sick ideas, and then the next generations will pay. Poles are not aware how expensive these generous gifts from the state will turn out to be, e.g. social spending inflated to unbelievable proportions. Unfortunately, the policy of such handouts brings positive effects for those in power. In a normal country with such a number of scandals revealed on a daily basis, the cabinet would not last long; in Poland, voters clearly do not want to see this, busy counting the bonuses they get today on credit that will be repaid by their children and grandchildren. A certain desensitization has occurred, and the success of this tactic of the government indicates that it will spoil everything that can be spoiled in the country until the end of its term: the economy, the law, morality... The quality of the opposition is also a problem; it is not in a particularly good position today in terms of its ability to act, but the fact that it is divided in a way that is dangerous for itself, that it is losing its instinct for self-preservation, is truly difficult to comprehend. The left-wing parties are now doing their best to prevent a conservative-liberal coalition [also in the opposition, stronger than the left wing] from taking power. They seem to directly prefer a situation in which PiS continues to rule. If the whole opposition, not necessarily uniting but running in two or three blocks, ran in the elections against the United Right, there could be a change of the ruling team. But so far there is nothing to suggest this. Therefore, if the next elections were fair and really free, and the opposition behaved reasonably, the system in power today would have to lose. But even so, the toxin after two terms of PiS would remain for a long time, including its representative in the person of the head of state, armed with a pen with which to sign - or not - new laws and regulations serving to reform the state after the rule of the right wing. This reform will be a truly Herculean task. Repairing the demolished legal system or the enormous damage to the economy will take years. At the same time, the defeated PiS will remain in the parliament, in local authorities and in the media, and together with its president will strongly obstruct this repair, which will again cause confusion among voters. In terms of propaganda, the right wing in power today has proved to be phenomenally effective. Like the Bolsheviks in Russia in the past, however, it has only succeeded in brainwashing citizens and organizing an apparatus of coercion. It has botched everything else. It is therefore impossible to predict what will happen at the ballot box in two years.
