The wave of social unrest, which was prompted by the Tunisian uprising in January 2011, reached Syria in mid-March. The main reason for the eruption of discontent was the decade of disappointing Bashar al-Assad’s rule. Many Syrians waited, to no avail, to open their country to the world and to allow Syria to join the “global village”. The hope that young Bashar, who received education in the West, would keep his promises and liberalize the current tough rules in politics and economy, was vain.

photo: Taras Kalapun

Since 1963, when The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party (Ba’ath) took over the power, the state of emergency has incessantly continued, which enabled the constant violation of civil liberties and of human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Maintaining the state of emergency resulted in arrests and repressions against the opposition. Due to a single-party system, the election was a sham. National minorities (e.g. Kurds) experienced discrimination. On top of everything else, socio-economic conditions were deteriorating – state aid for the poor was reduced, the freedom of trade was continuously violated, local industry could not rely on government support and the rate of unemployment, especially among young Syrians, was growing.

Tanks on the streets, snipers on the roofs

Initially, the regime had mixed feelings about the outbreak of the uprising in Syria – the president promised reforms, raised wages and tried to meet protesters’ demands. Counter-demonstrations were also held. Yet it was not approved by the society. Having learned a lesson by watching the Tunisian and Egyptian governments being overthrown, Bashar al-Assad realized that the only way to stay in power is to suppress the protests. Tanks appeared on the streets and snipers covered the roofs. The most violent fights took place in Damascus, Dar, Aleppo, Hama, Latakia, Himsie, Banijas, Tall Calah. According to the rough estimate,   6,000 people died and 15,000-40,000 people were arrested. Human Rights Watch has revealed that Syrian security forces tortured hundreds of people arrested during anti-government demonstrations (they were electroshocked and deprived of sleep and water). Just like in Libya, there were reports of women, especially those trying to flee to Turkey, raped by soldiers. Besides, several thousands of soldiers rebelled and joined the demonstrators.

Weak opposition, strong president

Despite the fact that the situation in Syria is worsening, the president seems to strongly believe in his regime, which indeed is much more integrated and efficient than the Tunisian or Egyptian ones. The fact that most of the Syrian opposition is abroad – weak and scattered – is not of no significance. In his last speech on January 10, Al-Assad condemned the Arab League for the isolation of Syria, called the rebels traitors and promised a constitutional referendum in March 2012.

Al-Assad is supported by the government news agency SANA that publishes the reports about mass demonstrations of citizens who stand up for the current regime and object to a foreign influence. The opponents of Al-Assad are called “armed terrorist”, whereas the soldiers killed in riots are called “martyrs” (which is indeed a typical gimmick in the Middle East rhetoric). The accusation against USA and Israel of the conspiracy and of thwarting the president’s efforts is the leitmotif since the president is the defender of the people and the guarantor of peace.

Big role of technology

Obviously, the situation is presented in a different way by the opposition, which uses – just as was the case in other Arab countries – modern communication technology. The Internet plays a crucial role in organizing the protests, which were first peaceful and now are turning into more violent. One page on the social networking site Facebook, “The Syrian Revolution 2011”, attracted 335,000 people. The videos that are recorded by mobile phones and posted on YouTube  come to be the primary source of information about the current affairs in Syria, where the foreign media were refused the entry (there is also a question mark over the credibility of these amateur recordings as some of them present similar incidents from Iraq and Lebanon).

source: Freedom House

What others think?

What do the neighbouring countries and the West think about it? The Arab world imposed the economic sanctions upon Syria and excluded the country from the Arab League. In December, Syria agreed to admit the observers from the League, which can be understood as a sort of “playing for time”. However, Syrian activists have serious doubts over the competence of these observers, who cooperate with Al-Assad’s government (it was confirmed by one of the observers, Anwar Malek).

The international community almost unanimously condemned the actions of the Syrian authorities but it has not resulted in any specific actions. Apparently, the United States, the European countries and UN (which described Syria as “standing on the brink of civil war” and its Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for intervention to end the bloodshed) have not arrived at the decision to overthrow the regime. Yet it is worth noting that two powerful Syrian allies, namely China and Russia, export weapons to Syria. In January, Russia sent the ship “Chariot” with its ammunition on board to the Syrian harbor.

After the assassination of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar Al-Assad remains the last Middle Eastern dictator who is facing the overthrow. The chances of implementing this scenario are rising as the information about the massacres, which the government carries out, are being disclosed. The Head of the Russian Security Council reported that NATO is planning a direct intervention in Syria under the leadership of Turkey. The main stimulus for such actions is probably geopolitics, that is, friendly relations between Damascus and Tehran. If Al-Assad is really defeated, it will be the consequence of both the “domino effect” and of a much more complicated game of the regional and supra-regional powers.

The analogous situation may not take place, though, as Syria is simply not Libya and the influences of the United States and Europe are not significant. Assuming the course of events that the United States hope for, that is, overthrowing Al-Assad by the Syrians themselves, it would be difficult to build an alternative system as part of “democratic transformation” promoted by the White House. The real power is held by the president along with the Ba’ath party, the generals and high-ranking officials of the security forces and representatives of the powerful bureaucratic apparatus.

Moreover, the Syrian society is distrustful of the West and of the “democracy” that the West is pushing through. Westernization and McDonaldization – these are the concepts that Syrian people usually identify the Western democracy with. Hostility towards Israel and the proud of living in the “cradle of civilization” unite them even more. Besides that, almost everything else divides the society. Al-Assad and his inner circle (especially the military elite) belong to the Alawite sect, which is the minority in the country dominated by Sunni Muslims. Most of the Syrian Christians side with the Alawis and their relatively tolerant rules. These Christians constitute 10% of the population but belong to over a dozen different factions. They fear the growth of Islamic fundamentalism and a repeat of the Iraqi scenario – destabilization of the region that has been extremely peaceful for the past 40 years. Generally, Middle Eastern patriarchs, who have enjoyed the privileged relations with the president for years, openly express their support for him, unlike the laity that keeps the prudent impartiality.

Predictions for the future

The scenario, where Bashar Al-Assad holds the power but does not carry out any reforms, is not satisfactory as it would mean persecution of civilians, violation of human rights and strengthening the position of Iran in this region. Keeping the relative peace by the armed forces for a long time may only deepen a psychological gap between the rulers and the ruled, and ultimately destroy the already-strained legitimacy of the Ba’ath Party.
But if the government or the protesters fail to gain a clear advantage, the country may slide into chaos and the interethnic and interdenominational tensions may build up. Forecasts for Syria’s nearest future are not promising. Deepening political and socio-economic crisis is expected – Syrian pound depreciation, worsening living conditions in the Syrian villages and suburbs, a rise in unemployment, deterrence of foreign investors.

Only when the current regime implements the actual reforms, the above dangers can be avoided. The Syrians would certainly welcome the scenario with relief as they care more about peace, security and development than the overthrow. Unfortunately, the accomplishment of these goals is very unlikely to happen due to the international context – the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and the interests of the local powers: Turkey, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia. One thing is certain, finding a solution to the “problem of Syria” or even alleviating it will be one of the major challenges for the international community in 2012.

Translation: Adam Intrys

Characteristic feature of nearly all election campaigns is the fact, that apart from prompting not always substantive debates they excite emotions of enormous proportions.  Thus, referring to the particular set of ideals and values of a given community is one of the more popular strategies used by political candidates. While observing presidential campaign currently taking place in Finland we should not harbor any doubts that also in this country, some politicians attempt to play on the emotions of the crowds at the cost of substantive quality of their argumentation. This time, however, the results of the election that will take place on 22 January 2012 may turn out to be of great significance in terms of both Finland’s internal and external policies. Most of all, it concerns economic situation of the European community, and hence, of Finland as well. In the face of deepening economic crisis, this issue is one of the most vital aspects of ongoing debates. Also foreign and security policy, as well as recurring question of Finnish military future, are once again used as political tools. Usually, each of such discussions – while not officially – indirectly refers to the role of Russia in the contemporary Finnish international activity and direction in which Finnish relations with this country may evolve. Certainly, other issues such as ecology or increasing immigration that subsequently leads to intolerance are being raised as well; ultimately, however, those subjects seem to be of secondary importance.

First female President in Finland

Hitherto prevailing President of Finland, Social Democrat Tarja Halonen for two tenures, that is as long as 12 years, played the role of “national stabilizer”. However, perhaps it has nothing to do with her position as a leader and one of the most politically influential individuals in the country, despite the fact that Finnish President has a slightly bigger authority than the most European leaders. Her alias is associated rather with her role as a person, who has a strong social support, is an authority and simultaneously a voice of reason standing on guard of law and order in a public sphere. Halonen was also the first woman to become a President in Finland. Such development was a significant breakthrough, even in  liberal Finland, that bore testimony of changing mentality among the Finnish people. It seems that her presidency is met with much approval, which sets very high standards for her successors.

Who is running for presidency?

Candidates running in the upcoming elections are in the majority a well-known and recognized people of Finnish community. Every political party has selected its candidate, but in fact only five representatives of five main political parties are brought into consideration. The four of them can be certainly considered political veterans that have been present in Finnish public life for many years. The fifth candidate, however, is often described as a recent revelation on Finnish political scene. Therefore, views of Sauli Niinistö, Paavo Lipponen, Timo Soini, Pekka Haavisto and Paavo Väyrynen on the key issues of the contemporary Finnish politics are worth looking into, as well as it is crucial to answer the question of the potential consequences of electing one of them.

Sauli Niinistö is without any doubt one of the most popular Finnish politicians, well known for his contributions as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice. The fact that in 2006 he was the only candidate to endanger Halonen’s position, as he lost the second ballot by only 3.6%, is certainly equally significant. Since then, he is considered an almost certain winner of the next, upcoming elections as every poll lends support to his advantage over other candidates from the very beginning.

As a representative of the National Coalition party, Niinistö has a center-right views. He defines himself as a democrat, although some of his opponents tend to describe him rather disdainfully as a federalist or neoliberal. Niinistö consistently avoids verbal skirmishes and tries to focus his speeches on specifics. It is safe to assume that his political opinions are consistent and barely changed in the last few years. As the majority of his opponents, Niinistö is an advocate of European idea, especially when it comes to military cooperation of the European Member States. In this respect, he officially supports as deep integration as it is possible. However, Niinistö seems to be a bit more careful where economics are concerned, especially taking into consideration contemporary economy of Europe. He promotes a belief that the solution and the way to achieve restabilization is going back to the basics: the previous monetary union, which is as important as a withdrawal from the policy of generous allocation of European funds to other Member States in case of potential economic crisis. All of those steps, when undertaken, would serve to rebuild the credibility of European Union as an international player. Sauli Niinistö is of the opinion that recently, European Union has been considerably weakened, which resulted in worsening economic situation of the whole Eurozone. He supports political solutions concerning economy which involve the rise in taxes,  for instance taxation of the richest inhabitants of Finland, and drastic cuts in budget.  It is worth mentioning that it is the Parliament that has the actual influence on Finland’s economy and only cooperation between the President and the Parliament may secure the Leader’s ability to have an effect on economy. The present Prime Minister of Finland, Jyrki Katainen also used to be a part of National Coalition so it seems that cooperation between Niinistö and his cabinet is possible.

Another pressing issue of this campaign, not unlike the previous ones, is the problem of the alliance with NATO. For quite some time this subject has served as a scarecrow of sorts, and accusing one’s opponents of supporting the accession became a very significant political weapon. Niinistö became a victim of such political game as well, mostly because he never truly ruled out the possibility of Finland applying for membership in NATO. He repeatedly emphasized that if the European Union would not be able to meet security needs of Finland, then the alliance with NATO would be an option worth considering. Without any doubt, Niinistö is respected and valued not only by the majority of fellow politicians. As it seems, those feelings are shared by the public as well, and are reflected in various polls from which he emerges as a central candidate from the very beginnings of the election race. His possible rise to power might prove influential on further changes in Finnish politics. Realized in accordance to the course taken by the government majority, would in turn surely constitute a true challenge for hitherto prevailing Finnish doctrine of partial non-alignment.

Timo Soini is undoubtedly a celebrity, who recently has caused an absolute confusion on the Finnish political scene. The disturbance in question was triggered by a rather spectacular voting results for his party, called True Finns and lately renamed The Finns Party, in the 2011 parliamentary election. During just one parliamentary tenure he managed to lead his party to the third rank in a general ranking and became the most popular politician in the country. It is easy to believe that in the stable Finland few people manage to achieve so much in so little time, however, slogans used by Soini are purely populist, which gives his bewildering political career another dimension. While listening to his speeches, it is easy to get the impression that Timo Soini distances himself from the majority of values that Scandinavia, as the region of freedom and progressiveness, was always associated with. Soini is a staunch Catholic, appealing to the values such as a traditional family model, God and the Finnishness. The result of this attitude is putting a strong emphasis on the abortion reduction, prohibition of homosexual marriages and their adoption of children, limitation of non-Christian influences, promotion of patriotism among the people of Finnish community as well as the elimination of obligatory Swedish language classes for school pupils and tightening of immigration policy.

When it comes to issues of economic nature, Timo Soini, being a talented speaker and strong Eurosceptic, makes every effort to blame the European Union for every single economic failure of the member states and accuses Brussels for, among other things, constraining its members and reproaches it for the lack of efficacy. On his blog, he highlights the weakness of the European Union, completing his argument with his statement from the interview for the British “The Guardian”, in which he compares the European Union to the Soviet Union that had fell in spite of the conviction of its invincibility. Without any doubt, Soini used a metaphor strongly influencing imagination of the Finns, especially when taking into consideration Finnish approach to the European Union, which was not too optimistic from the beginning. Also negative attitude of Soini toward allocation of European funds to the countries of economic decline, is the expression of his disapproval. He predicts that due to the EU aid policy, other European counties will start to collapse, which is going to bring about the domino effect and will lead to complete ruin of Europe. The only way to manage the crisis are drastic cuts of foreign debt and financial help that will include only mechanisms of the International Monetary Fund. Unfortunately, he does not provide any other specific solutions or ideas for the improvement while constant economic decline of both Finland and Eurozone takes place. What is more, there is no use in looking for any more specifics in his programme. Certainly, his attitude toward Finland’s membership in NATO is specific enough. Soini is opposed to this idea, although what needs to be said, he seems to think it is still more preferable and less harmful than the European Union. Consequences of electing Soini for President might be very serious and, as it seems, Finns are fully aware of that. Indeed, populists usually have nothing more to offer in terms of solving serious issues of given countries than strong words. In polls, Soini keeps second rank on the list, which quite probably will enable him to take part in second ballot.

Paavo Väyrynen, the true veteran of Finnish political scene, started his career in the 70s, when the controversial politician Urho Kekkonen was head of state. From that time on, he has been a member of Centre Party, and during his cadency he was responsible for many important functions. His views can be seen as quite controversial and the tactic which he adopted for the elections has a rather offensive character. Under his criticism comes almost everybody, from his rival candidates to the government and the whole coalition, in which there was no room for his party.

A part of public opinion considers Väyrynen a Eurosceptic, although in number of his speeches he underlined that the European Union is currently one of the most prominent political forces in the fields of international development, trade and the environment policy. Yet, he criticizes the idea of integrated Economic Union and Finland’s decision concerning joining the Monetary Union, pointing out other Scandinavian members of the European Union, who handle the crisis much better, still keep their national currencies. “The possibility of Finland leaving the Eurozone should be taken into consideration,” he said in an interview for YLE (Finnish Broadcasting Company), suggesting the return to Finnish markka at the same time. It seems then that Väyrynen sees the EU as an organization, which should not excessively interfere with the Finnish domestic policy and help in the execution of the universal values, because they are partly in accordance with doctrine of neutrality that is characteristic of Finnish policy from the times of Cold War. On that assumption he criticizes the military aspect of Union’s activity, claiming that it changes the Community into the European pillar of NATO.

The stand of the representative of Centre Party on the possible Finnish membership in the Alliance, is undoubtedly negative. He stresses, however, that such option would be worth taking into consideration but in couple of years. Military alliance would be contradictory to Finnish doctrine of military non-alignment policy and it would pose a threat to the well-being of neighborly relations between Finland and Russia. It would also result in the violation of the continuity of foreign policy strategy introduced by Urho Kekkonen and Juho Paasikivi. References to those two politicians, symbols of the past era, by some regarded as dictatorship, by others days of prime time, is a brave step, thanks to which Väyrynen may gain a lot. It happens more often that in the times of unstable economic situation, society harks back to the times of country’s prosperity and strong leadership. Still, such a procedure may cause a number of negative consequences, including accusations of populism. It seems though, that Väyrynen does not think about it, hoping that Finns have already forgotten about disputable matters concerning the ruling of the two aforementioned politicians. There are also a few controversies concerning Väyrynen himself. They touch upon the subjects of his opposition to Estonia gaining its independence in 1991 and the accusations of Georgia in 2008 for an attack on Russian peacekeeper soldiers. Additionally, his views on political sphere, such as strong stand towards immigrants, opposition to marriages and adoption by homosexual couples, prove that his opinions do not necessarily consent to the current political trends in Scandinavia. Consequently, he is in the third place in the majority of opinion polls, conducted among Finns, which give him merely 7-8% of votes.

Paavo Lipponen, the representative of Social Democrats and one of the most recognized Finnish politicians, comes in forth in most pre-electoral rankings. Taking into consideration the fact that not only was he the Prime Minister twice and was responsible for joining the European Union, but he is also one of the co-authors of Northern Dimension initiative, it is worth noticing that his position in the election race is rather weak. Only two years ago he strongly denied any speculations about his possible start in 2012 elections, but challenges stemming from the current international situation, and especially the economic crisis have changed his attitude, and so, in September 2011 he has been elected an official presidential candidate. In the approaching elections, Lipponen is fighting not only for his own candidature, but also for the continuation of Social Democrats presidency, whose representatives have consequently been elected heads of state since 1982.

The main international goals concerning his future presidency, that the former Prime Minster of Finland points out on his blog, are the improvement of relations with foreign partners and the promotion of ideas such as world peace, security and stability. Moreover, he supports the strong position of the European Union. As for the method for improving economic situation of the continent he recognizes strengthening the co-operation inside the community and introduction the greater financial discipline among its members. At the same time, Paavo Lipponen is the supporter of neutrality, especially on the military grounds. As a result, his position towards the Finnish membership in NATO has a negative echoing. In the sphere of internal politics, Lipponen emphasizes such notions as egalitarianism, fight against intolerance and the equality of law ensured on the basis of the idea of democracy. He supports an intensive development of regional policy and upholding the status of Finnish language, as the second, official language in Finland.

Assuming Paavo Lipponen succeeds, his presidency would not differ much from the current president’s Tarja Halonen. There is, however, one element which arises controversies – the Lipoponen’s cooperation with the Russian Gazprom. When the dependant on pro-Kremlin energy giant, Nord Stream company, has announced the project of creating Nord Stream, which would connect Russia and Germany across the Baltic Sea floor, among the citizens of the Baltic Sea Basin countries, including Finland, has boiled. Soon it turned out that the agreement to set pipeline under the Finnish territorial waters was essential for the success of investment. Since then, Russian pressure on Finnish government has intensified. In the face of Finnish indecisiveness, in 2008 Russians decided to hire an independent consultant, the former Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen. His actions were supposed to convince Finnish government to support Russian project. Such decision has brought about a series of negative comments and Lipponen’s popularity has dramatically decreased. It appears that the consequences of that decision are showing even now. That is why opinion polls do not give him much chance of winning the forthcoming presidential elections.

Pekka Haavisto seems to be the most influential candidate from all the representatives of the small parties taking part in the Finnish elections. This Green League’s politician is one of the few most popular statesmen in Finland. In the recent polls he receives around 10 % of the national support, however it seems to be to a large extend unstable. He supports such values as democracy, equality, tolerance and he stresses the importance of the environmental issues, as a typical Green representative. In his long political career, he has been always involved in the struggle for the environmental protection, both as a state clerk, and as a member of international institutions. In terms of the foreign policy, he is a great supporter of the European Union and Finnish activity within it and also considers it as the only player that may save the eurozone and the whole union from the economic crisis. On the contrary, Haavisto opposes Finnish NATO’s membership, however he emphasizes that current cooperation with it, among others within the framework of the Partnership for Peace programme, is sufficient.

Undoubtedly, Pekka Haavisto is a popular politician in Finland, although it is worth mentioning that his popularity is a sign of a serious shift, which is taking place within the Finnish society. Haavisto is the first openly gay presidential candidate in the history of the presidential elections in Finland and he lives in the registered partnership. As it was mentioned before, the signs of the intolerance still happen in Finland, even between the crucial politicians, therefore his popularity seems to express that more and more Finnish citizens get liberal also in terms of private life of the candidates.
The rest of candidates, who take part in the campaign, are the representatives of smaller groups. Their opinion polls results are relatively small and they oscillate between 2-3% of the overall support. These are the representative of Swedish People’s Party of Finland, Eva Biaudet, Christian Democrat, Saria Essayah and the representative of Left Alliance, Paavo Arhinmäki.

The first ballot, which took place on 22nd of January gave Sauli Niinistö the expected first place, however he received only 37 % of votes with the 72,7 % turnout. This means that the second ballot is going to take place on February the 5th. The most unexpected fight for the second position, occurred between the Centre Party candidate, Paavo Väyrynen and Pekka Haavisto from the Green League. The final victory of Haavisto, who received 18,8 %, which was only 1,5 % more than Väyrynen, seems to be the biggest surprise of the elections.

The second turn therefore will be the struggle between the conservative and liberal values and fortunately, it will no longer be the referendum on the Finnish membership in eurozone, as suggests the biggest daily newspaper in Finland, ‘Helsingin Sanomat’. It appears that the EU’s issue will keep its crucial status in the public debate in Finland and that one will stay unchanged, the country will be still an important part of the European community.

If Sauli Niinistö won election, some changes, especially in the foreign policy sphere, would take place.  Tarja Halonen, one of the supporters of currently present non-alignment military policy, will soon hand over the reins on the group representative, who is sympathetic towards Finnish membership in NATO. It could all mean that the European Union is no longer able to ensure safety, which for decades has been one of the most important aspects of Finnish politics. It would prove that despite the changes of geopolitical conditions, which occurred over the past few decades, Finns remain faithful to their political pragmatism, which means the realization of the greater benefits rule. Considering that fact as well as the ongoing European crisis, it would seem that Finnish membership in NATO is more probable than ever. The same crisis, however, extort the greater involvement in strengthening the Eurozone, so one cannot account for the complete reorientation of politics.

This year presidential elections are, without doubt, one of the most important events on the Finnish political arena. It seems that they are of more symbolic dimension, though. These would be the results that would show what Finnish people think about safety doctrine and the role of the EU in their politics. They will also decide whether they want to hand over the reins on the hands of one political party for at least the next 3 years.

Translation: Magdalena Bożek, Piotr Gmitrowicz

Lately there have not been many debates so serious as the ongoing debate on ACTA in Poland. It concerns not only, or even not mainly, controversial contents of the document, but fundamental principles and dilemmas lying at the foundation of societies and relations between citizens, the state and powerful, global economic subjects.

I am not an expert on ACTA, but I do trust Ewa Siedlecka’s assessment, in which she criticized many of its aspects in Gazeta Wyborcza, and a similarly negative analysis in Panoptykon – one of the most renowned NGOs in Poland.

ACTA certainly confirms that some general, upsetting tendencies are present in the perception of the desired scope of freedom in virtual reality. It also proves that various countries, governed theoretically by our representatives, are willing to side with big concerns that as lobbies put pressure on politicians.

Freedom vs. property

ACTA reveals quite distinctly the issue that has been developing for some time, but emerged rather recently due to the revolutionary nature of the Internet.

The two sides of the whole dispute are represented by values that have never before been confronted in such a direct manner. Firstly, we deal with a crucial element of individual freedom, namely: respecting the inviolability of individual’s personal/intimate life. Secondly, we have the property right and its more abstract form of intellectual property and copyrights. That both these values are essential goes without saying.

Numerous Internet portals and services are the bone of contention in this case, as they allow users to download various materials, produced by certain authors, free of charge. In order to prevent any losses to authors and publishers precautionary measures are suggested in the form of strict supervision of individual users on the Internet. The next step, as we may expect, is penalizing the incriminated file-sharing websites.

File-sharing penalized?

The Internet enables us to practise on a larger scale something that has always been happening and potentially decreasing the earnings of authors and publishers, and yet nobody thought of penalizing it. As it was not possible. When I was a child I used to buy almost all comic books that I would find at a kiosk. I paid for them, because my parents could afford to cater for such fancies of an only child.

Theoretically, when a friend of mine asked me to lend him a copy after I read it, I should have said “no”. Perhaps, if I had said “no”, he would have bought this comic book. Due to my real-life file-sharing the publisher and probably the author suffered a loss. I caused similar damage by letting my fellow students make  photocopies of the scripts I had bought earlier or by letting my friends borrow VHS films from me or perhaps even by recording movies from the television and rewatching them multiple times. I do not know.

But I do know that if through those activities I had been earning money, i.e. lending for money, I would have broken the law. But I was lending materials for free and I believe that most of us have been doing this on regular basis. If files are uploaded and downloaded free of charge, then file-sharing websites are practising the same thing that was not stigmatized earlier – only on a mass scale.

Apart from the scale, the difference is that nobody was able to track the act of lending comic books, tapes or CDs to your friends (well, unless some eager-beaver was stalking teenagers at the kiosk). But theoretically every action and user on the Internet can be traced and consequently put to justice.

Allow keeping trace of users? No!

And that is how we have reached the crux of the matter. Can we accept the supervision of people’s activities on the Internet in the name of protecting property rights and copyrights? For me the answer is obvious. This justification is not sufficient. There are two reasons for that:

Reason no. 1. The alleged concern losses

It is pretty obvious. The harm done to artists, publishers and big companies due to file-sharing on the Internet is immeasurably smaller than the harm done to average citizens due to the supervision of their browser’s history.

Those lobbies exaggerate the issue, especially when they give us the numbers representing their alleged losses. They assume, rather arbitrarily and absurdly, that if anyone who downloaded their movies or CD on Megaupload or a similar website, had not had the opportunity to do so, would have gone to the cinema, bought the DVD or even BluRay (did you notice that even when produced on a mass scale films on new carriers are always more expensive than on the old ones?), or a music album. That is just utter rubbish.

If some of those people were to pay, they would give up watching the movie altogether (it will appear sooner or later on television), or they would borrow a CD from their friends and even copy it. People were doing this before the Internet and file-sharing, they would do it again.

The so-called piracy is not causing any spectacular losses to movie or music business, but rather a spectacular rise of popularity of some artists, whose works are now accessible without financial barriers.

The users of this shady file-sharing voluntarily become “multipliers” who encourage others to watch a film or listen to a song by just giving positive reviews or comments on the Internet.

If it were not for this huge Internet buzz, some of those people would not buy the film or music album legally. What is more, not everything can be downloaded in a form of a file. A fan who is a pirate is still a consumer of a whole range of merchandising. He follows his idol and gives him a huge amount of publicity measured by the number of friends on Facebook or followers on Twitter. Thanks to this, his idol becomes more attractive on the market for advertising companies. The money coming from this is immeasurably bigger that the potential income taken by file-sharing. Producers’ lobbies should really quit wailing.

Reason no. 2. Freedom over property

But this is a secondary issue. What is essential here is the fundamental principle: that the value of individual freedom and privacy is simply higher in hierarchy than property rights. Individual freedom is fundamental. Questioning it can lead to objectifying people, which directly leads to questioning other rights – including the property right. Property right is ancillary to individual freedom and therefore subordinated to it. We must not limit freedom for the sake of property rights, while a reverse action is possible, but also undesirable.

In this case it may be inevitable. Certainly, the way out of this dilemma cannot rely on the supervision of users on the Internet. Such standard would be potentially very dangerous.

And the menace of totalitarianism seized us.

In its beginnings, just like the mobile phone, the Internet seemed like a fantastic invention that would broaden our freedom. Unfortunately it was eventually seized by the menace of state authority, which tries to control us always and everywhere, at every point of history, in every part of the world.

In Poland – a land of tapping, billing collection, mobile log-in location data, where nobody controls this surveillance, nobody destroys the collected data, but hoards it, where text messages and e-mails are scrutinized as well – those modern technologies proved to be a bait that we fell for and instead of being a tool of freedom, they became a tool of control. A perfect, total control – with huge processing capabilities embracing all of us at the same time.

The elusive dream of totalitarian states’ secret service from the first half of the 20th century is now within grasp. We have to be able to count on contemporary authorities and their willingness to refrain from creating virtual profiles of users, in the name of protecting copyrights, in order to reveal and document their tendencies to weird pornography, eccentric political views, diseases kept secret or simply maintaining “inappropriate” relationships with certain people. My thesis is that every day one could compromise such a person and destroy his/her reputation with that sort of data.

Can we count on our authorities to hold their greed for information that concerns us? My personal belief is that we may not count on that in Poland, where all actions are organized according to a Soviet mentality and such standards. And in almost each case governing bodies tend to be restrictive, rather than allowing freedom.

But perhaps there are not any states that would allows such generosity towards their citizens. That is why we need firm regulations that would protect our privacy and freedom, and an independent supervision of their interpretation. This is what we need instead of ACTA. And even if the movie and music business loses couple of percents of their income, then I shall say: so be it. We must take the bad with the good.

Translation: Maciej Rogoza

One of the myths which was debunked by the mass protests of internauts against ACTA is an extraordinary ability of the current government to sense the public feeling and to effectively communicate with it.  Right from the first hours when ACTA became the topic no.1 in Polish media, the government committed one gaffe after another. Michał Boni – Minister of Administration and Digitalisation – was giving confusing explanations concerning the open debate, and finally stated that it has been lasting since 2008 and that this issue is demonised in Poland. Indeed the debate was conducted by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage.  Among the organisations invited to the debate one could find only those which benefit from ACTA, i.e.:  Foundation of Audiovisual Works Protection, Polish Audiovisual Producers Chamber of Commerce, Society of Authors ZAiKS and the like. One can equally well invite Big Bad Wolf, Kaa Snake and Mr. Badger to debate on the problem “Should the henhouse be open at night?” Minister Zdrojewski, do you know these fairy tales?

Paweł Graś brilliantly stated that the governmental websites hang because they generated too much interest, however, only one day later on the www.premier.gov.pl (Prime Minister’s website) one was welcomed by Mrs Basia stylised as Wojciech Jaruzelski.  If it is the truth that the password and login were ‘admin 1′ and ‘admin’, we should actually be grateful to the hackers for drawing attention to this – the embarrassment could be bigger.

Until recently the Polish government was boasting of forcing the ACTA agreement through, calling it on the Innovative Poland portal www.pi.gov.pl to be the “success of Polish presidency.” “Polish presidency can be also proud about another success. According to what the Ministry of Economy stated, the Council of the European Union made the decision to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The resort underlined that this was one of the priorities chosen for the period of Polish leadership in the Council of the European Union.” After exposing the ACTA case they became – in the same text – only one of the decisions made by the Council of the EU during Polish leadership.

Donald Tusk was defending the decision on signing ACTA in Tokyo, as it was announced on Thursday 26th January, referring to the fact that Poland belongs to the democratic countries club which, with absolute certainty, cannot be suspected of any attempt to limit freedom (reminds of the democratic traditions of South Korea and Mexico – the country of law), not mentioning the fact that the USA government, influenced by the resolute protests, secretly starts to withdraw from the SOPA pack, which can limit the privacy of internauts to the greater extent. It is worth noticing that, with absolute certainty, closing, among others, the Wikipedia website warmed up the atmosphere in Poland and the protests against ACTA which already were intensive. Tusk stated the following: “the intention of the Polish government and the previous government under my management is not to a lesser extent limiting the freedom in the Internet. I definitely share such liberation enthusiasm of all these people who appreciate the Internet because of the fact that, among others, it is the space of freedom.”

Could he really forget that only the resolute protests of internauts caused that the government partly withdrew from the gambling act which was passed very quickly? He definitely forgot about the promise made to the internauts that each new law that will concern them will be consulted with this social group. Among others, Vagla reminds that “Of course I remember when during the meeting with the internauts the Prime Minister said that the decisions concerning ACTA will not be made without thorough explanations (to public opinion) of all the doubts which were signalled during the works on this agreement which was long kept secret.” That disrespectful treatment of the internauts and unilateral imposing the rules of the game can end up badly for the government was foreseen soon in December by Wacław Iszkowski “if the young generation will organise an e-demonstration, then each demonstration outside this building (The Chancellery of the Prime Minister) would be nothing compared to that one.“

Indolence of the Civic Platform (the leading party in the Polish Government) is incredible, especially when one would take into consideration how efficiently they used to cope with containing conflicts and distracting attention from them. Even on the occasion of the action against the open pension fund, the media did not transmit to that extend the comments which were critical of the government. Of course as the time will go by, after signing the document, when it appears that the protests are pointless they become less intensive. Most probably it was on one hand because of the feeling that after the victory at the election the party can do anything and, on the other hand, because of the total lack of understanding of the governing generation 50+ for people for whom the Internet is as real as the world outside the window (or even more real). Poland is among the world leaders in the exchange of files. It was easy to guess that an attempt to limit what is perceived as something absolutely natural for millions of Polish people (just like Telexpress (a very popular news programme) or the soap opera after work for old generations) will end up badly for the government (what would happen if they stopped emitting Bold and Beautiful?). But they could not understand that.

The mobilisation of the internauts will not end up with establishing a party – the protesters have nothing more in common than the opposition to the agreement. However, it has a great unused political potential. It’s a wonder that the opposition parties manage so poorly with taking advantage of this public outrage at the government of the Prime Minister Tusk – but these people belong to the same generation and are equally alien in this world. The government can be sure of one thing – the internauts will never forget what it did. Things don’t just disappear in the Internet, Mister Prime Minister.

Translation: Joanna Brodowska

The conspiracy of corporations or the struggle against theft?

Is ACTA aimed against citizens? Is the contract unprofitable for them? I am not a lawyer but all the information which I analyzed prove it is not. According to the discourse, it seems that the purpose of the treaty is to limit the freedom of Internet users with reference to the conspiracy of both politicians and corporations.

It could be quoted as a shining example of manipulating audience by the use of social engineering. Thousands of Internet users vehemently defend the endangered freedom of speech and the freedom of the Internet. I asked a number of people, who added photos entitled Stop ACTA on Facebook, what is meant by this danger. Hardly anyone answered the question.

ACTA, however, aims to protect property rights. The treaty is not the devil incarnate but the struggle with the omnipresent problem of robbing companies and producers by means of illegal copying. It should prevent the situations in which, for example, a company has invested billions of euro to produce a new generation drug, make some technological progress as well as improve the condition of the thousands of patients and, after putting the drug on the market, a competing company that spent no money for research has copied the drug illegally and sold at a cheaper price. This decreases the willingness to invest in research and development. As a result, technological progress becomes delayed and, when it comes to pharmacy, possibilities to produce new drugs for severe illnesses are reduced.

ACTA should popularize the standards of protecting property rights. The principles of the treaty seems legitimate, unless someone questions the validity of property rights.

The dilemma with ACTA concerns mainly liberals. Two liberal values oppose each other – the protection of citizens against groundless surveillance and the presumption of innocence vs. the observance of property rights. Our democratic-capitalist system of values and law is based on them. As a consequence of the era of the Internet (and regardless of ACTA), these two values suddenly became contradictory. It seems that the protection of property rights violates the struggle against surveillance and vice versa – the struggle against surveillance contributes to the violation of property rights. Is there any neat solution? No.

The idea of preventive measures allowing Internet service providers to cut off access to a particular service without any proof of guilt is undoubtedly against the law. But, according to the interpretations of ACTA that I familiarized with, the treaty does not stipulate it…

Moreover, the majority of commentators does not realize that both standpoints are supported by numerous corporate lobbies. Not only ACTA has influential supporters (such as the representatives of music industry or publishers). The statement that ACTA is supported by bigwigs and opposed by pro-democratic citizens seems wrong. ACTA is unprofitable for great Internet entrepreneurs who allow users to distribute music, films and other materials protected by intellectual property rights.

Such entrepreneurs make big money by means of selling a great amount of advertisements with reference to numerous website viewers (who distribute legal or often stolen material). In other words, they make money by means of turning a blind eye to the instances of theft that take place on their websites. It is worth nothing that the entrepreneurs do not reward producers.

If one guy robbed another during a party at my own home, I would be worried but my guilt would be very indirect. It would be undoubtedly moral to find out who did that. Such person should have not be invited again. The problem would appear if I started to invite pickpockets at my parties and, moreover, if I made money by such instances of theft.

Is the business fair? It is not. Why we do not condemn such procedure but we attack those who demand payment for their hard work? In addition, we paradoxically do it under the banner of the fight against system. We have been manipulated.

ACTA is aimed to persuade the owners of websites to take more care of materials published by users. But it should not come as a surprise. Lawyers need to explain what the abovementioned care will mean in practice. The government should specify that notion clearly. Any sanction must be proportional to guilt. Preventative measures aimed against website users must be avoided because they violate the presumption of innocence.

How does the digital era influence our value system?

The debate on ACTA is also the impulse to look into our value system that has been strongly influenced by the digital era. The Internet makes us stoop to actions which would be resisted in real world. The majority of readers would not leave a shop with a CD hidden in their coat pockets. The majority of us consider that is theft.

Everything changes when we turn on our computers. It is likely that most readers have illegally downloaded a CD once or twice. Hardly anyone may feel a pang of remorse for such behaviour. But it does not differ from stealing an original CD from a shop. This is also theft. People explain that they would buy CDs if they were cheaper. But if someone cannot afford a plasma TV or a Porsche car, it does not mean that he has the right to steal them.

Our value system becomes inconsistent. People do not understand that the virtual world does not differ from the real world. So why the virtual world should be governed by different rules?

The danger of constant surveillance

It is believed that the greatest danger of ACTA is the surveillance of the Internet users. I would feel uncomfortable if somebody knew in details with whom I communicate, where I spend my time etc. It would violate my privacy. This issue may be the source of tension between the liberal protection of property rights and the liberal protection of citizens’ privacy.

The problem is that our actions in the Internet are recorded anyhow (Has anyone watched the American film “Enemy of the State”?). It is beyond any doubt that Internet providers know in details which websites we visit. The EU Data Retention Directive obliges Internet providers to store itemized bills and data concerning users’ actions for two years, in case law enforcement agencies examine them. This serves as the example of surveillance. Legitimate protests against the Directive cut no ice. Polish law enforcement agencies may have access to the private data of citizens almost in any case.

Does ACTA make things worse? Let me repeat that I am not a lawyer but the truthful interpretations that I familiarized myself with prove it does not. So why we struggle against ACTA, which is aimed to protect property rights, instead of fighting against the repressive Data Retention Directive?

That dispute concerns the economic model of the digital era.

To be honest, the struggle against ACTA does not concern the treaty because hardly anyone understands its conditions. Having taken this into consideration, do the abovementioned issues make any sense? Yes and no. No, because Michał Boni  pointed out rightly that ACTA does not change anything in Polish law. It should be obvious for anyone who read the EP resolution of November 2010. “ACTA does not include provisions modifying the substantive intellectual property rights (IPR) law of the EU or the other ACTA parties, but rather establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive international framework to assist the parties in their efforts to combat IPR infringements effectively, and it does not therefore imply any change to the acquis communautaire.”, the resolution stipulates.

This is just prelude to the discussion that will soon heat up. The discussion whether cracking and the theft of intellectual property by means of Internet will become commonly allowed or not. Will we punish cracking or will we remain in turning a blind eye to it? Will the future business model be based on free access or rather on the sale of particular products, in other words, on the principal rule of free market economy? Which aspect will be more important – a website with content or a producer? How to reconcile the interests of producers with the interests of Internet users? Will the state agree to introduce the so called open public resources (with free access to any intellectual property that has been produced by means of public money), although they may be completely unprofitable for Polish culture and science?
That dispute concerns the business model that will dominate the digital era.

Translation: Aleksandra Kozłowska

What group does the Hungarian Prime Minister belong to? Who can Viktor Orbán see looking in the mirror? “The Financial Times” cartoonist depicted it perfectly well by presenting Orbán standing in front of the mirror, but the reflection he can see is…Vladimir Putin. The juxtaposition of two omnipotent prime ministers seems to be natural and everyone, who is particularly sensitive about violation of civil liberties, will definitely give the Budapest government a severe look.

Viktor Orbán – elected, what about democratic?

Orbán’s laid-back composure is puzzling. Isn’t he surprised by what he sees? Doesn’t he see what we see? Is the Hungarian Prime Minister unlikely to see signs of “putinism” in his policies? The reality is undoubtedly complex. Everyone perceives it in a different way eliciting only those shapes, colours, sounds, scents that they are most familiar with. But can we seriously believe that such an experienced politician does not really know who he is and does not know what he does? It is hard to say. One thing is certain – he knows that as a fervent Christian his potential sins will be absolved. Furthermore, I suppose that his pride may make it difficult to stay in touch with the reality. Intoxicated by his almost absolute power he does as he sees fit, heedless of the domestic or international criticism.

Having won more than two-thirds of seats in the parliamentary elections in April 2010, Orbán can adapt the law to his needs – change the Constitution and fill the most important institutions with his people. These are the apparent democratic rights. After all, the winner was selected in free elections…This argument seems to be crucial and, in the discussion on Orbán, is likely to be used – victoriously by his followers and with resignation by his critics. Many commentators are outraged that the European Commission claims the right to interfere with Hungary’s domestic affairs as, in contrast to Orbán’s government, it has no democratic legitimacy; that is, it has not been elected. I know these arguments. They often appear in various other contexts and seem to block any discussion. In the same way, the accusations against NGOs are formulated since “true democrats” are concerned about the growing importance of non-profit organizations. Nevertheless, we tend to forget about one detail: the core of democracy is not elections above all – even if voting is held without the use of coercive measures. Democracy is first and foremost the rule of law and human rights! Yet Orbán extends his control over the central bank, limits the independence of the judiciary and “disciplines” the media. Where is the separation of powers? Where is the place for pluralism – a prerequisite for a real public debate, the lack of which makes each choice seemingly free? Most of the time Orbán stays tight-lipped and only uses the government spokesman to assure that “Hungary is the state of law and the government is devoted to European, universal values”. He certainly feels that his actions are inconsistent with these values, but the urge for absolute power is irresistible.

How is it that ardent anti-communists (and Orbán is one of them) so eagerly imitate their old enemies? This is an apparent paradox. Psychology has long described the phenomenon whereby the abused child becomes an abuser as an adult by following the patterns learned at home. Let us hope we will not see Budapest at the Vistula.

Translation: Adam Intrys

I associate the story from the totalitarian China in 60s with action of the governments of the states creating ACTA. Unfortunately, confidence of own omniscience and monopoly on the truth about ways of providing citizens with happiness is the treat of each authority.

The Internet is the phenomenon which still remains slightly undetermined by right and by state. It eliminates carefully guarded boundaries and reveals the secrets that were hidden in the offices till now. It causes the flow of ideas and technology – sometimes without will, and perhaps knowledge of the authors. There was no government or international structure that was prepared for this phenomenon. Internet does not expand the sphere of freedom, but it gives us a tool to use these freedoms which have been already gained by our civilisation, such as flow of information which is guaranteed by the UN and UNESCO conventions and final CSCE protocol which were used by the opposition of Communist countries when using printing and telephone for freedom actions. However, the right to information which was stipulated in conventions was under the state control – there was a possibility to break the convention  and Communist authorities used to use it. Internet eliminated the technical possibility of breaking this right.

The proposition of ACTA international agreement arouses the strongest emotions among the surfers but it is worth mentioning that the topic of copyright was added to this as it started from lobbing of people who were interested in protecting their own technologies and blocking counterfeits of their companies’ products. They exerted a strong influence on the governments which negotiated the agreement. Throughout the negotiations (and we even do not know how it happened) all eggs were put into one basket. The state is supposed to cover the costs of breaking the rights. It is the combination of  many affairs which testifies to the fact that the governments are acting as Mao on the rice field:

• Counterfeit technology – is the topic of trials which are difficult to be judged. Let’s have a look at the conflict between Apple and Samsung about Galaxy Tab and different statements of the courts in different countries. Deluded similarity of look and technological solutions resulted in proposal that distribution – iPhone 4S in France and Italy, and Galaxy in USA – should be banned. Hundreds of experts are engaged in the case. They are not able to say whether it was the technology copying – and ACTA is proposing to pass this decision on the official who would be allowed to prohibit the distribution of any device. Probably Samsung is going to manage with this – making money on compensation (paid from our taxes). The small producer who would have the idea similar to that one of big companies would be destroyed.
• Generic drugs. The company X is producing the drug with identical composition or the composition which is very similar to the composition of the drug produced by company Y which was the first producer. The cost of production of the drug in company X is lower so that company X is eliminating company Y. Here we have more complicated problem – obviously the one who created the drug and invested a lot of money in the studies should have the opportunity to compensate for the effort and to make money. Nevertheless, this is the open secret that the pharmaceutical companies overuse the opportunity to monopolise the drug market of some diseases. This is in our common interest to widespread modern drugs – also in the countries with low budgets and low possibility of purchasing. Therefore the governments should work on solutions allowing us to conduct the studies while introducing mechanism of opening drug patents which are vital for health, e.g. through the rights redemption by WHO. By adding the problem of rights to HIV vaccination to the question of iPad processor or injection in car they make the situation more complicated as it is   a misunderstanding in terms of differentiated interests of citizen in each of the cases above.

• Copyright in the Internet was added to ACTA at the end, probably as a result of the influence of music companies. Presumably they also wanted to form the group of popular artists who play the role of useful idiots supporting the project.

The problem of piracy did not appear with Internet – scribes copied manually, Gutenberg gave the machine to mechanical and mass printing. Since the tape recorder with recording function was invented, music spread out of the distribution networks. It is not comprehensible why companies do not want to sell music and films in the Internet as any computer program is copy-protected. The only thing that changes is that there is an address of the server instead of carrier.

Are they so attached to the producers of carriers and considerations: CD, DVD or Blu-Ray? This is the past, just like the scribes. Unless the companies pal up with new medium, they will disappear. ACTA cannot change this phenomenon, it can only make the agony longer.

The whole situation, taking no account of substantive doubts in specific cases, indicates serious threats posed by governments. I do not deny the validity of protection of intellectual property but I do not understand, why:

• The taxpayers of the countries that are going to adopt the agreement (not the companies that are interested in implementing the project) are supposed to suffer the cost of prosecution and trial, and responsibility for wrong decisions. In the case of companies X and Y, these are the companies that should carry the cost.
• The governments prepared the documents out of public, as if they prepared war plans, using the opportunities that are given by the international negotiations (lack of control by the citizens through legislation as it works in civilised countries – the only source of knowledge about prepared document was Wikileaks);
• In the document, they adopted the principle of presumption of guilt of each surfer, privileging the interests of corporations over the interests of citizens;
• They establish the mechanisms of permanent, legal surveillance under the pretext of protection of intellectual values. Additional authorisations for customs are going to create the mechanism of official blocking the economic freedom.

800 years ago, English lords forced recognition of judiciary as decisive in case of conflicts, instead of will of King and his officials. 50 years ago Chinese decided to fight back sparrows. About 30 years ago, final CSCE protocol was signed. When I think where we are now, I reach a sad conclusion.

Luckily, apart from the “smart” governments we have this dreadful Internet  – you will find information about ACTA and possibilities of civic protest there. We must remind High Contracting Parties that their mandate comes from our giving.

ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) – the proposition of the international agreement regulating the standards of combating the violations of intellectual property. The agreement is supposed to establish a new body of international collaboration.

The agreement was proposed by USA and Japan in 2006. The representatives of the largest American companies also participated in creating the agreement.

The main goal of the agreement is to standardize the principles of intellectual property protection in signatory countries. A majority of countries would be forced  to exacerbate law and establish new procedures of prosecution and surveillance of piracy in the Internet. According to the critics, it can violate the freedom of all surfers.

The works on the document were secret. The first working version was published by Wikileaks on May 2008.

In my opinion it was really interesting and important question with regard to the shape of Polish political scene. Constantly repeated questions asked by mainstream media about accidental selection of the people on the electoral roll or the style of the political propaganda and media appearances or terrible stupid comparisons to the phenomenon of Andrzej Lepper’s Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland (Samoobrona) were less interesting. It was clear that RP will be the party with distinct message in terms of controversial social and moral problems (although there were still doubts about the way of subordination these issues to unnecessary harsh anticlerical rhetoric). However, the direction of the party in association with economic policy remained questionable. Such liberal attitude towards moral changes can be in practice of European politics connected not only with free market solutions trend in economic policy, but also to the tendency to create rich social security. In the first case, these parties are liberal. In the second one, they are social democratic, socialist, or alternatively, green. RP, as the significant actor on the political stage, has given reason to question whether the long-awaited centre-liberal party in Poland has already been created.

PR – long-awaited, centre-liberal party?

Recently, it was strongly suggested. This was obviously the direction hinted (honestly, there were only few such hints) in the content of Janusz Palikot’s speeches and his political statements. Furthermore, his earlier career as the politician of The Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska – PO), when one of the most important things for him was deregulation and limitation of bureaucratic problems, was also sign of such approach. Economically liberal demands – abandoned even by PO – are also present in the program of RP e.g. flat rate PIT. Palikot seemed to be similar to professor Leszek Balcerowicz and Krzysztof Rybiński in his criticism of PO-PSL  coalition’s reign of the first term with regard to such events as dissolution of open-end pension fund (OFE) or lack of courage in such reforms as increase of retirement age. It has created the picture of very liberal party together with such clearly presented issues as in vitro fertilisation, partner relationships, separation of Church from State.

Strategic reflection

There was, on the other hand, strategic reflection. It is true that the Polish society has never shown any tendency to support liberal views per se. It is different case with the socialist views. They have strongly influenced Polish political history, even if we do not account the time of the People’s Republic of Poland (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa – PRL). The camp of left social democrats is on the deep defensive since 2005. All sociologists agree that post communist party is in the crisis and does not appeal even to the half of potential electorate of the Polish left. It means that there is opportunity for the new environment to take action. It might be easier way to strengthen the position of the new party on the political scene, than in the short-lasting liberal centre.

Janusz Palikot would probably like to build liberal party struggling for the libertine part of left voters under the moral banner. At the same time he challenges PO through enlisting its newly discovered social liberalism and promoting the program strangely resembling libertarianism (when there were pre-election debates, he has agreed with Janusz Korwin-Mikke on many economic issues). This is the party I would like to join, although I do not highly value rhetoric of the leader in many cases. It seems that strategic calculation has won, in other words, the idea of creation of the left party. The important reason for this decision might be the choice of Leszek Miller for the new leader of post-communist formation. Young left-wingers associate him with negative features, because of four reasons: when he was prime minister, he had kind of relationship with economic liberalism; he blocked morally progressive projects for the benefit of treaty with the Church in return for the support of access of Poland to the EU; he is supposed to be sexist and chauvinist making fun of feminists.; he caused the downfall of the Left and – indirectly – brought about success of Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość – PiS) and two years of the fourth Republic of Poland (Czwarta Rzeczpospolita Polska – IV RP) by his tolerance for the signs of corruption in his own party. The competition in form of Leszek Miller makes it easier for Janusz Palikot to become the unquestionable leader of the Polish Left. The additional encouragement is the frankness of Aleksander Kwaśniewski, who may strengthen the position of Palikot as social democrat.

Various supporters

This is why RP plans to get involved in May Day march. Palikot wants to invite, on the one hand, workers to a party and, on the other hand, also anti establishment groups and minorities. It is the reason why RP is so eager to fraternize with Democratic Left Alliance (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej – SLD). This explains also the common program congress of the Left together with the Greens and almost eurocomunnist „Krytyka Polityczna”. There is the opportunity to succeed. However, from the point of view of liberal voter, it means the lost chance to represent one’s viewpoint through autonomic political party.

It is normal to complain about this. This was really the first potential chance for the significant political force with liberal profile since the failure of the project of Władysław Frasyniuk and Marek Belka from 2005. When presented currently by Janusz Palikot plans are realized on 1st May, then it will be clear that liberal voter has to pin all his hopes and votes on the left wing of PO. Even if it means choosing „lesser of two evils”. On the other hand, it does not have to happen. Maybe the way to create the liberal party in Poland is not the new structure, but instead the marginalization of conservative politicians in PO or pushing them aside the party for 5-10 years towards the followers of „Radio Maryja”.

The choice of Janusz Palikot might be pitiful, but not necessary. Probably it is something positive. Even if the leader of RP has chosen the liberal and centre direction, then his style and harsh rhetoric (even if it was right about the content) would be unbearable. People, who have earlier supported parties of Geremek, Frasyniuk or Onyszkiewicz, might feel torn apart.

Translation: Grzegorz Skrzypczyk

Elections in April 2010 gave the conservative party Fidesz unprecedented victory leading to the 2/3 majority in the Parliament. Partly because of the economic crisis, mainly as a result of spectacular failure of the Socialists, Viktor Orbán’s slogans convinced over half of the Hungarian voters. Orbán presented his opinions and plans in a book “There is one homeland”, whose telling title basically sums up the content. Hungarian Prime Minister uses above all a slogan of big, powerful Hungary making references to long buried but still remembered historic sentiments, he speaks about independence of Hungary and about that they do not need anyone’s help. Speaking of Hungarian nation he always means also Hungarians living in the neighbouring countries, who were granted right to double citizenship right at the beginning of this Parliament’s term of office. All these slogans about restoring glory of Hungary combined with complete lack of trust towards Socialists secured Orbán a big victory.

Nobody could predict this, what is happening a year after the elections. After controversial media law and nationalization of the pension system situation in Hungary calmed down a bit a year ago, but not for long. The governmental actions became subject of heated discussion again a few months ago when facing the financial crisis government introduced possibility of paying back the credit in Swiss francs at the fixed rate, when paid in a lump sum. This solution was adopted without any consultations with the bank, which caused the first bigger storm in the financial sector. The next controversial step was rushing adaptation of the new Constitution which changed basically everything in the country, from the name of the state to competences of the Constitutional Tribunal. These competences were largely limited, which caused the voices of criticism accusing Orbán of the first coup d’etat. The second limitation comes down to the fact that according to the new Constitution the Constitutional Tribunal has no right to black budget bills until public debt reaches the level of 50% defined by the Constitution (currently it is almost 80%), which in theory is supposed to be a countermeasure against crisis, in practice gives the government unlimited freedom in the financial issues. Apart from the new Constitution the most controversial bill adopted by the Parliament was the one limiting independence of the central bank (president of the bank does not have right to appoint his deputies, who are nominated by the President after Prime Minister’s suggestion) and widening competences of the Monetary Council (increases number of its members up to 9, out of whom 6 are appointed by the Parliament).

Viktor Orban, in answer to international criticism and accusations of authoritarian methods, underlines deep need for change in Hungary. His main reason to carry out all these reforms and legislative changes come down to the idea that Hungary is still behind, still too much in the Communist era, for which he blames Socialists. This is why Fidesz is trying to take control over all the institutions possible – in order to make their dream of change possible, clearly they do not see any other, more democratic way to achieve it.

As expected in face of these events rating agencies lowered Hungarian rating to so-called junk status. This results in decrease in investors’ trust – not only potentially new ones but also those who already are in the country and who may start backing their capital. Hungarian economy is not big, without foreign capital there is virtually no chance to overcome high rate of unemployment and enormous public debt. Private debts remain a problem also, especially the ones in the Swiss francs. Hungary does not stand on the verge of bankruptcy yet but considering breaking the negotiations with the IMF and sanctions which the European Union threatens with, situation is becoming more and more serious. How do Hungarians react to all this?

Crowds on the streets of Budapest

A year ago, in spite of the controversial media law and wave of criticism towards Hungary in whole Europe, support for the Orbán’s government stayed at the exceptionally high level, exceeding 50%. At the beginning of 2012 signs of impatience are visible among Hungarians, especially in Budapest. There are regular protests against policy of the government in front of the Parliament which reached their climax in the enormous demonstration that took place on the 2nd January in front of the Opera where Hungarian dignitaries celebrated the new Constitution coming in power. According to various estimations demonstration gathered from 30 to 100 thousand people, even though it was peaceful all the way long it reflected the mood of many people in Hungary. People are fed up with Orbán and his more and more bold and less democratic decisions, they are fed up with the fact that against what was promised the economic situation did not improve at all. Slogans about powerful Hungary do not make any impression when forint breaks another record against euro, unemployment increases and the government carelessly breaks the negotiations with the IMF. It seems though that there will be no revolution in Budapest.

Intellectuals, oppositionists, students, all of liberals interested in the politics agree that undemocratic movements of Orbán’s government are worrying, to say the least. Demonstrations gather more and more government’s opponents but they are still far from the manifestations and riots from 2009 against Socialists. The Socialists still paradoxically contribute to big popularity of Fidesz. There is simply no alternative for Orbán in Hungary. After the scandal from 2009 when former Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány admitted that he was consciously and intentionally lying to his voters concerning the state of economy in order to win the elections, Socialists are still unpopular among Hungarian society that will probably distrust the Left for many years (their return to power is even more difficult now as the Communist Party and in theory also Socialist Party were declared to be illegal). According to the last polls anti-Roma, nationalist Jobbik was more popular than Socialists. At the same time Fidesz is also losing popularity – according to these surveys only around 30% of Hungarians would vote for Orban’s party.

Hungarians are in a very difficult situation – they have to choose between authoritarian Fidesz, radical Jobbik, discredited Socialist and liberals from LMP of no importance (not more than 5% of support in the last elections). On one hand Fidesz is losing popularity and has more and more fierce opponents, on the other hand there is no clear vision of change in Hungary. It seems to be a choice between bigger and lesser evil, but apparently Hungarians have not decided yet who is supposed to be lesser evil.

There will be no revolution, Orbán will rule until 2014?

It seems very improbable that Orbán’s government will be overthrown by the revolution on the streets, Prime Minister will rather not resign under the social pressure. The danger comes down to the fact that until the elections in 2014 Orbán seems to be out of voters’ control. Economic crisis is the most probable hope for the change of radical policy of the government or the alternation of power. Outflow of the foreign capital, lack of new investments, worsening economic situation and possible sanctions imposed by the European Union may force the Hungarian government to change its policy. And if not, then tragic economic situation and simple poverty can lead to the social revolution on a big scale, mentioned above and as for now not very probable. Limiting civil rights by introducing for example media law is criticized by intellectuals, high unemployment and huge public debt will provide bigger parts of the society with strong arguments against the government.

The latest events show the weakness of the international organizations in the situation of a crisis in one of the member states – neither European Union, nor Council of Europe has been able to do anything apart from presenting adequate reminders or recommendations so far. The European Commission’s sanctions’ results remain to be seen. A lot now depends on how the negotiations with the IMF will go and if Hungary will obtain financial aid from the Fund. If yes then it will be forced to fulfill the IMF’s conditions, which gives hope for the normalization of the situation in the country. However, if Orbán keeps stating that Hungary can deal with the problems on its own, then democracy and welfare might be in a serious danger.

European Commission against Hungary

That is why we should look with sympathy towards the European Commission’s statement, which clearly opposes the last decisions made by the Hungarian government:

• Limiting the power of the Hungarian Central Bank. The Parliament in Budapest passed the resolution for the expansion of the Monetary Policy Council’s equivalent, where members are appointed directly by the Prime Minister Orban. This way independence of the Central Bank becomes a pure fiction.
• Attack on the independent judiciary. Lowering the retirement age of the judges to 62 years resulted in removal of 200 key judges. They are replaced by the lawyers connected with Fidesz, appointed by the government.
• Attack on the law protecting Hungarian personal data. If the EU wants to maintain its values and its authority for the sake of the acquis communautaire  achievement, it must take straight actions against Hungary.

It would be logical to block the flow of the European funds to Hungary. Poland should clearly support the European Commission, despite the common history and sympathy for Hungary.

EU has to react

Support for the democracy in Budapest and maintaining the cohesion of the Union as a community of fully democratic member states definitely lies in Polish interests. It is worth mentioning that what happens today in Hungary goes beyond the plans that Jarosław Kaczyński wanted to introduce between 2005 and 2007 in Poland. If the EU during the time of crisis does not maintain cohesion and basic values on which it was formed, it will start to decay, lose its attractiveness and power to appeal as a great foreland of free world. What is frightening is the increasing number of voices from the Polish right and the church underlying the need to implement the Hungarian model in Poland.

However, it seems that soon costs of the economic policy carried out by Budapest will be so enormous (among others, increasing costs of the foreign debt, stopping the flow of the EU money, recession), so severe that nobody will want to follow Orban’s path.

It is a pity that it will surely have influence on the level of life and prosperity of all Hungarians…

Translation: Katarzyna Białecka