The short answer applies to almost all the countries of Central Europe that experienced those upheavals: the history of the battles before 1989 matters less and less to voters. For them, the accelerated pace of change makes the last 12 years feel more like a whole new era than simply a new chapter in their lives. In Poland, the latest elections represent the second or third turn of the wheel during this era. Already in 1993, the former communists defied the predictions of their political demise and staged their first comeback, winning a plurality and putting together a series of shaky coalition governments. Now they are still 15 seats short of an outright parliamentary majority, but their leader, Leszek Miller–who will be the next prime minister–will be in a much stronger position to rule, even if he has to function as the head of a minority government.
It’s hardly surprising that Poles are voting politicians in or out of office on the basis of their performance since 1989, largely disregarding their pre-1989 resumes. Despite the remarkable economic growth of Poland throughout most of the 1990s, the most recent Solidarity government was ineffective in countering a dramatic slowdown in the economy, a ballooning budget deficit and a jump in unemployment to 16 percent; it was also plagued by a series of highly damaging corruption scandals. For their part, the former communists appear genuinely committed to promoting fiscal responsibility and the country’s bid to join the European Union. The electoral battle wasn’t so much over what direction the country should take as over who can more competently lead it there.
Fair enough. But there’s something troubling in the rush to relegate recent history to ancient history. For the Solidarity camp, this has meant a repetition of the mistakes of the early 1990s, when its internal bickering and factionalism allowed the left to take over. Once again, the right split into several warring parties, while the ex-communists stayed firmly united. On the left, there’s a creeping arrogance as memories fade of the injustices of the old system, a feeling that ex-communists don’t have to be contrite about anything. Consider what happened when George W. Bush met Miller during his visit to Warsaw in June. As a well-placed source recalls, the following exchange took place: “As a man of the left, I am pleased to see you care about people,” Miller told the American president.
“Well, conservatives care about people,” Bush replied.
Instead of taking the hint and backing off, Miller continued: “But the left cares about people more.” This from a man who faithfully served a Communist Party that made such a mockery of “the workers’ state” that the workers led the revolt against it.
For a far more egregious example, travel a short hop away from Poland. In Berlin, the Party of Democratic Socialism, the direct successor of the East German Communist Party, may end up in a coalition government in that city after elections are held there later this month. Yet the party has continued to refuse to apologize for building the Berlin wall 40 years ago.
One of the supreme ironies is that history no longer matters as much in countries that were once obsessed with history. Communist regimes wrote bogus histories to justify their existence, and their opponents worked passionately to expose their lies and, in the process, bring the old system down. They succeeded, but the new system allows memory to fade so quickly that such chutzpah often goes unpunished and even unchallenged. Let the politicians fight their battles over the issues that matter today. But a minimal sense of history should be preserved. And it should inspire a minimal sense of humility.
