An interview with Jan Olszewski
Jan Olszewski gained his reputation in Poland
as a human rights lawyer, having defended political dissidents since the
1960s. He was a top adviser to Lech Walesa and the Solidarity trade union
movement in the 1980s. Olszewski was Poland's third prime minister after
the collapse of the Communist government in 1989. He held the position
from December 1991 to May 1992. In Poland's September 1993 elections, Olszewski's
political alliance, The Movement for the Republic did not receive the 5
percent threshold vote needed for representation in the Polish Parliament.
Multinational Monitor: What sort of economic system
do you envision for Poland?
Olszewski: There is talk of a free market, a market economy,
but a free market can mean many different things. It will mean one thing
in Sweden, another in Brazil, and yet something else in Nigeria. Now it
certainly has to mean something else if it is introduced to countries held
back by the remnants of communism, like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, not to mention
Romania and Bulgaria. We certainly are aiming to build a market economy, but this has to be,
out of necessity, something other than a system identical to that, for
instance, of the United States, or perhaps even of Western Europe.
MM: Given the external pressures, does Poland have any real
chance of creating some alternative system?
Olszewski: Obviously, we are gravitating to the
European Community, its defined economic structure, and ultimately the
same model. But attaining this model cannot be done in a single leap, as
was attempted in Poland in 1989, specifically the program of the Balcerowicz
group [Olszewski replaced Balcerowicz as Poland's prime minister in December
1991], that is, the plan postulated by Jeffrey Sachs. This kind of attempt
was undertaken and it has ended unsuccessfully. You cannot do that with
one quick, very radical move; this is a question of the entire process
of transformation, taking place over a long period, and certain elements
in this transformation are preexisting structures. It is not possible to
part with these structures overnight. They will determine the method of
restructuring as well.
MM: How do you propose transforming the old state-run industries?
Olszewski: Part of the huge state industry system
is completely absurd. Economically, it was tied to the Soviet war system,
it worked for the needs of the Soviet military complex. Obviously this
part of industry cannot be preserved. But we cannot just abandon the greater
portion of heavy industry, nor can we lead it to complete ruin. We have
to try to somehow transform what can be saved.
Obviously, this requires a considerable amount of money. Either this
money comes from abroad, which makes the transformation easier and quicker,
or we have to find money here, which slows down the whole process considerably.
But, in any case, the change cannot be carried out overnight.
In my opinion, the most rational way is to maintain some form
of a mixed economy. The state cannot suddenly repudiate its responsibility
for existing enterprises. In some instances, like in the city of Mielec
[a city in southern Poland with a population of approximately 50,000 people],
unprofitable enterprises have to be supported, because entire cities depend
on them. We cannot say that overnight we are liquidating them, because
we would be liquidating entire cities. That would be an utter social catastrophe.
MM: Could you elaborate on what is happening in places like
Mielec?
Olszewski: The issue is that people in Mielec have
been working for the past three years in this enterprise. Theoretically,
they are working, since for two weeks they work and for two weeks they
are on furlough, and they end up with a third of their wages. This enterprise
cannot be closed because a whole city depends on it; but, at the same time,
it has no reason to exist in the long term, since it was intended to produce
airplanes for the Soviet Union, which no longer needs them. This industry
has to be transformed, but it cannot be done instantaneously since there
is not enough money. So they are making changes gradually, they are manufacturing
different [non-military] products, some of which are being exported to
the United States. The state cannot repudiate its responsibility for this
enterprise and just pass it off to either the city or the workers or someone
else. We simply have to assure these people and this city some minimum
of existence. And Mielec is only one of numerous examples.
If this were a situation such as East Germany, where there had
been an inflow of West German capital that takes over those enterprises
for free, and West German companies agreed to it, then very well. But here
we do not have anyone who would take over these operations for the state.
Foreign capital will not do it because, for the most part, our enterprises
are not attractive investment options. The problem is not one of immediate
changes in ownership, but of changes in the way the economy is run.
Foreign capital investment is very much needed in Poland. But
it is needed in a sensible manner. Otherwise, if it is done in order to
drive enterprises to bankruptcy and then buy them out for nothing, and
it turns out that Polish industry is bought out in this way, then this
is a different kind of capitalism than that in Western Europe or the United
States. It is the kind of capitalism you find in Nigeria.
MM: So what you fear is neocolonialist relations between the
West and Poland?
Olszewski: Exactly. A country dominated by neocolonialist
capitalism could not enter as an equal partner into the European Community.
It would simply be unqualified; it would remain as a kind of marginal area
of Europe, a kind of hinterland.
MM: In this scenario, Poland would relate to Europe the way
Mexico relates to the United States?
Olszewski: Right. Just as Mexico will always be
for the United States both a source of profit for certain corporations
and at the same time a danger, since masses of poor, uneducated people
flow in [to the United States from Mexico]. This would be the same kind
of thing on the border of the European Community. But [foreign investment]
is just one aspect of the transformation of the public sector. It cannot
take place on the principle of uncontrolled privatization, because it would
then lead to this kind of Mexican structure.
MM: What kinds of problems does Poland face in transforming
other elements of the economy?
Olszewski: The second problem besides industry is
agriculture. In Poland, it looks different than in other socialist countries.
Private ownership was preserved here and the situation is a little better.
We do not have to break up collective farms and rebuild the entire agricultural
system. The basic infrastructure is already there. But it is extremely
backward. For 40 years private farming was treated as something that should
disappear. Now it has to be rebuilt and to be brought up to the same level
as the West.
However, this cannot be achieved on the basis of free trade -
direct competition between our farmers and Western farmers - since our
agricultural sector would be ruined immediately. It will not withstand
this competition. It has to be protected and simultaneously the state has
to plan its gradual reconstruction. There must be a plan as to the optimal
size of these farms, what kind of model we are aiming for, and for gradually
eliminating, through appropriate policy, the smallest farms, while finding
other work in the country for these people, in servicing the larger farms,
for instance.
There is also a third problem facing the economy: the base for
an authentic free market is not huge capital, it is the middle class. But
small business was destroyed here, and this social class has to be rebuilt.
The Balcerowicz plan has a different emphasis; it is as if huge speculative
capital came to be preferred, making itself rich through swindles, in part
with the cooperation of the former nomenklatura, which, taking advantage
of its influences has also been taking possession of state property. Policy
toward small and medium-sized business has been and continues to be restrictive.
Once a middle class arises, we will be able to say that a market
has really been recreated. Then, even the entry of big foreign capital
will not be such a danger.
MM: You met with World Bank representatives in April 1992.
How did they view the situation you have just described?
Olszewski: They were clearly aware of the failure
of the Balcerowicz plan. But I did not have the impression that they were
entirely clear how the economic reconstruction process should proceed and
what kind of model is most rational for Eastern Europe. I did not come
away with the impression that they had any vision of such a model, but
it is difficult to demand it of them, since really neither the World Bank
nor the International Monetary Fund have ever dealt with this kind of problem.
I have the impression that it is as if they look at these countries
the same way they look at the underdeveloped countries of the Third World.
But this is a mistake. Because this is a completely different kind of society
and a different kind of economy. In one sense we are in a markedly worse
situation; for instance, even in the poorest Latin American countries there
has always been something in the way of a market infrastructure, buyers,
artisans, a certain group with private initiative. It may have been very
primitive, but it was there.
Here, we do not have this. And we do not have people with the
mentality to immediately begin these kinds of activities. We still have
to build this, in a certain sense.
On the other hand, we have an industrial base, although it is
partly useless. And we have a working class that has a certain degree of
professional competency and some general level of education - which is
lacking in the Third World. This labor force, at the moment, is confronting
a situation where it is not useful. But it can and somehow must be utilized,
because it has completely different social ambitions than, say, the peon
class in Latin America. People from the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund do not seem to grasp these specifics of the situation
in Eastern Europe; they do not seem to understand that you have to find
a completely different solution. That was my impression.
MM: But this leads back to the question: how do you escape
from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund?
Olszewski: This depends precisely on how the multilateral institutions
and the West understand their interests here. They have to decide on one
thing: whether they support their economic interests here or whether they
support a democratic system. The two are incompatible. If it is exclusively
their economic interests, then they have to consent to a dictatorship here.
If they want political democracy, then they have to agree to a market system
that is built gradually so that every fundamental and important social
class gets a share. This means that Western capitalists have to understand
and they have to agree that they will not extract huge, immediate profits
from Poland.
gain - osiągnąć, zdobywać
defend - bronić (np. swoich praw), bronić (kogoś)
dissident - odmienny
trade union - związek zawodowy
movement - ruch (grupa ludzi)
collapse - zawalenie się, runięcie (np. budynku, tunelu)
threshold - próg (mieszkania), przedsionek; granica (np. wytrzymałości)
what sort of - cóż to za (użwane w złości)
envision - przewidywać; wyobrażać sobie
introduce - przedstawiać (np. znajomych)
hold back - zataić, utrzymać w tajemnicy; powstrzymać, zatrzymać
remnant - pozostająca część (czegoś), pozostałość (np. świetności lub cywilizacji)
mention - wzmianka
necessity - artykuł pierwszej potrzeby; konieczność, potrzeba
gravitate - ciążyć, grawitować
gravitate to sth - ciążyć ku czemuś; skłaniać się ku czemuś
ultimately - ostatecznie, w końcu
attain - zdobyć, zdobywać, osiągnąć, osiągać (np. pozycję zawodową, szczęście)
leap - przeskoczyć, skakać
attempt - próbować, usiłować
undertake - podjąć się, przedsięwziąć
pre-existing - uprzedni
propose - proponować, zaproponować
state-run - państwowy (np. firma)
tied - zawiązany; wiązany; spętany
portion - część, partia, fragment
considerable - znaczący, znaczny, niemały (np. znaczący postęp, znaczna kwota, znaczny dystans)
carry out - przeprowadzić coś, zrealizować coś, wykonywać coś
enterprise - przedsięwzięcie, projekt
unprofitable - niekorzystny, bezproduktywny, bezskuteczny (np. dyskusja)
liquidate - likwidować, zamordować; spłacać, regulować (dług)
utter - kompletny (np. porażka), całkowity (np. szczerość), bezdenny (np. rozpacz)
catastrophe - katastrofa
furlough przepustka (np. z wojska), tymczasowy urlop
instantaneously - natychmiast
gradually - stopniowo, powoli
repudiate - odrzucać, odmawiać (np. zapłaty)
assure - zapewnić, upewniać (np. w celu pocieszenia kogoś)
inflow - napływ (np. wody, gotówki, dóbr)
manner - sposób (np. zachowania)
bankruptcy - bankructwo, niewypłacalność
remain - pozostać (np. w pozycji siedzącej)
hinterland - zaplecze; strefa przyległa (np. do portu, do miasta)
principle - zasada, reguła (moralna, wewnętrzne przekonanie, że coś jest właściwe bądź nie)
agriculture - rolnictwo
break up - rozbić się, pęlać (np. talerz); rozpaść się na części
collective - spółdzielnia; zbiorowość społeczna
backward - tylny, wsteczny; opóźniony w rozwoju, zacofany (gospodarczo, technologicznie)
treat - brać, rozważać, traktować
ruined - zrujnowany, zniszczony
withstand - wytrzymywać (np. próbę czasu), być odpornym (na coś)
simultaneously - jednocześnie, równocześnie
gradual - stopniowy
reconstruction - odbudowa(np. miasta), przebudowa, rekonstrukcja
appropriate - odpowiedni, stosowny, właściwy
emphasis - nacisk, szczególna uwaga
speculative - oparty na domysłach (o teorii, poglądzie); spekulacyjny (o kapitale, inwestycji)
swindle - oszustwo, szwindel, szachrajstwo
influence - wpływ, oddziaływanie
arise - nadarzać się, powstawać, pojawiać się (o problemie, trudnej sytuacji)
underdeveloped - opóźnione w rozwoju, zacofany gospodarczo
artisan - rzemieślnik
somebody is lacking in something - komuś brak czegoś (np. odwagi)
peon - czeladnik;robotnik rolny
grasp - chwyt, uścisk; władza, uciskanie
precisely - dokładnie, precyzyjnie
multilateral - wielostronny
incompatible - rozbieżny, niedobrany, sprzeczny (np. o charakterzach, poglądach)
exclusively - wyłącznie, jedynie
dictatorship - dyktatura
źródło: http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/09/mm0993_09.html
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz