I have a special interest in both Poland and Hungary through family connections and have been watching with dismay how the former ‘brothers in arms’ of many historical battles together have in the last decade gone in opposite directions. Poland and Hungary have been in the international media for very different reasons.
International media reported widely how Viktor Orbán’s obstructive behaviour blocked decisions on support for Ukraine. In contrast, news about Poland’s election results ousting the last semi-autocratic government was met with a great sigh of relief.
Roundtable on Poland and Hungary
Under the umbrella of Grassroots for Europe Council we hold a series of roundtables and webinars on different national perspectives on developments in the EU and the UK. The online roundtable event of 9 January, with a panel of Polish and Hungarian VIPs and journalists, looked at the current political situation in the two countries.
In addition to getting an insight into their politics, we were also interested to hear how they viewed Britain since Brexit and what their attitude was to the UK eventually wanting to rejoin the EU.
Part 1: Poland’s way back to democracy
In this, the first instalment of two articles, I want to look at Poland‘s election where the semi-autocratic ‘Law and Justice Party’ PiS has finally been ousted by a pro-EU, democratic coalition led by Donald Tusk’s ‘Civic Coalition Party’. We were very lucky to have Professor Danuta Hübner and Visegrad Insight editor Wojciech Przybylski on the Grassroots for Europe roundtable panel representing the Polish side.
Poland’s election explained by Hübner
Dr Hübner is a Polish politician, diplomat, economist and Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Among many other roles, she has served as a government minister for regional policy (2004-9) and has been an MEP since 2009. In the European Parliament, among other roles, since 2014 she served as chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Since 1971 she has also been a professor at the Warsaw School of Economics.
Professor Hübner opened her remarks with a reassurance that the majority of members of the European Parliament have not changed their minds about the nonsense of Brexit and with an invitation for us to continue sharing our views and news with them.
According to Prof Hübner, Poland was very lucky that it did not reach the total break up of liberal democracy. She described how the killing of democracy by PiS began with the judiciary and then the takeover of public media. Laws were adopted at night without public consultation, signed in the morning by the president and then sent to the corrupted Constitutional Tribunal. The people were not consulted in the eight years of this approach to lawmaking.
But there was still an ombudsman and there were local governments uniting in defence of democracy. And, most importantly, there was a strong rise of civil society. Women went onto the streets under black umbrellas. Young climate activists protested on the streets. A kind of network for democracy has been developed based on the solidarity of different groups that became a canvas and harbinger of a rejuvenation of democracy in Poland.
Civil society to the rescue
Prof Hübner quoted Jacques Derrida who said that democracy cannot be static and that it makes sense if it serves to defend other values. Civil society came out to defend women’s rights, and they defended victims of the regime. When Ukrainian refugees came to the Polish border from Belarus, the organised civil movement was ready to take care of them. According to Prof Hübner, this civil society of Poland is also fit to play a creative role in the future of national politics and in the reconstruction of democracy.
But still, the destruction lasted long enough to damage some of the democratic space in the political system. The centrist parties have been deeply affected during those years of the authoritarian assault on the Polish political system. So much so that, before the election, it was not so clear whether all the fundamental values such as human rights or democracy in general were still shared by the overwhelming majority in Polish society. Many Poles, despite having differing views or different ideologies, thankfully were still embracing of democracy and certain values.
Tusk: a living example of democratic values
Tusk’s electoral strategy was actually a living example of democratic values which were used in the campaign as a political method. People were inspired to engage and participate, and the electoral victory of democratic over autocratic values has given them renewed hope.
Now the new Polish government faces the challenging task of restoring democracy in the country. The country’s current president, Andrzej Duda, is a supporter of the former government and has the power to hinder some of the vital changes needed.
Poland’s PiS is adapting badly to the role of opposition, reacting with fury to moves by the new coalition government to fire PiS functionaries from the public media, while two of the party’s ex-ministers have been sent to jail for past abuses of power.
Tusk’s win is good news for democracy and an especially big relief to the EU who, in a pivotal election year, is facing challenges by right-wing elements gaining influence in several EU member states.
Visegrad Insight editor’s view
Visegrad 4 is a regional grouping, a cultural and political alliance of four Central European countries: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. The alliance aims to advance cooperation in military, economic, cultural and energy affairs, and to further their integration with the EU. Wojciech Przybylski, the next panellist to appear at the Grassroots roundtable event, is the current editor of Visegrad Insight:
“The main Central European platform of debate and analysis that generates future policy directions for Europe and transatlantic partners. It was established in 2012 by the Res Publica Foundation, an independent think tank in Warsaw with its flagship Polish language publications Res Publica Nowa and New Europe 100.”
Przybylski’s first point is that there are strong fundamentals for regional cooperation that are based on citizens, people-to-people contacts and the demand for making Europe a great space – liveable and free of nationalism.
Visegrad cooperation, as expressed in the Visegrad Declaration of 1991 is the strongest European and pro-Western declaration of societies coming from this part of Europe. It expresses hope and belief in a common European project, good neighbourly relations, the intention to overcome nationalism, respect for minorities and the protection of nature and climate.
Visegrad cooperation
Visegrad cooperation started by successful coordination on the withdrawal of the Red Army, which led to a common ambition of the three countries Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary, to push forward with their ambition of joining first NATO and then the European Union.
This geostrategic focal point and ambition was based on shared beliefs. It didn’t materialise immediately in the cooperation of Visegrad, but was nurtured as a sort of kindergarten of coming together as three nations with difficult pasts striving to overcome national differences. In the meantime, as Chechoslovakia was divided, Slovakia became the fourth member.
The Visegrad Group remains functional primarily because of the EU. The nature of EU decision-making and the necessity for coordination between the council meetings of the prime ministers or ministries at EU Council level made the format of regional cooperation not exclusive to just one grouping, but a multi-level or multi-directional coordination.
The cooperation of Visegrad was revived around 2008 when the common position was to mobilise the EU against the gas crisis that Russia had initiated. This position held ground for quite a long time even when Orbán took over the government of Hungary.
Orbán changed the Visegrad 4
When the migration crisis hit the front pages of the news, around 2014/15, Orbán stirred against the main narrative of the Visegrad Group, challenging the official EU position. In Przybyski’s view, this was not necessarily a bad move altogether, as there was a U-turn on the forced relocation programme of migrants by most of the EU countries. Visegrad at this point was still operating at a high level of impact and influence and bringing some perspectives to the EU which were necessary.
However, shortly after the 2015 elections in Poland, the new government started to move away from Polish cooperation in the EU and rather follow Orbán’s practices. The illiberal government not only started dismantling the democratic order domestically but also followed a chaotic hypocrisy in foreign policy and international relations.
Sadly, that kind of approach has degraded the Visegrad Group’s cooperation to the point at which we are today, which in Przybylski’s view is pretty much dysfunctional. By now, there is no appetite for cooperation with Hungary in the Czech Republic or in Slovakia, not to mention Poland.
Ostracise Orbán
The only way to move forward with the Visegrad Group’s cooperation, building on the solid foundation from 1981 is to ostracise Hungary within the Visegrad 4, leaving it with an empty chair under Viktor Orbán. There is a precedent dating back to the exclusion of Vladimír Mečiar and other autocrats from Slovakia from Visegrad cooperation until Slovakia reinstated democratic principles.
It’s something Przybylski has been publicly advocating throughout the state years and still believes it is the way forward. For Hungarians, this sort of ostracism, especially from Poland, means a lot because of this personal historical connection and symbolic emotional connection that the countries have.
Losing the shared memory of the past
The worrying thing is that, besides civil society, good-spirited citizens, and opinion polls, political strategies have driven Poland and Hungary so far apart that they do not have a common understanding of shared strategic culture. The countries are losing this shared memory of the past. Polish strategic culture is shaped around anti-imperialism and fighting for the country’s independence in post-Imperial Europe.
This is naturally in alliance with the anti-Imperial spirits of the Hungarian opposition to the past oppression. Now, the problem with the political strategy of Orbán is a sense of disconnect between Poland and Hungary on a fundamental level. Przybylski expressed the hope that Orbán will be removed before this rift grows insurmountably.
How do Poland and Visegrad view the prospect of the UK rejoining the EU?
According to Przybylski, Britain, overall, is Poland’s strategic partner for the reasons of security. Secondly, and importantly, within the European Union, whatever government the UK would have, joining the EU would be to Poland’s and Central Europe’s benefit. It would allow the Polish government to manoeuvre better between the two dominant governments in the EU, France and Germany.
Why are Poland and Hungary’s positions relevant to Britain?
People who decry the current state of Central European politics should be aware of the parallels in present-day Britain. As in Poland under PiS, we can see clear and continuing signs of populism and nationalism. The current UK government is undermining citizens’ rights and ignoring laws which protect democratic institutions. We have clear attempts to undermine the judiciary with judges labelled ‘enemies of the people’ in the right-wing press and human rights lawyers are frequently criticised by populist politicians.
The current Rwanda Bill goes against a judgement by our own supreme court and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The government goes against international laws and long-standing international agreements like the UN Convention of Refugees which are enshrined to safeguard the vulnerable. They even suggest leaving the ECHR which protects everybody’s human rights and was mainly drafted by British lawyers in the wake of the second world war and the Holocaust.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether under this government the UK is still a liberal democracy and, if not, whether our civil society is going to follow Poland’s example in the upcoming general election.
