Anti-coal human chain: Green call from Poland and Germany

Anti-coal human chain, Saturday 23 August 2014

Climate change does not stop at borders - join hands across borders in the German-Polish Lausitz region:  against new brown-coal strip mining - for a Europe-wide switch to Green energy!

Green call from Poland and Germany

Swedish energy corporation Vatenfall and Polish energy group PGE are planning to expand brown coal mining in the German-Polish Lausitz region. Huge brown-coal mining fields already destroyed nature, the environment and the homeland of thousands of people there.  Would the plans for new strip mines be realized, further villages would have to be bulldozed. Further billions of tons of dirty brown-coal would be fired in power plants and harm the climate and environment more than any other fuel. In Germany, the State governments in Saxony (CDU/FDP) and in Brandenburg (SPD/Linke) intend to approve the plans for the expansion of brown-coal mining. In Poland, the Polish government is pushing for new strip mines in the Lausitz region despite the fact that local communities rejected these plans in local referendum in 2009.

Climate change is a devastating force which does not stop at borders. We as Greens from Poland and Germany therefore fight together for a Europe-wide switch to Green energy which would also create millions of new sustainable jobs, for 100%  renewables, for more energy efficiency, for clean energy and a good future. We unite to stand up against new brown-coal mining in the Lausitz.

We strongly support local communities in Poland and Germany who have been fighting for sustainable future for their homelands.

And we ask you to fight with us and support people in the Lausitz: Be part of it and join hands in a human chain across borders between Kerkwitz in Germany and Grabice in Poland tomorrow, on Saturday 23 August 2014 – against the expansion of brown-coal mining in the Lausitz region, for a Europe-wide transition to Green energy!

Stop climate change! Create new green jobs! Think European, act local!

Agnieszka Grzybek, Adam Ostolski
Co-chairs of the Polish Greens Zieloni

Sven Giegold
Spokesperson of German delegation of the Greens in the European Parliament

Anna Grodzka MP joins the Green Party

Friday, 27th June. Anna Grodzka MP of the Your Movement defected to the Green Party.  Grodzka will stay in the Your Movement's parliamentary group in order to continue her work as rapporteur of several pieces of legislation: a major progressive revision of the Labour Code, a revision of the Protection of Tenants Act, and a new draft law on gender identity.

Anna Grodzka was elected in 2011 from the list of the Palikot Movement. Before her parliamentary career, she was an entrepreneur and LGBT activist. A self-described eco-socialist, she is currently the only serving transgender member of parliament in the world.

Explaining her decision in an interview with Bartłomiej Kozek of the Zielone Wiadomości (Green News), Grodzka said: „The Greens have a crucial role to play. What we need in Poland is a broad, left-wing, democratic alliance able to resist the duopoly of the right – the neoliberal-statist political block consisting of Law and Justice and Civic Platform. I intend to work on building such an alliance.” The potential for change in the political landscape lies in social movements, Grodzka stressed: „It is social movements that have been the bearers of the will of change, they demand more democracy, a fairer economic policy, sustainable development...”

Referring to her former party, Janusz Palikot's Your Movement, Grodzka said: „Your Movement did change the politics in Poland for the better. […] I am quitting, because the party has fulfilled its historic role. I am glad that I could be part of it. But now, more and more people have the feeling that Your Movement has lost direction […] Janusz Palikot needs to decide whether he wants to build a left-wing party in terms of economic policies, or a liberal one.”

Grodzka pointed out several occasions when she was successful in convincing the Your Movement parliamentary group to take a more left-wing direction. In other cases, however, she voted otherwise than her colleagues. She was against the raising of the retirement age to 67 (from 65 for men and 60 for women) and against supporting the Kraków's bid for being the host city of the Winter Olympic Competition in 2022.

In a press release, the leaders of the Polish Greens Agnieszka Grzybek and Adam Ostolski state that Grodzka has been working together with their party on many issues for a long time. They point out at a deep affinity of Grodzka's political positions and Green policies. They also stress that the Green Party remains equally critical of both parties of the parliamentary left, Your Movement and Democratic Left Alliance alike.

More: interview with Anna Grodzka on her joining the Green Party (in Polish)

Greens and Pirates: in search of a new majority for the commons

Ever since their emergence within the political landscape, Pirates have been perceived by Greens both as rivals for voters’ support and potential allies in a common cause. The Pirate movement has articulated its distinctive political vision and, in several countries, succeeded in creating a new constituency of voters. Whereas on the level of national politics in various countries Pirates pose for the Greens more or less of a challenge, in the European Parliament, they work together, on a daily basis, on issues such as data protection, network security or intellectual property reform. Is it a result of a contingent overlapping of Green and Pirate agendas, or is it a sign of a deeper affinity, or complementarity, between the two movements?

One of possible answers has been developed by Michel Bauwens, a thinker, a peer-to-peer theorist and the founder of P2P Foundation. Michel Bauwens advanced the idea of a “grand alliance” for the commons. Such an alliance would bring together Greens, Pirates, movements for social justice (trade unions, farmers’ associations), and small entrepreneurs – to protect natural (environmental) and cultural (digital) commons.

I talked to Michel via internet in August 2013, a couple of days before the conference Europe from Below, co-organised by Polish Green Party, Polish Teachers’ Union, and National Union of Nurses and Midwives. Michel took part in a panel discussion on “Internet and digital citizenship.”



Adam Ostolski

Read the interview at the Green European Journal.

Adam Ostolski: Ökologie ist in Polen ein mühsames Geschäft

Friedemann  Kohler: Herr Ostolski, war Polen ein guter Gastgeber für die Weltklimakonferenz?

Adam Ostolski: Die Konferenz hat leider die Befürchtung der ökologischen Bewegung bestätigt, dass Polen in der Klimapolitik keine positive Rolle spielt. Die Regierung verfolgte ein Alles oder Nichts. Sie wollte erreichen, dass alle Staaten der Welt sich in der Klimapolitik einigen – sonst lohnt es sich nicht, etwas zu tun. Polen verwarf damit das Konzept von Vorreiterschaft, dass einige Staaten, zum Beispiel die Europäische Union ehrgeizigere Ziele verfolgen als andere. Zweitens hat Polen die Klimakonferenz benutzt, um Lobbyarbeit für Kohleenergie zu betreiben.

Friedemann  Kohler: Warum ist Kohle so wichtig für die polnische Wirtschaft?

Es gibt Gründe, sich für polnische Kohle einzusetzen. Fast 90 Prozent unserer Energie stammt aus fossilen Brennstoffen. Polen hat eigene Braunkohle, und die Förderung lohnt sich. Steinkohle müssen auch wir importieren. Kohle zu beschränken würde große Verwerfungen in der Wirtschaft bedeuten, nicht nur im Bergbau, sondern auch in den Kraftwerken und anderen Branchen. Es fragt sich aber, ob die polnische Regierung zurecht so stark auf die Kohle setzt.

Selbst wir als polnische Grüne wollen keinen sofortigen und vollständigen Abschied von der Kohle. Wir wollen aber, dass die Regierung die ersten Schritte in die richtige Richtung macht. Das wäre ein Modernisierung des Leitungsnetzes, denn etwa die Hälfte der Energie geht beim Transport verloren.

Energiesparen ist überhaupt ein wichtiges Thema beim Klimaschutz, und das würde keineswegs einen sofortigen Ausstieg aus der Kohle bedeuten. Aber wenn man den Klimawandel leugnet und gar nichts tut, muss später alles auf einmal geschehen, und dann werden die gesellschaftlichen Kosten riesig sein.

[Click to read more]

Adam Ostolski: Miners and Greens, unite!

In November 2013, we shall witness another climate conference (COP) – this time in Warsaw. It’s not hard to see the plan of Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk: it’s stopping the possibility of a global agreement that would force Poland to switch to renewable energy sources. Is there a chance that we can stop this? Yes, but only if we create a broad alliance against neoliberalism and for a just energy transition. In this endeavour, a crucial partner for ecologists could be miners.

Climate policy is the one policy area in which Donald Tusk’s right-wing government is impeccably consistent. Poland vetoed plans for a more ambitious climate policy of the European Union, is hesitant to implement the EU legislation on green energy or energy efficiency, and hampers global agreements regarding this issue. Talking climate to the Polish government is a Sisyphean task.

There is a good side to this – ecological circles seem to now understand that there is no use in trying to make the government change its mind. In effect they are starting talks with the miners. One striking example was a conference held in March 2012, called Black-Green Round Table, organised by Zielony Instytut (Green Institute) and the Trade Union of Miners in Poland (ZZG). Experts from both sides talked about Poland’s climate policy – a discussion which achieved some common points.

[read the full article in the Green European Journal]

Greens and trade unions on Europe from below

Europe after the fiscal compact, education and health care as common goods and the issues of digital citizenship were among the topics discussed at the congress “Europe from Below”, co-organized by the Polish Green Party, the Polish Teachers' Union, and the National Union of Nurses and Midwives on 7th September. The congress took place in the old building of the Polish Teachers' Union in the Warsaw district of Powiśle.

The opening speeches were delivered by the co-leaders of the Polish Greens, Agnieszka Grzybek and Adam Ostolski, the president of the Polish Teachers' Union, Sławomir Broniarz, the president of the National Union of Nurses and Midwives, Lucyna Dargiewcz, and the director of the Warsaw office of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Wolfgang Templin. “We need to build an open and solidary Europe,” said Agnieszka Grzybek in her opening speech. “We took our Europe away from nationalists and warmongers,” said Adam Ostolski, “and we won't give it back to them. But we allowed this Europe to be taken over by rating agencies and bureaucrats without imagination. We must give Europe back to its societies.”

The discussion “Europe after the fiscal compact” focused on the state of the European Union and Green alternatives. The moderator, Łukasz Moll (Greens) reminded that both parliamentary parties claiming to represent left-wing voters, Democratic Left Alliance and Palikot Movement, supported the fiscal compact without any conditions or hesitation. Francisco Padilla, adviser to the Greens in the European Parliament, present via Skype, explained the flaws in the current system of economic governance, christened by him a “self-defeating cocktail.” Agnieszka Grzybek (Greens) reminded that a genuine European Union needs a genuine budget, according to the Polish Greens it should be 20 per cent of the European GDP. Professor Leokadia Oręziak (Warsaw School of Economics) spoke about the creation of debt in the peripheries of the eurozone due to the “unfinished construction” of the single currency. She also spoke about the role of private pension funds in the creation of public debt in Poland. Her speech was received with a long ovation.

The next panel was devoted to education, it was moderated by Dorota Obidniak (Polish Teachers' Union). The discussion was both broad and deep: from the privatisation of education, through relations between education and labour market, to the role of education in resisting neoliberal arrangements. Jean Lambert (Greens/EFA MEP) said that education should not be reduced to training: education is not about preparing workforce for the labour market, but first of all about openness, curiosity of the world, and self-fulfilment. Professor Elżbieta Gajek (University of Warsaw) explained the challenges of new technologies in school: “What we need is a model of co-learning by students and teachers.“ “There is no crisis of education,” said Sławomir Broniarz (Polish Teachers' Union), “There is a crisis of education policies.” Danuta Kuroń (activist of Solidarity movement in the 1980s, now the founder of the Open University in Teremiski) reminded that there can be no change in the education system without a change in the political system. In the discussion, Łukasz Moll (Greens) said that it is not enough to be in public hand to be a truly public good, the education system needs to teach cooperation and create social bonds, instead of preparing students for a world of ruthless competition.

The discussion on healthcare focused on the relations between the needs of patients, the labour relations, and the system. Dr. Kinga Dunin (Medical University of Warsaw and Krytyka Polityczna) spoke about patients' rights and the unwillingness of the system to realize them. Lilianna Pietrowska (National Union of Nurses and Midwives) presented the results of her sociological research on how nurses in Poland perceive the problems of healthcare system. Ska Keller (Greens/EFA MAP) explained the disastrous impact of austerity policies on health and healthcare across Europe. Adam Ostolski (Greens) reminded that health in as human right, and this includes not only the right to healthcare, but first and foremost the right to healthy conditions of life and work, as inscribed already in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Both Green participants spoke also about alternatives to the present system of pharmaceutical patents; Ostolski reminded that the Polish Greens advocate full nationalization of pharmaceutical research.

The Internet and digital citizenship was the topic of the last panel. Two guests participated via Skype: Eleanor Saitta (OpenITP) and Michel Bauwens (P2P Foundation). Saitta focused on the links between state and corporate opression in the context of growing surveillance, while Bauwens explained the relation between Internet and nature as different sorts of “commons.” Józef Halbersztadt (Internet Society Polska), Radosław Pietroń (Polish Pirate Party) and the moderator Bartłomiej Kozek (Zielone Wiadomości/Green News) discussed issues such as relations between technological change and political change, the right to access to network, and the role of the state in securing digital rights of people. After this last panel some of the participants moved to the protest against PRISM in front of the US Embassy in Warsaw.

The congress attracted over 200 participants from trade unions, social movements, as well as Green and left-wing milieus. A welcome surprise was the presence of the Deputy Speaker of the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish Parliament) Wanda Nowicka (independent). The daily Trybuna prepared a special pull-out devoted to the congress, and there were stalls of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, the Kontakt (magazine of young Catholic left), the Krytyka Polityczna, the Zgrzyt (local newspaper in the town of Zgierz), and the Zielone Wiadomości (Green News). There was a good, amicable atmosphere and, in the air, there was a palpable need of continuation.

More photos: click here.

Adam Ostolski: The crisis of European integration and social struggles

"The crisis of European integration and social struggles" - my lecture on transnational political education delivered at a conference of teachers' unions in Berlin, December 2012 - appeared in the publication "Trade union education for solidarity in Europe" prepared by IG Metall.

Let's play for a better Europe!

We are joining the European Union in order to change it and have influence on the standards of living in the future common Europe.

Green Manifesto, 2003

LET’S PLAY FOR A BETTER EUROPE

When we were campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum on Poland’s accession into the European Union, we underlined that we were wanted to join the EU in order to help enact change. . We stressed that EU membership was first of all an opportunity to ensure Poland's sustainable development in its social, ecological and economic aspects. That it would be a chance for us to ensure social justice and solidarity, better protection of women’s rights and equal opportunities for women and men and to respect cultural diversity and the rights of minorities.

In 2009, when the first symptoms of the financial and economic crisis struck Europe, we stated in our European Manifesto that the European Union needed a change. Today Europe is suffering from multiple crises at the institutional level which is closely linked with a democractic deficit in the EU and rooted in the uncertainty and fear felt by many people due to thethe lack of social, economic and ecological security. It leads to increasing nationalistic and xenophobic attitudes in the European countries and hostility towards strangers and migrants. Neoliberal policies implemented in the recent years have made the dream of building a Europe free from poverty a distant one. Instead of a social union, we only have a monetary union. Instead of a democratic union, we have a technocratic entity which becomes less and less understandable for ordinary citizens who are losing their faith in the sense of the European project.

The EU needs a change! The problems which have been arising in the European countries – such as 30% level of poverty in the countries struck by the crisis, 50% unemployment among young people and the dismantling of social security – will not be solved by a new financial architecture of the European Union as embodied in the fiscal compact. Monetary policy narrowly focused on controlling inflation and fiscal discipline makes it impossible to implement anti-cyclical policies that would give a chance to create new green jobs and make sustainable investments.

Despite the lofty ideals of European integration, the EU became a battlefield of national interests which we could observe at the last EU Brussels Summit when the future EU budget for 2014-2020 was negotiated. Poland is unfortunately a discreditable example. Despite the social interest and common good, the Polish government has been blocking ambitious EU climate policies which could counteract climate change caused by the irrational exploitation of human behavior. The Crisis related to climate change is a reverse of the economic crisis. If we do not transform our economies from high- into low-carbon economies so troubles will only increase.

The proposed solution are policies combining economic security with social and ecological security, alongside a democratization of the European Union.

We do believe that a different Europe is possible – open and strong, founded on social and ecological solidarity. We do believe that sustainable development of Europe without crises from which everyone can benefit is possible. It must be based on the shift from the philosophy of growth based on the rapacious exploitation of natural and human resources to a philosophy of sustainable development. This aim can be achieved due to the ecological transformation of the economy.

We want Europe for ants and not for anteaters which is rooted in a vision of the following ten rules:

1. The foundation of sustainable development is based upon four freedoms stated in the Atlantic Charter: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from fear and freedom from want. A united Europe must embody these freedoms and guard them.
   
   
2. Deeper integration can be achieved not by writing a new treaty, but by rebuilding citizenship in all its aspects: reclaiming civic, political and social citizenship. European institutions may not be less democratic than the institutions created in the nation states during the 20^h century. Social citizenship needs to be defined at the European level – all Europeans shall exercise the same social rights.
   
   
3. We shall be united not only by the memory of World War II, but we shall also be aware of challenges related to the climate crisis. Climate federalism means energetic solidarity, joint investments in the ecological transformation of the economy, independence from economic growth. The countries which are dependent mostly on carbon and may have difficulties shifting rapidly to a low-carbon economy shall be especially supported.
   
   
4. Europe needs a more solid budget based on truly European taxes. The EU budget shall need to constitute 10-20% of EU GDP if we want to ensure EU stability and an adequate level of redistribution between different regions. It shall be spent on: a) ensuring all Europeans a minimum of social rights, b) research, especially searching for new medicines and developing renewable technologies, c) just transition towards low-carbon economy.
   
   
5. United Europe needs a fundamental reform of the financial sector. The financial sector must serve the real economy, and not vice versa; and the economy must serve human needs, and not vice versa. In the countries suffering from growing public debt an audit shall be conducted by the citizens or public debt shall be cancelled. The European Central Bank shall be reformed: members of trade unions and environmental experts shall be a part of the council deciding on monetary policy. Keeping low inflation at any price cannot be the only goal of the European Central Bank. It shall take care of “economic justice, full employment and social security for all European citizens” (“10 ATTAC’s Rules for Democratic and Social Constitution”).
   
   
6. Europe can be a continent of many currencies. There is a place not only for euro but also for local, regional and national currencies. We must free our imagination! Democracy, diversity and subsidiarity shall be taken into consideration while designing monetary system. Diversity makes the system more resilient. Subsidiarity favors democracy. Functions which are designed for a local currency cannot be imposed on a national currency and functions which are designed for a national currency cannot be imposed on the euro. A policy which helps to create currencies by local communities at the grassroot level shall be implemented. EU member states shall have a choice about whether they would like to keep their own national currency (or to bring it back) or adopt the euro as their basic currency. Separate nstitutions for the eurozone shall not be build except for those which are necessary from a purely technical point of view.
   
   
7. A common economic zone in Europe shall favor localization of production and exchange. Europe shall not favor either social or ecological dumping or cthe ommodification of public services, but it shall create instruments which help to improve living standards.
   
   
8. Freedom of speech means also open access to culture, open sources, wide and non-restricted access to Internet and patent laws which favor the common good and not the interests of big corporations.
   
   
9. Europe shall support food sovereignty in the respective countries, regions and local communities. Instead of extensive agriculture we shall support smaller and more ecological farms. Europe shall be a continent free from GMO. The Common Agricultural Policy shall be reformed according to the proposal made by the European Movement for Food Sovereignty Nyéléni.
   
   
10. Europe cannot close itself to migrants especially those who leave their countries in order to avoid persecutions. In accordance with the principles stated forth in the Atlantic Charter, Europe shall support fair trade instead of “free trade” in international negotiations.

Manifesto adopted at the 7th Congress of the Green Party, co-sponsored by Agnieszka Grzybek and Adam Ostolski.

Ewa Sufin-Jacquemart: Le VII Congrès du parti des Verts polonais

C'est avec plaisir que je partage avec mes amis francophones les résultats du VII Congrès du parti des Verts polonais. Le congrès a élu pour deux ans de nouvaux co-présidents (la parité statutaire oblige…): Agnieszka Grzybek et dr Adam Ostolski.

Agnieszka Grzybek commence ainsi son troisième mandat (deuxième consécutif), Adam Ostolski, sociologue, tête pensante et l’homme des compromis du parti, s’est porté candidat pour la première fois et a tout de suite eu confiance de la grande majorité des délegués présents. Tous les deux ont la même compréhension des thèmes stratégiques, entre autres la même vision de l’Europe.

"Nous avons besoin d'un débat honnête sur l'Europe”, a déclaré Adam Ostolski dans le communiqué officiel du partii émis après le congrès. „Au lieu de s’enfermer dans une fausse alternative „plus ou moins d’Europe", nous devrions enfin commencer à débattre de comment cette Europe doit être, de quelle Europe nous voulons et de ce que nous pourrions bâtir. Les Verts se prononcent en faveur de l’Europe des citoyens et des citoyennes, qui garantirait à tous les droits sociaux fondamentaux et la possibilité d'un développement durable. Nous sommes pour l'Europe qui ne met pas sur le dos des populations le coût de la crise provoquée par les banques. Pour l'Europe au budget fédéral solide et à l’ambitieuse politique de protection du climat. Nous invitons aujourd'hui toutes celles et tous ceux qui partagent cette vision de l'Europe, à travailler ensemble avec nous".

„Nous voulons convaincre les gens que la politique peut être différente. La crise qui frappe l'Europe depuis des années est le résultat des politiques irresponsables et non durables, fondées sur l'exploitation des ressources non renouvelables. Il est temps de rétablir l'équilibre. C'est pourquoi nous parlons de la nécessité de connecter la sécurité écologique avec la securité sociale et économique. Nous offrons le Green New Deal qui offre une vraie chance de surmonter la crise et d’assurer le développement durable”, a déclaré Agnieszka Grzybek. „La transformation écologique de l'économie créera des milliers d'emplois verts dans les secteurs liés à l'énergie renouvelable, à l'efficacité énergétique, aux transports publics, à la construction écologique. Une partie intégrante de cette réforme devrait être le développement des services de soins.”

Suite aux modifications du statut du partii, le nom officiel du partii a été changé: le nom „Zieloni 2004” (Les Verts 2004) devient un nom historique (toujours protégé) et le parti dorénavent porte le nom „Zieloni” (Les Verts). Le Bureau n’étant plus éligible par le Congrés, ce sont les co-présidents qui ont proposé sa composition, validée ensuite par le Conseil nouvellement élu. Ainsi le partii sera gouverné par une vraie équipe des gens qui s’entendent et qui ont la meme vision de la stratégie et des priorités. Souhaitons beaucoup de succès aux Verts polonais, notamment aux prochaines élections européennes.

Ewa Sufin-Jacquemart

What future for Europe?

My essay "Pressing juice out of the Brussels cabbage - Poland and the European Union" appeared this week in the dossier "Europe – the final countdown or resurrection time?" on the website of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung office in Brussels.

Advocates of political federalism suggest that the major problem is the old-fashioned attachment to nation-states defending their dubious sovereignty, which, however, is a misperception. Nation-states and European institutions are playing the same game (of austerity), i.e. no transfer of power between these two „levels‟ is actually supposed to change anything. By focusing on nation-states, advocates of political federalism evade the real issues such as the shifting balance of forces between capital and labour, the internal trade imbalances and the dismantling of social security nets in many European countries brought about by austerity. In the present situation, a political federation would only further empower European leaders and technocrats who already proved incapable of creating a broader and bolder vision.
[...]
[A] way to create a more perfect union would be federalism, but not a purely political one. We need to put first things first. And the most important challenge is not a transfer of power, but the reclaiming of citizenship. In recent years, many Europeans saw their social citizenship diminished. It must not be so. If the Union is to survive, it must protect and enhance social rights already gained by people in the framework of nation-states, not to destroy them. A genuine social and economic federalism must start with another „transfer‟: the definition of social citizenship on the European level. What rights and entitlements should every European citizen enjoy? What level of social security is the Union obliged to deliver?
When we begin with citizenship, the rest will follow.

[Read more]

Adam Ostolski

ACTA: a comment for AFP

In English: "I haven't seen such major demonstrations in Poland for 20 years," Warsaw sociologist Adam Ostolski told AFP.

In French: «Je n’ai jamais vu d’aussi importantes manifestations en Pologne depuis 20 ans, même la guerre en Irak n’a pas provoqué de telles protestations», déclare le sociologue Adam Ostolski.

Young Poles outraged by ACTA

Demonstration against ACTA in Warsaw, photo by Joanna Erbel.

2011 was a year of discontent throughout the world, but apparently not in Poland. Poland's political class was spared the challenge of massive protests that blossomed in many places, from Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, through the Indignados of Spain, to the US Occupy movement. There is much to be angry about, to be sure. Life in Poland is getting harder, the privatisation-by-stealth of health service and education is going on, schools and kindergartens are being closed down, which makes it especially difficult for young parents, there's no affordable housing, the prices of municipal services and staple foods are rising (both at least partly due to recent changes in tax rates). Poland is now the leading country in Europe in terms of non-permanent job contracts (having outrun Spain), and the vision of having a decent retirement in the future is becoming increasingly remote.

There have been plenty of reasons to get angry, and yet nothing happened -- at least nothing comparable to the Indignados or Occupy phenomena. And now, all of a sudden, we have a protest movement against ACTA -- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, international treaty aiming to protect "intellectual property." The treaty is hermetic enough for professional lawmakers to get confused as for its consequences. And yet it was precisely this treaty that proved capable of sparking protests throughout the country.

The protests started the previous week, when it was announced that Poland is to sign ACTA on Thursday, 26th January. Activists and NGOs working in the fields of human rights, open culture or privacy protection sent protests to the government. They demanded that the government refrained from signing the ACTA and organized genuine public consultations of the document. At the same time tens of thousands of people discussed on the internet, sharing information and analysis concerning ACTA. On Saturday, 21st January, the Anonymous attacked the websites of the Parliament, Prime Minister and Minister of Culture, among others. On the PM's website the hackers left the following message: "Prime Minister Donald Tusk is an evil man!" Oddly enough, the government proved unprepared to defend themselves against a cyber-attack, but at the same time they felt enough self-assured to raise the possibility of announcing a state of exception.

A couple of days later, the protesters flew out of the cyberspace and onto the streets. The first street demonstration against ACTA was organized on Tuesday in front of the European Parliament Office in Warsaw. Three thousand people came to express their discontent. Both left-wing and right-wing activists, free market libertarians, communists, human rights liberals, football supporters and teenagers of both genders gathered together. For many teenagers it was apparently the very first time they ever took part in a political event. They cried against ACTA, against censorship, and against the government. The event may well have marked the end of uncritical euro-enthusiasm among Polish youth; "Union, Union, rub your penis!" ("Unio, Unio, zwal se ch...!") was one of the most ear-catching exclamations of the day. Clearly, for many people the case of ACTA means that the equation "European Union = freedom = modernity" no longer seems to be self-evident.

On Wednesday, there were protests in many other Polish cities, gathering between a few hundred and fifteen thousand participants (fifteen thousand protested in Kraków). On Thursday, a major protest was organized in Poznań. Five thousand people gathered on the Liberty Square, and then some of them went to the regional office of the Civic Platform to smash a few windows. It is estimated that up to 100,000 people took part in a street protest during this three days.

Meanwhile, both the Polish Ombudsman Irena Lipowicz and the General Data Protection Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski expressed serious concerns with the ACTA and summoned the government not to sign it.

The PM tries to play the role of a tough guy, but this time it does not seem to work. When the hackers revealed how they broke into the PM Office's website (login: admin, password: admin1), it made Donald Tusk's situation all the more vulnerable. Many people find it ridiculous that those who lack basic computer skills should create laws in this domain. The government lacked a consistent PR strategy: when the Minister of Culture Bogdan Zdrojewski was assuring the public that the document had been indeed properly consulted, the Minister of Administration and Digitization Michał Boni expressed regret that it had not, and promised to consult it... after the signing ceremony. Let's add that the Pirate MEP Christian Engström exposed serious misinformation in Boni's reassuring statement (see: Polish Minister Telling Lies to Get ACTA Signed). And that the goverment had 7,774 comments removed from the PM Office's fanpage on the ground they were "vulgar" (an independent investigation proved that only as much as 1.49% of them contained any vulgar words whatsoever, whereas 6.5% were weird or off-topic).

The whole situation may be a shock for the ruling Civic Platform party. In the previous years, they succeeded in strengthening the powers of the state: they gave the police more powers against citizens, built major data bases containing sensitive data about citizens (System of Information in Education, System of Information in Health Care), enabled the Supreme Chamber of Control to collect any data about the citizens, including those concerning their sexual orientation or their genetic features. Some of those changes encountered opposition, and some did not. But nothing prepared them for the resistance they have to deal with right now.

And yet, in some way, this should be obvious. All of the previous reforms effectively deprived people of some of their entitlements, but they were consistent with the overall message of the present-day system: the state is not responsible for your good life, you have not got a right to the good life, you have got only the right to be let alone. Like it or not, the internet policy is the ultimate test of this promise. The internet users, especially the youth, understand that, with ACTA, the "System" is breaking even its modest promise to let people alone. And now they got into the streets and discover how it feels to be a "we." Will this experience empower a new generation of activists? The issue remains open, but the hope is out there.

Adam Ostolski

We are more progressive than our political elite

Poland enjoys a reputation of a country rather hostile towards sexual diversity. Last week, a Robert Węgrzyn, an MP for the Civic Platform, did something to reinforce this view. When asked on the TV about his opinion on legal acknowledgement of gay and lesbian unions, he answered: "you can forget about gay men but I would gladly watch lesbians." His words provoked outrage and indignation, and his local party structures demanded that he be expelled from the PO. Węgrzyn apologised, half-heartedly, though he does not seem to be quite convinced he should. The apology notwithstanding, on his official website one finds also a statement entitled bravely "I did not offend a person". "I won't let myself be offended in public", he cautions, as if in a pathetic attempt to reverse the charge.

Węgrzyn is, at best, a third-rank MP, so one needs not ascribe too great a weight to his calamities. It is much more discomforting, however, that the foreign minister Radosław Sikorski came to his rescue. "Journalists complain that politicians are boring and speak only in slogans, but when someone makes a dubious joke they crucify him," he said on radio. And he added a joke of his own, saying that Węgrzyn "should get a rap across the knuckles and be made to do 30 push ups." Some may find Sikorski's sense of humour no less embarassing than the Węgrzyn's. The implied acceptance of corporal punishment is hardly enjoyable, as is the way the minister reframed the debate. Instead of taking the issues of sexism, homophobia and verbal aggression as seriously as they deserve, he seems to focus attention on the possible inconvenience into which the MP's words may have put the governing party.

The political correctness is still shallow, and the aacceptance of homophobic language within the political class seems to be widespread. But in what extent does this reflect the popular mood? When we look at the developments in public opinion during the recent decade, we can see that anti-gay opinions remain widespread, but the overall trend is progressive.

Trends in anti-gay attitudes in Poland, 2001-2010 (CBOS, June 2010)

The most striking change concerns the level of acceptance of the view that "Homosexuality is not a normal thing and should not be tolerated." Between 2001 and 2010 the ranks of those ready to agree with it halved, going from 41% down to 23% (green line). It seems there are more opponents of marriage equality than at the beginning of the noughties (red line), but this is explained by the growing ranks of those who support civil unions as a separate institution for LGBT people (yellow line).The most interesting change concerns the acceptance of LGBT Equality Marches. The number of those ready to curb the right of assembly to exclude LGBT is still high, but it went down significantly within a couple of months between July and December 2005 (blue line). It seems that the growth in acceptance of Equality Marches belongs to the lasting effects of the culture wars waged in the era of the "Fourth Republic."

The opinion is divided on civil unions. (CBOS, June 2010)

The attitudes of the Polish population towards LGBT rights are on average more conservative than in the West of Europe, and in some respects more conservative than in other Central European countries, like the Czech Republic or Hungary. But the Polish society is neither as conservative or as homophobic as our political class. One may expect that a moderate LGBT rights agenda should attract as many voters as it might repel. Oddly enough, the society has already moved on. It is the elite that seems set to stay behind.

Adam Ostolski

Nuclear power and public trust

Last week the cabinet accepted guidelines for the draft law regulating the use of nuclear energy in Poland. The ministers discussed i.a. the question of liability for 'nuclear damage,' separate insurance for the transport of nuclear material, government's guarantees, as well as the information of general public and local communities about the safety of nuclear installations. The governement's plan is to have the new nuclear regulation bill passed until June this year, construction works are to begin by 2016 and an nuclear power plant is to be operating since 2022. Whether the blueprint is realistic or not, the coalition seems determined to follow the chosen path, and the nuclear ambitions of the goverment enjoy support of major opposition parties. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus on the political scene.

And what about social attitudes? According to the surveys realized by CBOS (Centre for Public Opinion Research), between 1987 and 2008 the opponents of nuclear power clearly outnumbered those ready to accept it.

Nuclear power plants in Poland -- for or against? (CBOS, August 2008)

Since 2008, the opinion seems to be shifting. According to different surveys, there is either a small majority in favour, or a small majority against the Polish nuclear programme. As far as the public opinion is concerned, the issue is undecided.

The change in public mood can be also seen in the report Europeans and Nuclear Safety published by the Eurobarometer in March 2010. Poland is among the countries, where more than a quarter of the population (25% - 30%) supports an increase in the use of nuclear energy. Even though as many as 50% of the respondents agree that the risks of nuclear power as an energy source outweigh its benefits, while only 38% thinks the opposite, there is a visible shift in the opinion. In 2006 only 26% tended to think that there are more benefits than risks involved. The rise of 12 percentage points is the biggest one in Europe, with Ireland (+10pp) and the Czech Republic (+9pp) coming next.

Interestingly enough, six out of eight countries with biggest support for an increased use of nuclear energy (25% - 30%) are postcommunist ones. What does this strange legacy of the Iron Curtain precisely mean? Is it just the fear of being dependent on Russia as energy provider? Or does it also express an East European civilizational complex, the feeling of being belated in terms of technology, and the wish to "catch up with the West"?

Whatever the explanation, there still the issue of public trust. Will government be able to convince the public that nucleaer energy may be safe? And, which is more difficult, that it can be produced safely even in Poland? There are in Europe countries like Sweden or the Czech Republic, where the great majority of people believe that nuclear energy may be safe. There are countries divided, like France or Germany, where only half of the population seems to be convinced. But Poland -- together with Romania and Ireland -- represents still another pattern. While many people tend to agree that It is possible to operate a nuclear power plant in a safe manner (64%), they seem less convinced that The nuclear safety authority in Poland sufficiently ensures the safe operation of nuclear power plant(s) (38%), and even less that The Polish legislation sufficiently ensures nuclear safety (31%).

Europeans and Nuclear Safety (Eurobarometer, March 2010)

It seems that a significant portion of the population believes that nuclear energy may be produced safely, but... not in Poland. Poles mistrust their own government and institutions more than they mistrust the technology.

And they may well have good reason not to trust. On 3th December 2010, the President of National Atomic Energy Agency (Państwowa Agencja Atomistyki), Prof. Michał Waligórski, was dismissed from his function. His pro-nuclear stance notwithstanding, he had had a highly critical assesment of the atomic draft law proposed by the government. Along with many specific concerns, he had pointed out that the goverment's nuclear programme was "chaotic and inconsistent," and had "incomprehensible logical structure." He was also asking, why the government ignored the Safety Infrastructure Guide (DS424) adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Civic Platform's government found his remarks "unconstructive," and instead of changing the policy, changed the man. It seems that even those in favour of Poland's nuclear ambitions may have good reasons to be scared.

Adam Ostolski

Civic Platform's white power

I am well aware that many voters choose us as 'the white men's last hope.' This is what Jarosław Gowin, a prominent politician of the Civic Platform (PO), pronounced last Sunday in an interview for Onet.pl. Or rather white collars', he hastened to explain. Our core voters, that is the young, educated and entrepreneur-minded, may turn their backs on us unless we finally reform the state finances, healthcare or pensions.

The journalist did not go into details over the notion of 'white men' and its racist connotations. Instead, he asked what would happen, if white collars indeed turned their backs on the ruling party. The answer was as follows: To me, entrepreneurs are the salt of the earth, the most valuable social group. Should we disappoint them, we would better look for another job.

Should it be shocking? Jarosław Gowin smoothly combines Catholic and free market fundamentalism. He is widely known to be a free market hawk even within the largely pro-market Civic Platform. He is also famous for a virtually superhuman ability, since he once confessed to having heard the cries of frozen embryos. (Gowin is the author of a draft law regulating IVF. He wants IVF to stay basically legal, but would penalise the freezing of embryos.) The public may be thus used to extravagant statements on his part. None the less, I find the lack of public reaction to what he said surprising. To date, obviously racist statements by even marginal politicians did not go either unnoticed or uncondemned in the media. This time, only the nationalist "Nasz Dziennik" seems to bother; perhaps they envy Gowin for his impunity?

Why this silence? Gowin seems nothing wrong in figuring his voters as 'white men.' For him, apparently, it is just an innocent figure of speech. I think most of the enlightened public would not concede. But one thing is that he uses a racial metaphor, another -- what is the group who is to be hurt. If Civic Platform supporters are to be seen as 'white men,' who are those 'non-white' people to whom he implicitly refers? Who are those who would be less than happy with a next wave of neo-liberal reforms? And why are they figured as non-white?

Adam Ostolski

How Poland became greener in 2010

2010 was a strange year for Poland, with the Smoleńsk tragedy and its aftermath, early presidential elections, and floods. Also for the Greens, it was a long and unusual year, a year of breaking through. The electoral breakthrough in the local elections in November, with our first ever elected councillors and members of regional parliaments, did not happen in a void. First there were significant changes within the Green Party, as well as important changes in the general political context.

The sense of breaking through first came to my mind in April, during Green Party Conference. At the Conference we accepted four policy documents, precising our aims and values in the domain of electoral law, social policy, health service, and education. The discussion was informed, passionate, and fruitful. The new policy documents resolved a prolonged tension within the party concerning our stance on social and economic policies. It gave our leaders and activists a tremendous sense of empowerment.

Małgorzata Tkacz-Janik
(photo from Wikipedia)

Then there was a series of changes in the political situation. In the presidential elections, the Greens supported Grzegorz Napieralski, the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD). His political programme proved closer to the Green vision than the programme of any other candidate. Then there were long and difficult talks about a coalition in the local elections. We achieved an agreement, and in the November elections many Green candidates (though not all) ran on Social Democratic ballot. Now we have two members of regional parliaments: Małgorzata Tkacz-Janik (co-leader of the Greens) in Silesia and Ewa Koś in West Pommerania, and three members of municipal councils: Beata Kubica in Opole, Krystian Legierski in Warsaw and Sebastian Kotlarz in the rural commune of Kąty Wielkie. Sebastian Kotlarz was elected as an independent Green candidate in a first-past-the-post constituency, he highlighted his Feminist convictions in his campaign. Krystian Legierski is not only the first Green councillors in Warsaw, but also the first out gay candidate elected to a political office in Poland; we have made history.

But there was also an important breakthrough in Polish media. In 2010, two strong taboos were definitely broken. First, there is no longer a taboo concerning the Church and State relations in Poland. Until August 2010, the overwhelming majority of Polish people discontent with the dominant position of the Catholic Church in political life or its economic privileges had been virtually voiceless and invisible. Those who would question the privileges of the Church would be often dismissed as 'extremists.' Now it has all changed. The position of the Church started to lose its unquestionable status in April, when the Church supported the controversial burial of the late president Lech Kaczyński in the Wawel Cathedral. Then the media started to discuss the workings of the Property Commission that was responsible for transfering to the Church institutions valuable properties and tremendous sums of money on grounds that seem quite unclear, to say the least. And then there was a conflict about the cross put by scouts in front of the Presidential Palace in Warsaw in the days of Smoleńsk mourning. On 9th August, a huge crowd of young people come to demand the displacement of the cross and a closer separation of Church and State. Now it is evident that anticlerical demands have supporters ready to come out and defend their right to be heard.

And there is also a second taboo that did not survive the turbulences of 2010. It is the Polish system of pensions introduced by the infamous government of Jerzy Buzek. Until recently, it was unquestionable. Now, even some neoliberal experts denounce it as irrational and costly. So there is also much more space for its progressive critics to speak out.

The Greens start the new year empowered -- with our new programme, with our councillors, and with media more open to debate. But 2011 will also be a year of challenges, parliamentary elections and debate on nuclear energy in Poland not least important among them.

Adam Ostolski

A new opening for the Left (and Greens)

May Day: Greens march with
trade unions and SLD
(photo by Alicja Szymczak)

Of course, I am less than happy with the outcome of the presidential elections, but the struggle carries on. Many among the Greens feel that the main obstacle for a reemergence of progressive politics in Poland is the anti-Law and Justice (PiS) hysteria. It prompts many otherwise left-leaning voters and opinion leaders to support the Civic Platform (PO), a deeply conservative and market fundamentalist party passing for "liberal", but hardly representing any progressive agenda at all. The anti-PiS mobilization wipes everything that is progressive, green, feminist, social democratic or even liberal out of the scope of reasonable political choice. I am amazed how many in the liberal media follow this suicidal path.
It is in this context that the result of Grzegorz Napieralski, the leader of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD), also supported by the Greens, is considered to be a miracle. He obtained nearly 14 per cent of the popular vote. Were the circumstances different, it would not be that impressive. But it was deemed to be a failure. In the time of sharp polarization, with only reluctant help of most other SLD leaders, and with some of them (Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz) even openly supporting his Conservative rival Bronisław Komorowski, he was expected to win no more than 3 or 5 per cent of the vote.

But why is it a new opening for the Left? And, even more so, for the Greens?

Napieralski showed his political cunning in not supporting either Komorowski or Jarosław Kaczyński in the second round. He let them struggle for the minds and hearts of his voters by including left-wing agenda in their programmes. And they did it, or at least they did try. Komorowski started to talk about public financing of in vitro fertilization, 35 per cent obligatory quotas for women on the lists to Parliament, and cheaper railway tickets for students. Kaczyński raised the issues of labour relations, public health care and the model of welfare state. He even called the institution of permanent employment contract "one of the very fundaments of our civilization." So, progressive agenda unexpectedly appeared in the very center of debate between... two right wing candidates.

But obviously, it is not the Right that is going to represent this agenda in the future. But will the Left be able to do it? Napieralski declares he wants to cleanse his party of neoliberal elements that proved so unuseful and even disloyal during his presidential campaign. He probably will attempt a renewal of the SLD in a close cooperation with the Greens, the Women's Party, and trade unions. If only he is consistent and determined, he can transform SLD from the party of postcommunist establishment into a genuine Social Democracy. And this would open the way, in Poland, for a more progressive future.

Adam Ostolski

Two short comments on the ongoing elections in Poland

Quoted in Le Journal du Dimanche (20th June) about the rise in support for Jarosław Kaczyński among young voters: Pologne: Le face-à-face des droites. In NRC next (21st June) about the good result of pro-gay left candidate Grzegorz Napieralski: Homovriendelijke kandidaat deed het goed in Polen.

If animals could vote

For left-wing voters, there does not seem to be a big choice in the coming presidential elections. Both major candidates, Bronisław Komorowski (Civic Platform) and Jarosław Kaczyński (Law and Justice) happen to be right-wingers. Their is no substantial difference in what they say on the war in Afghanistan, NATO, nuclear energy, women's and LGBT rights, relations between the State and the Church, and so on. There is a trade union link in the case of Kaczyński, making him look a bit more "pro-social" of the two, but he is far from the "one-nation Conservative" image of his late brother Lech. Although he is visibly more cautious about privatisation than Komorowski, and much more supportive of the public health care system, he still boasts about his government having lowered taxes (for the rich, to be sure). Even those differences taken into account, no impressive choice for a progressive voter anyway.

Oddly enough, this creates an occasion for hitherto neglected topics to come into the fore. The issue of animal rights, or rather of the complex relations between humans and animals, appears to be quite important. At least, it enables one to really distinguish between the two main rivals. One of them lives with a cat, while the other is a devoted hunter. As it can be seen on the banner profligated by the (hitherto unknown) Animal Protection Party:

I KILL ANIMALS BECAUSE I LIKE IT. VOTE FOR ME!

The fact of Komorowski's killing animals for pleasure is being raised not only by animal rights activists, but also by some of his right wing opponents. The pro-Kaczyński "Rzeczpospolita" published at least two cartoons about the hunting candidate (both by Andrzej Krauze). One of them displays a "Honorary Committee of support for the Hunter" in form of a row of hanged animal corpses, while the other represents voting as a unanimous action by a herd of frightened-to-death animals.

The other side raises the issue of human-animal relations as well. Last Sunday, on the inauguration of the Honorary Committee of support for Komorowski, Professor Władysław Bartoszewski (Poland's former minister of foreign affairs) made an allusion to Kaczyński's being a bachelor: "If Poland is to be degraded to the Rwanda's or Burundi's level of world's attention, it would be the best reason to vote for a man who has the experience in raising fur-bearing animals, but does not have the experience of being a father." This is a wonderful example of how racist, homophobic, and speciesist formulations may still pave their way into the mainstream of respectable political discourse. Though I would not bet it helps.

Anyway, it is fascinating to watch how new topics emerge as a means to make a difference between the two otherwise so similar rivals. I am going to watch it carefully. And as you may have already guessed, I would be more than happy to cede my vote to one of my cats this time...

P.S. Today's news (Thursday, 19 May): Komorowski gives up hunting. Good news. Maybe animals cannot vote, but it seems they sometimes do count.

Adam Ostolski

Gender policy or gender politics?

Five years down the road of EU enlargement, the dominant mood is one of disappointment. Is this simply a crisis of leadership (some have even begun speaking of a backlash) in the European Union? Or are we perhaps dealing with a broader phenomenon sometimes referred to as "gender fatigue"? What may be at stake here is the exhaustion of a certain strategy of pushing for women’s rights – a strategy whose present embodiment is in the "gender mainstreaming" policy. We might also ask whether we are facing three separate challenges here, or three aspects of the same impasse – in European political institutions, in social attitudes, and inside women’s organization? If the backlash in the EU, gender fatigue in the workplace and disaffection with gender mainstreaming within the women’s movement are three separate independent phenomena, then the recipe for our problems would be to continue doing what we have done all along, only more effectively. If, however, we are dealing with various aspects of a single crisis, then we need to ask about its root causes.

In the article The European Union, Gender Politics and Social Change in a collection Gender in the EU (pp. 30-32) published by the Heinrich Bőll Stiftung, I am trying to trace the consequences of the replacing of feminist politics with "gender policy". What is the true meaning of the recent exchange of politics for policy? What happens, when we leave behind struggle for change, and try to negotiate the administration of change instead? Will we be able to restore the momentum of social movements, and their utopian power? These questions are pertinent not only for feminist struggle, but for the environmental and other struggles as well.

Adam Ostolski