Celebrated by the Prime Minister Tusk “strategic partnership” between Poland and China must raise a smile of pity. Leaving aside the scope of cooperation (bigger Chinese investments are located in much smaller Hungary) the enormity and potential of both countries are incomparable.

We could develop our “strategic partnership” equally well with Costa Rica, so adored by Doda[1]. But the visit of Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of China, calls for reflection not only about the future of the role of China in the world and Europe, but also about the nature of Chinese political and economic expansion. The Chinese know that money rules the world, a man from the West in particular. And they use this knowledge ruthlessly. Portugal or Holland used to spread their political and economic influences through trading posts. If it wasn’t for the Second Opium War, the Chinese wouldn’t open their harbors for trade with Great Britain and France. In today’s world of global fund the Chinese enter the Western world when everything is set. They use the infrastructure, which for years served to strengthen the center by exploitation of periphery (often, but not always the exploitation was followed by civilizational progress), free sailing, which is guaranteed by the global rival: the United States and commercial treaties created in the name of rules strange to the traditionally closed Middle Kingdom. China fit perfectly in the world to whose creation it did not contribute. What is more, the world from which it tried to ineffectively isolate itself for so many years. This tactics didn’t pay off. Although China didn’t become a colony, it was a victim of many games played by powers of Great Britain, France, Japan and Russia, what for a proud country for which foreigners are synonymous to barbarians was humiliating for sure. In the world of empires, where geopolitical business dominated over economic one, China perhaps would not be allowed to develop to such an extent like today. But today the lord and master is money, unlimited consumption, markets – here China wins due to its demography.

picture: Rene Mensen

The Soviet Union used to catch up with the delays regarding the West by extensive industrialization irrespective of human and economic costs, which for years caused shivers of terror among American and European Kremlinologists announcing the lead of Moscow in the Cold War race. The Chinese have drawn conclusions from rise and fall of the communist “older brother”. Authoritarianism is useful for forcing projects, which eliminate the advantage gained for years by others – the Chinese authorities engage the whole country in the cheaper and more effective export, reducing the internal consumption, accumulating capital, devaluating RMB, that is yuan. If it wasn’t for a strict authoritarian system the revolt (in comparison to which the Boxer rebellion is a piece of cake) would have been incited a long time ago. At the same time, China has abandoned the inefficient command economy system while keeping the control over the key sectors of the economy, land or banking sector. Any form of not only oppositional activity, but also the one independent of the power, is violently suppressed (student protests in 1989, Falun Gong ten years later, protests of Tibetans before the Beijing Olympics in 2008). Gorbachev is an antimaster of the Chinese political thought, any loosening of the screws can finish like in the Soviet Union, this is in a big and sudden decomposition. And China, although it makes an impression of very homogenous, in fact it is a cluster of many different cultures, dominated by the Han people. Fear of the return of  the 3^rd century war of Three Kingdoms, as a consequence of which the divided China became a victim of conquest by despised nomads, must be deeply rooted in the Chinese ruling elite.

American dream is based on the assumption that any rogue with a little ingenuity and a holy pile of luck can become a millionaire. Chinese dream (in the West) means that you don’t have to be a millionaire to live like one. Anyway, it is very easy to get the impression of such a life – unfortunately another members of the middle class get the impression too, which spoils the pleasure of possessing a new “necessary” gadget and means the necessity to buy another one. It is the mechanism well known by drug dealers, give them some and they will come back for more.

Translation: Kamila Kwiecień

The Prime Minister has an incomparably greater knowledge of the principles of “kicking the ball” than the chairman of the Law and Justice party does. Yet the difference doesn’t really matter here as the whole issue is not about football. It is about the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who is now imprisoned in a penal colony in Kharkov.

The Chairman may be accused of many things, but not of being unable to do politics. He can’t be  accused of acting on impulses either. The time of calling for boycott was brilliantly calculated. Chapeau bas for the Law and Justice intelligence in Brussels…The chairman had called for boycott and all the European Commissioners followed him a few hours later.

Of course, Kaczyński’s calling for boycott is as cynical as Tusk saying that boycotting is a mistake. But leaving the cynicism of the national policy aside, it is the chairman who is right. Morally and politically…

I won’t dwell on the moral aspect – it is obvious. The winner – Viktor Yanukovych – uses the age-old Eastern method to eliminate the defeated. I am not saying that Yulia Tymoshenko is a goody two-shoes, but punishing her for the gas deal with Russia, which she signed while being under pressure from EU countries (including Poland), is seeing the justice from a Monty Python distance. It would happen anywhere and in any legal system. It would be extremely funny if it was not really happening.

Politically speaking, the reaction of the European Commissioners, Germany, Austria and some other countries came too late. Tymoshenko wasn’t put into jail yesterday and her tragicomic trial took place a long time ago. Poland, as a co-host of Euro 2012, is in a very difficult position. But if you start business with people like Mr. Surkis and you do it on his conditions, you can’t expect that you will play children’s games. Whatever you think, it is better to remember that our life is not finished when Euro 2012 is finished and we’d better off doing something that is commonly called foreign policy.

Radosław Sikorski has underestimated the importance of the post-Soviet countries since he took up his office. Staying faithful to the Piast concept, he can see only Russia (without spectacular successes as the latest concepts of Russian generals showed) and Germany (which, colloquially speaking, double-crossed him over the Ukraine-related issue). The Party of Regions, the ruling party in Ukraine, always has and always will be pro-Russian and no wooing of our government will change this. All the support the persecuted opposition gets is from Germany, and Poland…

You can impute double standards to everybody – to the European Commission for suddenly finding Yanukovych repulsive without noticing Putin’s crimes in Chechnya or Georgia; to Merkel for her hypocrisy that Chinese policy in Tibet does not bother her. You can do this. But does it really matter? Does it justify Polish indifference to what is going on with Yulia Tymoshenko?

Ukraine is our neighbor, whether we want it or not, and more important for us is what is happening over there than the election of Hollande for the President of France. By the way – the way Tusk treated this candidate during his visit in Poland was another “success” of the ruling party.

We were together with the Ukrainians at the time of the “Orange Revolution”. It seemed to be the time when we could all forget about the evil curse of our twentieth-century neighbourhood. As a society, we supported Ukraine on its way to Europe and on a governmental level – until the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was taken over by “the Piast” under the leadership of Sikorski.

Opinion polls show that Yanukovych’s Party of Regions gets 23% of the votes. The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s Front for Change have 27% of the votes. These are the two forces that can win the next parliamentary elections in Ukraine and dictate the direction of its policy. Sikorski, Tusk, Euro 2012 are the reasons that none of these options may be helpful for Poland. One way or another – we are in an offside position.

 Translation: Adam Intrys

Russia has undergone massive changes since Vladimir Putin came to power. The new president managed to normalize the situation in national politics and economy. The reforms, however, were in favor of those who cooperated with the KGB, such as Putin. The president and his followers seized power at first. They struggled to weaken the position of other influential people – businessmen and local elites. Then, when power was in the hands of Putin, the property of elites was brought under state control. Power converted into assets and capital. The Yukos case proves that.

Peculiar relationship between state and society was also established. The authorities offered normalization, welfare programmes and the improvement of material status in exchange for political loyalty or passiveness.

But the abovementioned approach has proven to be unsuccessful. Those who are wealthy, well-educated and aware of citizens’ rights do not accept ongoing reforms. The Russian strive to achieve something more.

In spite of major economic and social changes (which take place not only in Russia), the authorities have nothing new to offer. State Duma elections and presidential elections proved that. The ruling class presented previous goals and rhetoric. The same people came to power. Among the followers of Putin are his reliable collaborators. They are influential although some of them do not work as civil servants. The average citizen is not familiarized with the surnames of people who belong to the ruling class. It shows that the authorities have negative attitude towards the Russian.

But more and more citizens oppose such situation. It results from the access to the Internet (40% of the Russian use the Internet on everyday basis). The citizens add critical comments on the authorities. One may read numerous jokes about the ruling class. The Internet became a place where people exchange information and engage in various activities, such as the demonstration after elections. Protests helped opponents to understand that a great amount of people have similar opinion. They became united. Among the opponents there are well-educated people who achieved success. They, however, strive to achieve more. The protesters have already criticized the values present in Russian politics, the lawlessness of civil servants as well as the fact that there is little political and economic competition.

Now they must proceed. Opposition movements need to be official. The protesters have organized a number of unusual and creative happenings until recently. Nevertheless, such activities cannot last long. Long-term projects are essential. They would help the Russian to establish influential opposition.

photo: Maxim Trudolubov

There are many successful activists in Russia. A famous blogger and lawyer – Alexey Navalny – is one of the pioneers. The Russian regard him as the so-called idea bank. He founded the website rospil.info, which informs the citizens about the instances of corruption during public tenders. Navalny managed to persuade the Russian to finance his activity (the website is sponsored by the Internet users). He employed professional lawyers thanks to whom fraudulent transactions amounting to 40 billion RUB (about 1.3 billion USD) were foiled. Navalny also organized an action that aimed to monitor the presidential elections. Thousands of the citizens engaged in it. When it comes to more everyday problems, the activist called on the Russian to record information about the poor condition of roads which, according to Russian law, should be repaired by the local authorities within 37 days. And this often happens. The abovementioned action presents how social awareness evolves there – the citizens familiarize with Russian law (especially with bylaw) and demand the observance of it. Moreover, Navalny wants to establish the so-called Good Propaganda Machine. He attempts to gather volunteers who will spread self-contained information – an alternative to official propaganda – and talk with various people (e.g. neighbours or relatives) who watch public television. The propaganda comprises simple actions. The volunteers will have to post short and readable announcements on staircases or elevators. This will be a long-term action so it requires patience and persistence. But even such projects are likely to develop the political activity of the Russian.

One must remember that opposition movements require great experience. Nevertheless, it turns out that the protests have brought positive results recently. Local self-government elections prove that. In Moscow, it came as a surprise that 1/3 of mandates were given to candidates who do not cooperate with the authorities. The elections showed that the protesters are engaged in politics. They may achieve success. When it comes to the chairperson of the Moscow Council, independent councilors have already made an attempt to reject the applications of the candidates chosen by mayoralty. Such local events have a great influence on the Russian, who become aware that the national politics depend on them. Moreover, the authorities realized that the awareness of the citizens evolves. They must take oppositions movements into account and find more convincing arguments.

But opposition movements need to be governed by successful leaders. There is a few charismatic activists in Russia. The abovementioned Aleksey Navalny has already proven that he can achieve certain goals. What is more, Navalny is able to encourage people to protest and finance his activities. His decentralized initiatives have additional value – protesters act independently and nobody has to control or motivate them. Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Left Front movement, is another famous activist. Taking into consideration that the activist is uncompromising and radical, it would be hard to discuss politics with him. Udaltsov is known as a martyr because he has been arrested several times. Moreover, he often goes on a hunger-strike against the authorities. Vladimir Ryzkhov is different. He may be described as a moderate and reasonable oppositionist who has great experience in politics. Ryzkhov has been the member of the Russian Parliament for many years. He is also the leader of the Republican Party of the Russian Federation, which was proscribed in 2007.

27-year-old Maxim Katz – a councilor chosen in the local self-government elections in Moscow – is the youngest activist who has already achieved success in the media. He is likely to become the leader of a opposition movement one day. Katz is a professional poker player (he has made a fortune playing cards). The activist looks like a hipster and was brought up in Israel. “Some people advised me that I should change my surname, clothes, haircut and outlook in order to become a councilor. But it turned out to be completely unnecessary.”, Katz claimed during one of political rallies. He may motivate the Russian more than any political strategy.

It can be safely concluded that the Russian have recently engaged in local activities rather than street demonstrations. The mayor elections in Tolyatti and Yaroslavl as well as the political crisis connected with the mayor elections in Astrakhan prove that. The abovementioned events were accompanied by social activity (numerous citizens followed them) and media interest, both national and foreign. The local elections in October may also prove that the Russian are engaged in politics. What is more, the political arrangement which is dominated by the ruling party, i.e. the United Russia, may change then.

Translation: Aleksandra Kozłowska

over which it took media patronage.

From May 31 – June 2, the 2012 Wroclaw Global Forum will bring together important decision-makers and business leaders from the United States and Europe to discuss Central Europe’s role as a critical partner in US efforts to promote political, security and economic ties across the Atlantic. he 2012 Forum will include high-level presentations by top US and European political figures and business leaders including Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, former President of Poland Lech Walesa, as well as working sessions with leading experts, and a rich variety of networking and cultural opportunities.

Full programme of Forum can be found here (PDF file):

WroclawGlobalForum2012_Program

Registration form is available here.

Recognizing Poland’s unique role in spreading the message of Solidarity and Freedom around the world, the Wroclaw Global Forum is also the European home of the Atlantic Council’s Freedom Awards, which will be celebrated this year on the evening of June 1. The Freedom Awards recognize extraordinary individuals and organizations that defend and advance the cause of freedom.  Past awardees include: the Cuban dissident group the Ladies in White, Egyptian activist Esraa Abdel Fattah, Belarusian dissident Ales Byalyatski, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and Václav Havel, former President of Czechoslovakia. This year, we will present Freedom Awards to Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the USSR; the National Endowment for Democracy (represented by Carl Gershman); Emma Bonino, vice president of the Italian Senate and trustee of the Arab Democracy Foundation; and Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, former underground activist, foreign minister and chair of the International Council of the National Auschwitz Museum; along with other illustrious individuals on the evening of Friday, June 1.

More information here.

photo: en.wikipedia.org

Firstly, the Prime Minister set a clear and comprehensible direction. How did Mazowiecki know what he must do and how he must do it? “We need to restore mechanisms of normal political life in Poland (…) The principle of fight must be replaced by the principle of partnership” – he began. And he explained right away and with an incredible precision his idea of how a normal political life of our country should look like. Mazowiecki talked about the need for pluralism in politics as well as in the media, about the need for values but also about the country’s neutralism of beliefs, about the role of the church – as an important but withdrawn “stabilising” partner. After all the creators of that government didn’t have any models to draw from – they had to picture and work out standards of “normality” on their own, as they had spent their entire life “in a socialist experiment”. Of course, there were other countries in Western Europe, but the expose lacks traces of simple copying the western model. Certainly Mazowiecki’s words clearly relate to Europe as the natural historical and political gravitation for Poland – but it seems to be more strongly accentuated in the sense of values – and not the actual recipe for the way Poland should take to change. Until this day I cannot grasp how did the Prime Minister get such firm and reliable vision of the democracy towards which he aimed. One reads this expose as if Mazowiecki knew where Poland would be in twenty years.

Secondly, the awareness of where the centre of changes must be located. Mazowiecki seemed to feel at once that the change of the system cannot be “decreed” – that it shall not suffice to change the façade, to hang a new sign. He knew as well that the change won’t come from the outside – that the West won’t “make” this change. For sure he looked at the Western countries as allies but he saw the basic substance of the change in the Poles, in fellow citizens. He said then in August that from the perspective of Poland’s change the key idea is “to open the possibility of common and individual actions”. And he added: “Our own ingenuity, work and patience shall decide about our success. Our own exertion.” Relying on these words Mazowiecki already then saw the need for “fellow participation” as the fundamental value of a state and of a society. Obviously he also indicated the social consent for the reforms, still one may feel in his words that the Prime Minister really meant something more. He cared about building an entirely new model of the state based on people’s participation and inclusion in the political processes, about treating them as partners of the change, as subjects in the transformation and not as objects and passive audience. Mazowiecki must have taken these ideas from the experience of Solidarity. These words, then revolutionary, to this day constitute an up-to-date and fundamentally important matter. Today the practice of including citizens in the process of reforms, changes and broader in the process of governing is the basic challenge for us as the society as well as the barrier for a good government. Mazowiecki said it outright that the citizens must have the sense of freedom and safety as well as fellow participation. Taking a look at the recent political events in Poland – retirement benefits reform, protest in ACTA case or even upcoming EURO – there exists no more important subject for the government than developing the possibility of fellow partnership.

Thirdly and finally, Mazowiecki had an incredibly clear perception of the significance of reforms that await Poland and was able to see the key economic reform in a broader perspective. Noting the growing economy crisis in the end of the eighties – you may for sure state that it wasn’t difficult to identify the situation’s state of crisis. In his expose Mazowiecki appears to declare much more than only the economy reform – he is able to combine the economy with its social dimension. He knows how to describe the outcome of the reform precisely of where and to whom it will be painful and what problems shall result from that. Mazowiecki proposed the shape of market economy that is something more than a play of invisible hand of the market, that is something more than a technocratic capitalist system. When I read his words today, it seems to me, perhaps paradoxically, that this is the shape of the economy that the movements of the protest gathered around Occupy demand. Only they can’t state it as accurately as the Prime Minister did then. He could have become the guru of the protest. Mazowiecki spoke of the economic energy dormant in people that needs freeing and of creating such system that will give the people the possibility to act: “We need such law and economy mechanisms which shall give the enterprising people the feeling of security of their activity and which shall allow all of us to discover the moral and material sense of work”. The moral and material sense of work. Today these are the forgotten words. But still the most up-to-date.

I remember that still in the times of the Freedom Union in the dispute between Balcerowicz and Mazowiecki I gave my mind to the former but my heart to the latter. I didn’t understand what the ex-Prime Minister meant with this “social market economy”, with his “social sensibility”. Then they seemed to me a pointless softening. Unnecessary shading of simple decisions. I didn’t get that the Prime Minister claimed a human being. Stupid I was.

Translation: Alicja Bratkowska

The social politicy in exposé was presented mainly in the context of budget cuts, but not only. Its evident idea was based on saving up at the cost of the poorest people, according to one of the leaders belonging to the opposition party called “fat cats”. From this it follows that, despite prognosis of some difficult changes (for example extending the retirement age), Tusk was more than cautious in making his proposals, which could have been received as a sign of the lack of socially sensitive conscience.

For instance, Tusk decided to leave the irrational maternity benefit, surely afraid of being called “a baby-enemy”. Limitation on awarding it only to people who earn less than 85 thousands zloty per year is only a symbolic act. What is more, “wealthy parents” will get that benefit only on condition that they decide to raise the second and next children.

Extending the retirement age while the average lifespan is increasing, is too short, also in the context of the level of pensions. Particularly many women will experience painful shock when they realize how paltry amount of money they can get if they decide to retire earlier – the other benefits (e.g. widow’s pension) may be limited in the future by the demanding market. It would be sensible to set up a quantitative valorization, not a proportional one as the proportional one leads to deepening the gap between poor and wealthy pensioners and bring to the latter ones the biggest benefits while the poor ones get amounts of money which are mocked by tabloids, not without reason.

Increasing reductions for the 3rd and the next children, and at the same moment their limitation to people earning more than 85 thousands zloty every year is neutral for the national budget and, unfortunately, neutral for population growth in Poland – there is no possibility to increase it to the level of 2,1 enabling generation replacement. It is necessary to think over the sense of spending a huge amount of money for endeavors, which may bring no visible positive effect.

The strategic decision is to start  including the farmers in the system in which other Poles live.. Only when we get to know the true incomes of the village dwellers, there will be possibility to help them, to stimulate them and to add them to the general system of insurance.

The last forecast is limitation of the privileges, which are granted to the inappropriate groups – in fact, the crisis is a good time to make such changes. The most important thing is not to  ones against the others. According to Scriptures saying: “ones should carry the loads of others”, Tusk announced that he is going to take away the police and priests’ privileges.

All of those changes will be possible only if, according to Tusk, we base them on tradition, not letting any divisions or civilization wars happen. In short, more traditional unity, more social solidarity, a bit more rational spending money and quite limited (in reference to the family politics and demography) predictions are needed.

Unfortunately, it is unemployment that may become the main theme during the upcoming cadence, and it is difficult to imagine the discussion about it without mentioning a value of education and shaping the market in Poland. Exactly those two aspects were absent from the Prime Minister’s exposé. Nevertheless, it does not let anyone who cares about our country  forget about it, regardless of the views we represent. First of all, we, liberals, should remember about it.

Translation: Milena Dawidzionek

What does Arab Spring mean for Poland?

In Poland, we attentively observe the changes taking place in Northern Africa and Near and Middle East, because the sight of brave crowds fighting for democracy brings us to the times of Polish “Solidarnosc”, the Round Table and the ephemeral statement: “Ladies and Gentlemen, on July 4^th 1989 communism in Poland ended”. The tragic death of Tunisian street trader Mohamed Bouazzi resembles the victims of communist system in Poland, which have become icons, for instance Ryszard Siwiec.

Not only did historical facts cause the stir, but also the fact that Poland was to govern the European Union as of June 1^st. For the first time in history we could shape the works of the European Community and we were be obliged to prove our management skills.

Priorities are scrupulously elaborated on long months before a given country takes the presidency of the EU. However, life has its own course what was first-hand experienced by the French (Russian-Georgian war) and the Czech (gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Gaza Zone). Unexpectedly, Poland had to shoulder the responsibility of supporting democratic transformations in Northern Africa, mainly in Egypt and Tunisia, but also a humanitarian operation in Libya. We could not avoid those tasks, because as a country leading the EU we were going to be attentively observed and our representation of the EU and its interests was thoroughly assessed, as the Union’s southern borders are of a great importance. Although Tahir Square seems to be far away from the squares of Polish cities, this impression is that it could not be further from the truth. In a global world Poland has to take action in those only apparently remote places.

photo: futureatlas.com

The world is looking at Cairo and Tunis. An important question which nobody can answer is if Muslim countries are able to create a liberal democratic system. Turkey constitutes a buoyant example, however, there exist a range of arguments bringing the successful changes in Tunisia and Egypt into question (general poverty and economies requiring thorough modernization, weak government and faint pluralistic tradition as well as religious tension in Egypt).  Our future ability to perceive current events as the fourth wave of democratization (to remind: the third wave signifies the changes in Central and Eastern Europe in mid-eighties and nineties, the term coined by Francis Fukuyama), depends to a great extent on us. We should remember that the turn of events was dependent not only upon the aspirations of alliance of the Polish working class and intellectual circles, but also upon the balance of power on the geopolitical map of the world: the fall of Soviet Union and the emergence of the USA as a hegemonic leader (bilateralism turning into unilateralism) as well as the process of Euro-Atlantic integration (EU and NATO enlargement).

Poland – country of freedom

Just as we skillfully took advantage of the global financial crisis to promote the strengthening Polish economy following the idea of “the green island”, Northern African crisis brings us an opportunity to establish the image of Poland as a country of successful transformation. Throughout the years, Poland has been seeking catchphrases. National branding experts are trying to create the slogans which will be ingrained in the minds of foreigners. The best ideas are usually those found in real life and the easier ones. Italy is associated with fashion, Spain with passion, Switzerland with precision and Poland? For instance freedom. It was understood already by professor Bronislaw Geremek, who as the Foreign Minister in 2000 invited his counterparts from over 100 countries to conference in Warsaw “To Democratic Community”. For the first time in history, a whole international conference held by the government was devoted to the topics of democracy and freedom.

Tunisian and Egyptian revolts create an opportunity to advance the international emancipation of Poland, for instance the transition from the recipient to the donor of aid programs. That constitutes a significant qualitative change. For several years already, Polish Foreign Ministry has been implementing a policy of investing in the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and Community of Democracies and cooperating with the USA. Foreign Ministry also encourages the international community with its political and financial potential to support Belarus, creates Polish Foundation of International Solidarity, proposes the creation of the European Fund for Democracy. Particular actions have been already taken in Tunisia and Egypt, for instance Lech Wałęsa’s mission in Tunisia. Special training sessions for middle and high-ranking officials are planned along with aid programs for civic society. However, much still remains to be done. Only 0,09% of Polish GDP is allocated for international development (including democracy support actions), while in not much richer Portugal this index amounts to 0,29%. This result places Poland at the end of generosity ranking. Still unrealized remains the idea of creating an expert committee on political transformation, a particular database of transformation practitioners, who used to build state institutions and local governments, free media, non-governmental organizations, under a popular name Solidarity Corps. A democratic dimension of Polish foreign policy is gradually strengthened, on all its stages a more profound approach and cohesive long-term strategy will be needed.

Poland as a conscience of hypocritical West

Due to the bravery of Northern African countries we have the opportunity to democratize the European boarders. For Poland, which suffered the consequences of  their neighbours’ abandoning democracy (Fascist Germany) in a more prominent way than any other country, ensuring that democracy constantly remains in the international agenda seems crucial. Although the task may seem trifling, it is not so in fact. Polish diplomats mentioning the issue of values in international meetings have frequently encountered a smirk. Fortunately, as history teaches us, those smirks were completely out of place. Introducing the topic of democratization and its maintaining its presence on both bi- and multilateral agendas, making the partners aware that democracy is a common good should be (and currently is) the basic task of Polish diplomacy. Nowadays, it is to be heard in European lobbies: “Byelorussians cannot afford to be democratic, this nation is unable to do that”. Tunisians and Egyptians have just taught the world a lesson  which is particularly well known by Poles: each nation is able to be democratic. The Birmani, Chinese, Cuban and Belarusian are able to exercise democracy and some day they will do that for sure. Hopefully, Poland will actively participate in that process.

When in the early nineties Poland was returning to democratic Europe, external support given to our country was of the greatest importance. The anchoring role of the European Union was crucial. This particular type of institutional magnet is currently needed by Tunisians and Egyptians. Polish diplomats and experts, aware of the role which international institutions play in political transformations, should instil democratic values in the officials working in international institutions and make them aware of the responsibility they are to shoulder. The European Union, the Council of Europe, the Democratic Community, UN, OSCE, NATO cannot ignore the democratic aspirations of Northern African peoples.

The quality of political leadership is a decisive factor. Poland should in this case play a role of “the world’s conscience”. Reagan’s call: Mr. Gorbatschow, tear down this wall! was a manifestation of mature leadership and the international status of the USA. Nowadays, when facing a lack of an unquestionable hegemonic leader in the international arena, it seems crucial to develop leadership mechanisms in the new, multipolar world in a way that, apart from constituting a means of crisis management, stimulates crucial processes. The best example showing our departure from pro-active thinking is a common Union’s foreign policy, having remained for years in statu nascendi. For several months, the European Union has been acting in a reactive mode, triggered in part by the financial crisis and the lack of political will to create coherent political allies, but mainly by the lack of responsible, brave leaders. Poland, while taking the presidency of the European Union, has the chance to fill this gap and try to become an effective political leader, promoting a new strategy for the European borders.

Poland and Europe’s security

According to a Freedom House survey called “Freedom in the world”, democratic countries have been in decline for the last few years. Let’s take Venezuela as an example. In 2000 it was still the signatory of a declaration signed by the Warsaw Community of Democracies, but today nobody knows if the Venezuelan democracy will survive for much longer. It is in the interest of democratic countries to increase the number of states that are built on a similar basis (rule of law, political pluralism, human rights, freedom of speech). Liberal democracies do not fight each other. At the beginning of the 1990s, when Poland was building its liberal democracy founded on the rule of law and free market economy, it seemed that the Polish model would be widely recognised in the whole world as one to follow. However, the 21st century established other important models that were competing with each other. The leading ones included so called “sovereign democracy” (e.g. Russia) and authoritarian capitalism (e.g. China). The Washington Consensus gained a strong competitor in the form of the Beijing Consensus. It is difficult to convince the sceptics who, with a smile on their faces, compare the efficiency of the particular models and point out the number of kilometres of the new motorways built in Poland and China. However, is it only GPD that counts? Or are the freedom of the individual and possibility for personal development maybe equally important?

If Europe delays its strong support for ongoing changes in the Arabic countries for long, the opportunity for their democratization may decrease dramatically. The suburbs of the European Union must be stable, and the democracy should not be treated as a threat of stability (as it was seen in the past) but as a necessary condition. Europeans cannot be surrounded by ticking bombs. We must not allow authoritarian regimes to build up the neighbourhood of the EU, as they are inefficient in the long term. They may increase the risk of military conflicts, cuts to European energy supplies or further waves of illegal immigration. At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, Germany was interested in moving the border of the world’s prosperity and social order further to the east. Similarly, the EU and Poland should make sure that their border is not like a wall between rich Europe and poor South. Tunisia and Egypt have no chance to join the EU. However, because they support democracy, the EU faces the challenge of improving the efficiency of their economies, and the democratic system must demonstrate that it pays off.

A southern dimension powered by a strong eastern dimension

The European Neighbourhood Policy (EPN) has two dimensions: the southern one, of which the most important initiative is the Union for the Mediterranean, and the eastern one, with the Eastern Partnership as its most important project. The uprisings in Northern Africa questioned the credibility and efficiency of the EPN, also towards the East. The rules and mechanisms of its policy need to be revised, so it can successfully serve the interests of the EU’s citizens. The increase in means and effectiveness of aid programmes should be applied to both, southern and eastern dimensions. In order to be globally credible, Europe must demonstrate that it can control its own neighbourhood. Thanks to Poland, democratization was always more present on the EU agenda of the eastern dimension than the southern one. As a result, present-day Poland is reliable. While leading the EU, it has been challenged to make a priority out of democratization in both dimensions of EPN. In this way, Poland may become the author of a new EU agenda for the whole neighbourhood.

If Poland would like to secure the support of the EU’s southern countries for the Eastern Partnership project, then it has to engage in the southern part’s activities. Poland’s involvement in the south should result in France, Spain and Italy’s closer involvement in the Eastern Partnership. Polish efforts, the day before and during its EU’s presidency, cannot be one-off actions-reactions towards uprisings in North Africa, Egypt and Tunisia. Poland has to be actively and deeply involved in a close and diverse cooperation with other governments and non-governmental organisations.

Democracy – a Polish export product

Poland grows in strength economically and politically, and it has been recently recognised by United Nations as a highly developed country in the Human Development Index. The International Monetary Fund’s survey indicates that Poland is now on a higher position than the Netherlands, and belongs to the group of the world’s 20 biggest economies (according to purchasing power parity.) Results like this mean that Poland can participate in creating the world’s order. Therefore, it should export its “know-how” about freedom and as a country which has recently shaken off authoritarian rule and managed to build a well-functioning democracy, Poland has a right to aspire to be an expert in the field of system transformations. Egypt and Tunisia anticipate Polish help, as their traditional partners, the USA and France, have become quite unpopular in their territories (the result of allying with dictators). Poland not only has a democratic know-how, eagerly awaited in Tunisia or Egypt (Tunisians themselves write about the Polish Round Table as a source of inspiration), but also no track record in its history of colonial expansion. Poland may also benefit from the fact that religious and family oriented Poles are often, more than other Europeans, similar to moderate Arabs. Finally, Poland already has experience in passing the democratic know-how to the East.

What exactly should be put into a Polish “democratic basket”? The legacy of ‘Solidarność’ and the experience of peaceful system transformation (Round Table) will be there for sure. Additionally, it will contain political dialogue programmes, technical aid missions that would convey knowledge about constitutional reform, state institutions, security services, vetting, suffrage, political parties, local authorities and development of a civil society. All those aspects should be accompanied by programmes that support interpersonal contacts, contacts among particular professional groups or youth groups and educational programmes (scholarships, student exchanges). Poland should not only share the lessons it learnt from the reforms that it successfully put in place, but also it should warn against possible failures that could have been avoided. Consequently, Poland would have a chance to reinforce its team of experts for the Arabic world which would increase the analytical capabilities of state institutions like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the National Security Bureau. Unfortunately, currently there are only a few experts for North Africa.

Let the 21st century be better than the previous one

Only 6 months ago it seemed that the Northern African countries were bound to be under the dictatorship of family clans. Today, thanks to the bravery of mainly young Tunisians and Egyptians, we realise that democracy is for everyone. As the “window of possibilities” appeared, the events in North Africa may become natural steps in the process of the world’s democratization. They may also prove that in reality, western values are quite universal. After all, the western world wasn’t always democratic, right? Perhaps every non-western country will democratize one day. Poland, as a country which ended Europe’s division, has a moral obligation to continue processes that will support those nations which try to abolish authoritarian regimes. If Poland wants to participate in this global conflict, it should share its most valuable asset which is the process of democratization.

The West has been collaborating with the Arabic countries’ tyrants for years, separating values from economical interests and betraying their own principles for the sake of mercantilism. Such logic has never been and never will be good for Poland which is geopolitically situated on the board with a (still) unstable East. Therefore, Poland should incline towards values rather than interests.

The 20th century gave the beginning to Nazism and Stalinism, it was a century filled with blood and disrespect for human dignity and the principles of the West. And the truth is that those principles should have protected us against any tragedy. The 21st century may be better. It depends on whether the West has enough courage to engage in proactive politics and whether it can consistently promote its values, the values that despite their many different forms, may turn out to be universal for all mankind.

Translation: Anna Martinsen, Celina Bagnicka

Tadeusz Mazowiecki: In my opinion, it is hard to find any particular reason in this case. We had to accustom ourselves to a new situation which seemed permanent. We started to rebuild our country although I did not agree with many issues, especially with the ideology of communism. Nevertheless, the Polish had to accustom themselves to the political system and make some plans for the future. Polish elite decided not to withdraw from public life. There was no particular reason. That was rather a way of thinking.

But you could have made some other plans instead of becoming a journalist.

The press – especially weekly magazines – played an active part in heated debates. That kind of work attracted my interest.

The communist government struggled to have a great influence on intellectuals. Politicians aimed to restrict the freedom of speech. Taking this into consideration, intellectuals could not provoke debates on certain matters.

Intellectuals were to conform to the principal rules of the ideology. I was a journalist at Dziś i Jutro[1] at first. Then I became the member of the PAX Association[2]. The world was divided and I rebelled. We had to live behind the Iron Curtain. I did not agree with the ideology and I believed that some kind of rebellion would bring positive results. It would take a long time to describe how I lost hope for the evolution of the political system. The intellectuals who followed Marx lost the hope when they came to a conclusion that the communist ideology could not be humanized.

Did post-war debates raise issues which had been discussed before World War II? Maybe different  subjects were brought up then? What do you think?

I think that both assumptions are correct. The powerful speech of professor Józef Chałasiński[3] serves as one of the examples. He studied the genealogy of Polish intellectuals. I also analyzed the issue. The speech of the professor caused considerable debate on the role of intellectuals and attempts to define various points of view. This subject had been raised before World War II. But generally, the communist government struggled not to allow for such discourse. Life was less than perfect. Some intellectuals were involved in doing business. Some others aimed to rebuild the country or develop technology. There were few experts on modern technology in post-war Poland. The principles of Humanism were also popular. Intellectuals used to oppose the communism and express their opinions.

One cannot forget about the influence of Hegelian philosophy. Was there any discourse between the followers of Marx or Hegel and such publicists as you? Intellectuals tend to provoke debates. How the situation looked like in 1950s?

The communist government victimized the Catholics. The works of professor Kazimierz Kłósak[4], Adam Schaff[5] or Stefan Żółkiewski[6] may suggest that there was some kind of discourse. The Catholics were victimized although nobody closed down the churches. I believe that people read the works of both social groups. No public debate, however, was sparked. The communist government, which claimed that no philosophy is scientific but Marxism, strove to victimize us. The assumptions of modern intellectuals somehow proved the abovementioned claim. There was a common knowledge that religion is against technological progress. It took many years until intellectuals overcame the prejudice. Their works began to be published at Tygodnik Powszechny[7] in the late 1960s. The Council of the Catholic Church brought major changes in 1970s. And then one of the most important events in the history of Poland happened.

You established Więź. This magazine provoked a debate between the Catholics and laypeople. It is worth noting that the works of some non-Catholic journalists, such as Adam Michnik, Wiktor Woroszylski or Jan Strzelecki, were also published there. It seems that the magazine was not just for the Catholics. Am I right?

You are right. The magazine was based on the Personalist philosophy of Emmanuel Mounier and Jacques Maritain. This movement assumed that mankind is the most important in earthly life. Such assumptions may attract the attention of both Catholic and non-Catholic intellectuals. We tried to oppose the communist government with the help of this principle. We used to mention the role of discourse. That was possible after the reforms in 1956. Authorities still believed in the division of Polish society. Jan Strzelecki had similar opinion to us. The writer admitted that he is not a non-Catholic. He just did not answer questions about his faith. But he believed in metaphysical and Personalist values.

In the first volume of Dzieje inteligencji polskiej do roku 1918[8], Maciej Janowski wonders what is characteristic of this social group. He claims that intellectuals tend to exchange their opinions in cafés or some exclusive places. Was it popular in 1950s and 1960s?

There was a number of cafés in 1960s. Intellectuals used to meet at the homes of such people as Zygmunt Skórzyński[9] or Jan Józef Lipski[10]. Name-day parties, during which Polish elite discussed various subjects, were also common then.

You were the representative of the Polish Parliament, serving three terms as the member of the Catholic party Znak. But the Parliament did not play a major role in the People’s Republic of Poland. The Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party and the Politburo of the Polish United Workers’ Party were the most influential. Did you meet any intellectuals among these 460 people? Did you have any opportunity to discourse?

There were several professors, for example Bukowski and Jabłoński. A dispute arose at the beginning of my career in the Polish Parliament. My first speech concerned Polish educational system, which was under the influence of Marxism. I demanded that Polish schools teach various philosophies. The speech, however, ran into a lot of opposition. Among critics were such intellectuals as Władysław Bieńkowski[11], who became an outspoken critic of the political system later. We sometimes provoked debates during committee meetings. But discourse during plenary sessions was out of question.

A well-working relationship between the Catholics and laypeople was established in 1970s. You came to Gdańsk in 1980. In the essay entitled Przeszłość i przyszłość polskiej inteligencji[12], Józef Chałasiński stated that “Poland is our religious and ecclesial value with a ceremonial system governed by the clergy”. Did your visit at Gdańsk and the appointment of advisors symbolize clergymen who come to the faithful?

No, it symbolized that we drew conclusions from the past. The visit at Gdańsk in 1980 was a result of previous events. Students and intellectuals demonstrated in 1968. The working class was set against them. The laboring class protested in 1970. Intellectuals took passive role then. We just drew conclusions from these events. The visit was essential. We wanted to express our solidarity. Our role was to advise. Strike committee was to make decisions. The fact that the strike was not broken gave us some hope for the better. The strike in Lublin proved that the situation was going to change. The protests were not so severely crashed as those in Radom or Ursus. In Lublin, demonstrators demanded the increase of payments. In Gdańsk, workers strove for freedom. They claimed several times that “what matters is not remuneration but trade union”. They behaved responsibly. I had already realized that the communist government did not aimed to develop trade unions. I met many members of various trade unions thanks to my friend from Belgium – Jan Kułakowski. He served as the secretary of a Catholic trade union, which was transformed into the International Labor Organization later. It seemed obvious that the Politburo did not represent the working class. Everyone was aware that the laboring class would not have any representation in case of danger or conflict. I believe that the tension was mounting during my visit at Gdańsk.

The word expert was popular among the members of NSZZ Solidarność[13]. Works committees used to form expert committees on various issues. Did intellectuals strive to become an expert or an advisor?

Not really. Intellectuals served also as trade union authorities. Nevertheless, there was a demand for experts. We – 10 million people – could not remain passive when NSZZ Solidarność had been established. We were aware that was a crucial moment.

The imposition of martial law made the situation more dangerous. Intellectuals, however, became completely united then. Almost every artist demonstrated. Student also rebelled.

Some people did not unite, but not many.

Your government was formed after the elections on 4^th June 1989. Until recently, there was no other government referred to as consisting of intellectuals. What do you think of it? Was the government consisting of intellectuals or rather people with certain mission?

The members of NSZZ Solidarność struggled to bring about major changes in Poland. Debates provoked by intellectuals contributed to them. But nobody aimed to focus on the needs of this social group. I am sure that intellectuals must be involved in politics, where the sense of duty and servitude are essential. A ruling class should consist of intellectuals.

It is often assumed nowadays that politicians do not take an interest in the needs of the whole society. They care about particular social groups instead.

I do not agree. Politicians must take an interest in the needs of the whole society. Citizens would oppose otherwise. It is a matter of course. Our history is changeable – the sense of servitude may be strong or vague. But it cannot disappear.

According to many sociologists, Poles may lose the feature that seemed characteristic for Central Europe countries. More and more intellectuals belong to the middle class, whose needs have little in common with social work.

You are right. That is how Polish society evolves. Please note, however, that intellectuals from Western countries have been more influential. I think that we should not judge this phenomenon.

Will this process proceed? One of intellectuals’ dreams has come true recently – a great number of the citizens received education. But well-educated people admit that they have little in common with intellectuals and the etiquette of this social group. What do you think of this phenomenon?

I do not judge this phenomenon. It just takes place as a result of the evolution of Polish society. I believe that the values characteristic for intellectuals, i.e. the sense of servitude and duty, are still present in public life. These values cannot disappear. Intellectuals will take the floor. Economic growth cannot have an influence on every matter. Free-market economy may be contrasted with egalitarianism, which has a positive effect on the evolution of societies. We will always favor equality. I think that a balance between economic and egalitarian values may bring positive results. Politicians in a democratic state with free-market economy should balance the abovementioned values and draw certain conclusions. Those who are not treated on equal terms will demand it.

Will intellectuals – a social group with certain values which emerged after the January Uprising[14] – remain? Do they have any goal nowadays? Maybe Poles need just well-educated people?

I do not know. The social group of intellectuals may disappear, but the values will remain. I believe that these values will be observed not only by intellectuals.

Interview: Marcin Celiński

Translation: Aleksandra Kozłowska

Sex, lies and electoral campaigns

In March 2010 the news broke in French press that Nicolas Sarkozy and his third (and already second during this term) wife Carla Bruni are on the verge of breaking up, and each of them maintains extramarital relationships. The public opinion shook with outrage. The president’s frivolous attitude towards social mores, his fondness for luxury and ostentatious friendships with celebrities had for a long time  violated the unwritten rule that the politicians did not exhibit their private life and the French had a limited interest in it. The brawls about the president’s family life have broken out one after another in recent years. Sarkozy has kicked off badly his second term by embarking, as a president-elect, on a cruise in a luxurious yacht lent by his friend – a businessman. Soon after there has been a divorce with his second wife Cecilia and an attempt to make his 23-year old son Jean a head of the company managing the Paris’ business district – La Défense. Finally, the  rumours about the split-up of the Sarkozy – Bruni couple have been denied. Apparently, Sarkozy has taken a decision to carry on with his marriage until the end of his first term at least, which is in 2012.

Surely, the French Left did not fall behind. While in Poland the power was in the hands of twins, in France it was an unregistered marriage who solicited it. In the year 2007, a beautiful socialist female candidate Ségolene Royal stood in the way of Sarkozy during presidential race. Her then partner was a head of Socialist Party François Hollande. During electoral campaign, the couple, in the tabloids, made plans of upcoming formalising of their relationship that had lasted more than 20 years. Soon after having lost the campaign, Hollande moved away from Royal. It was revealed to public opinion that François was far from being an ideal faithful partner, and that their relationship had been fictitious.

photo: Brian Gratwicke

In 2009 the scandal broke about the controversial way of spending holiday in Asia by minister of culture Fréderic Mitterand (the nephew of ex-president), described in one of his books. After the condemnation of sexual tourism by the public opinion, the minister hardly managed to keep his post.

At the same time a minister of justice in office, Rachida Dati bore a child, refusing to reveal the identity of his father. The press even speculated that the father of the child could be the president himself! Soon after Dati was dismissed; the purported reason was her incompetence.

‘The best of us’ and corruption scandals

The end of a moral scandal in France usually translates into a corruption one that is likely to break very soon. Each French president has contributed amply to this state of affairs.  At the beginning of the eighties, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing lost his chance for a second presidential term for he was not able to account for the diamonds that he had been seemingly offered by the African dictator Bokassa. Whereas in times of Mitterand, a scandal of selling frigates to Taiwan sank some politicians of the left. Even president’s son Jean-Christophe was involved in the illegal arms trade. Another malfeasance of arms trading to African countries had been examined for many years by judge Eva Joly, at present the euro-deputy of European Green Party. In the year 2002 Joly quitted her profession and left France for a couple of years, complaining about the ostracism of her professional sphere and the lack of possibility of action.

Jacques Chirac ‘merely’ struggled against the case of mysterious public subsidy for renovation of his private castle in Correze. But he was also forced to watch the judicial torments of his political son – Alain Juppé, involved in the scandal of non-existing posts in the City Hall of Paris  during Chirac’s term. The case torpedoed the development of Juppé’s career for many years and made impossible the solicitation of presidential office after Chirac by ‘the best of us’, as Chirac used to call Juppé.

It did not take long for Nicolas Sarkozy to follow the example of his predecessors. Eric Woerth, the minister of labour and treasurer of the governing party UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire – Union for a Popular Movement), was accused of accepting the illegal money transfers for Sarkozy’s electoral campaign from the richest female French Liliane Bettencourt, owner of the L’Oreal concern. What is more, it turned out that the Woerth’s wife worked for Bettencourt, and he was able to exert the taxation solutions that were favourable for the L’Oreal’s fortune heiress. As yet, Woerth lost the post of treasurer, but the damages to the reputation of both UMP and Sarkozy are likely to impact the next electoral campaign.  A presidential vision of France as a ‘republic without a flaw’ (‘République irréprochable’) that was formed during the electoral campaign in 2007, would not be implemented and has already  been consigned to oblivion.

The holiday brought the governing majority a respite from the Bettencourt scandal. Nevertheless, this what has been known since always was confirmed by the scandal: French politicians, and especially Nicolas Sarkozy, maintain very close relationships with the business sphere.

During last three years, Nicolas Sarkozy has retracted many promises that he had made during electoral campaign. He and his political surroundings were harmed by multiple scandals, and his private life can easily be called a stormy  one. But all of this did not  impede his ability to conduct policy, although  one could have assumed the contrary. During three years, he enforced a constitutional reform, played a major role on the European stage, reintroduced France to NATO military structures.

Of course, we will not encourage Polish politicians to adopt Sarkozy’s way of life. Nevertheless, perhaps some of them will follow his example when it comes to a long-term mode of governing, instead of short-sighted decisions?

Translation: Katarzyna Laprus

Elections were not fair from the very beginning. Only “trusted” candidates with no chances for victory appeared on the list. The only real alternative candidate from Yabloko party Grigory Yavlinsky was refused a candidacy because of allegedly false signatures gathered in his support. The truth is that the fact that 36% of 2 million signatures were false was acknowledged only by the central election committee, which is known of its loyalty to Putin and United Russia. Long time before elections everyone knew that Putin would win. The only question was if he would win in the first round or in the second.

Great amounts of frauds during elections were expected and it did not come as a surprise when we heard observers reported about them. Even though Yabloko lost its candidate we still were preparing huge amount of observers in different regions. We thought it was important for us and for people who wanted to see with their own eyes how elections would go. For example only in St.Petersburg we trained about 1500 of observers preparing them for a really tough job. And unfortunately we were right about those problems that they came across later.

First of all many observers were not allowed to enter polling stations because of fake reasons. Those who managed to get in saw impressive cases of frauds. We have organized a hot line for observers where they could ask for legal help and report violations. There we had everything: people voting several times on different polling stations, ballot staffing, police officers removing observers from polling stations, chairs of local election committees escaping with final protocols. All was usual. But the most awful fraud was know-how of these elections – fake temporary polling stations. Few days before elections St.Petersburg election committee opened around 100 additional temporary polling stations in factories, hospitals and entertaining centers. Of course our observers were sent there on the election day but… they could not find them at all. Nothing was there except unfriendly security guards. Although when the election results were published on the official web-site we could find these disappeared polling stations, and the results there were not surprising – around 90% votes for Putin.

That is how he “won” in the first round.

What was next was also predictable. Massive protests were already scheduled for the evening of the next day. Great number of people who were not satisfied with their stolen votes, even a greater number of police forces on the streets, military vans brought there just in case – that was the picture on March 5, 2012 in Moscow and St.Petersburg. When police started to detain people during a peaceful demonstration it became clear that the next 6 years would not be more democratic in Russia. With this understanding the next demonstrations gathered less and less people because those who went on the streets after the State Duma in December elections and Presidential elections in March are not professional opposition or desperate people who do not have anything to lose like in Arab countries during the Arab spring. They are quite wealthy and educated; they just do not like to be fooled by Putin and his team. These people do not want to escalate a violent conflict still hoping for political change initiated by the President. They showed their attitude and now it is his time for reply.

photo: sime simon

The political change was indeed initiated by the President. At least its imitation. At least by the current president Medvedev (Putin will officially come to power in May.) New laws liberalizing policy towards registration of political parties and direct elections of regional governors were pushed through the Federal Parliament. Now it is expected that to register a nation-wide political party you need only 500 people. I have more friends on my Facebook, so basically everyone will be able to have their own political party. Of course it is liberal idea but too radical. We experienced that in early 90s and now we are back there with no development. A huge amount of weak parties will again decrease people’s belief in the institution of political parties itself.

Same happens with the initiative for direct elections of governors. Elections are going to be direct but the candidates will have to be approved by the President which makes a whole story useless. Again we are observing now not a real willingness to introduce political freedom but another type of imitation of freedom. Good ideas as usual were exaggerated and became ridiculous. It is not unusual that people are really fed up with such kind of things. Now there are two ways left for Putin.

The first one is to start listening to people and introduce political reforms step by step. This is the most preferable scenario which needs high level of involvement and control from people on every level – from municipalities to national ministers. If people keep an eye on bureaucracy every day it will be necessary for Putin to implement reforms in order to have support and stay in power further.

Another scenario can copy a Belarus situation. Being afraid of losing power Putin might keep everything as it is, concentrate power in his hands, ignore and silence the protestors. But this is a dead end. He can ensure a kind of stability only till the next economic difficulty, for example a drop in oil prices. Then Russian fake stability will be gone, many people will be left with no money, they will indeed have nothing to lose and it might cause a kind of revolution, violent, with a lot of victims. Obviously this is not a scenario which is wanted by most people who went recently out on the streets.

Can we do something to push towards the first more preferable scenario? Yes, we can. We need to work with people, keep them involved in political and civic activities, try to control each and every official, and show to Putin that we are not going to give up. Then maybe if not him then his comrades will make a right political decision and save Russia from another collapse.