Of drugs and men

Last Wednesday, we had a discussion panel in the Krytyka Polityczna on possible changes in Polish drug policy. With three MPs representing major political forces: Joanna Mucha (Civic Platform), Bolesław Piecha (Law and Justice), and Marek Balicki (independent left-wing MP, former Minister of Health) as well as our special guest, Ethan Nadelmann from the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, we debated if it is desirable to change drug policy in Poland, and what sort of reform we actually need. Ethan pointed to two sorts of harm that good drug policy should aim to minimize: harm caused by the use of drugs and harm caused by drug policy itself. So, one good thing is that we broadened the scope of issues discussed, to the standard question of how drugs as a social problem should be addressed adding a fresh one: how drug policy as a source of social problems can be reformed.

But, frankly, is drug policy reform in Poland possible?

The climate on the political scene does not seem open for change. Earlier this year, the Sejm added BZP and 17 other substances used as recreational drugs to the list of prohibited drugs. Only 5 MPs voted against (another 2 abstained). The policy is widely popular. Both in the political elite and in the masses the dominant feeling is that we need more, not less, repression. The majority seems to desire not a departure from, but a continuation of the trend started in 2000, when Jerzy Buzek's government criminalized the possession of even smallest amounts of illegal drugs. At that time, repressive drug policy was part and parcel of general backlash in politics, but it provoked some resistance. Now, it is considered by many the only reasonable option.

On the other hand, the public discourse has been slowly changing. The consensus over the repressive status quo begins to weaken. In Spring, when we published our book Polityka narkotykowa (Drug Policy: A Reader), the climate of opinion was almost entirely hostile to drug reform, even among liberal journalists. Everyone seemed to be basically happy with the status quo. Critical voices focused on the need to make the repressive policy more strictly enforced. But something has changed since. Inspired and supported by Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch from Global Drug Policy Program, we published the book, we organized about 30 public discussion panels in towns and cities, we started to gain allies... Mainstream media began to be interested in the topic, and a few dozen of press articles appeared during last six months. Not all of them are in favour of drug reform, to be sure, but at least there is discussion.

How much effort will it take to convince the wider public? How long will it take to get with the idea of change into the Sejm? We cannot expect to have a progressive law passed soon, but I hope there will be, after next elections, a political force in the Sejm strong enough to make drug reform recognized as a reasonable idea. Even a small change in the climate of opinion would be a great achievement. Thus we would undo at least part of Buzek's heavy legacy.

Adam Ostolski

Radical Democracy 101

The previous week I spent at the seaside with Młodzi Socjaliści (Young Socialists). I had been invited to their summer camp to teach about social movements, ecology, gender, and other "New Left" topics. It fit well. The programme of the camp combined economic and cultural issues with lessons in the history of Socialist movement in Poland.

It was an important encounter, for me personally, especially because of the meetings with witnesses of Socialist tradition. It reminded me of my own experience in the late 1990s. It was sad times, with their overwhelming impression of "there is no alternative," and with the chronic shock therapy passing for "coming back to normalcy" (or even "to Europe"). In 1990s, I felt like Odysseus on the island of Lotus-Eaters: not remembering who I was, where did I come from, and unable to fix a direction.

And then, like Odysseus in a poet's song, I recognised myself in the history of the Polish Socialist Party (PPS), with its long and noble tradition of struggle for national independence, democracy, and socialism. Established in 1892, it is the oldest political party in Poland. Until 1948 it was a major party on the Polish scene. Although now it is marginal, its heritage still matters. PPS has never been enmeshed in undemocratic regimes of any sort, either capitalist (before 1939) or -- at least nominally -- socialist ones (after 1948). Its history is a story of failed efforts to build democratic socialism in Poland: after 1918, after 1945, after 1989... But it is not just about failure. Above all, it is a reminder that our past could have been quite different. And our future still can be.

That is why I felt deep intimacy at the camp. Młodzi Socjaliści are a Polish youth movement affiliated with the European Left; they also closely cooperate with PPS. As in the sad 1990s, it still requires a substantial dose of non-conformism to describe oneself as Socialist in today's Poland. I wonder what is more difficult: to come out as gay or lesbian or as Socialist. But, as Hannah Arendt taught us, politics is basically about courage -- or it is rubbish. In the courage of young people proud to be Socialists, there is some irresistible attraction. No wonder their ranks are growing. I am smiling to the thought that this is real politics, after all.

Adam Ostolski

Soyez réalistes!

Demo for civil unions,
14th July 2009
(photo by Magda Mosiewicz)

Yesterday, I took part in a meeting of Polish LGBT activists organized to discuss the question of same-sex unions. Some activists initiated the discussion in order to establish, which legal form of recognition of gay and lesbian relationships would be preferable. Not that we have a generous offer from any parliamentary party at the moment. The political context is not helpful, to say the least, but even in unfriendly conditions it may be worthwile to take some effort and fix the direction for future struggles. And it is especially valuable that we discuss a common strategy. Ii is a new quality in Polish LGBT movement. The important decisions are less and less the prerogative of a few organizers. Approximately a year ago we started to form an anchored public sphere of our own.

Obviously enough, the question of legal recognition is controversial in the eyes of general public. But it is also potentially divisive within LGBT community itself. For some, gay marriage would be a fulfillment of our emancipation, the symbol of equal dignity and recognition. For others, marriage as such is a survival of patriarchy with no real value, and gay marriage would be a depressive sign of cooptation of once radical movement into the System. For some, the French PaCS is a wonderful, flexible, and open institution -- not limited to gay or straight couples. For others, it is an unacceptable solution, since it is not a vehicle of public recognition, and is even open for non-sexual and non-intimate, purely contractual relationships. For some, separate civil partnerships for lesbian and gay couples is a second-best to marriage, or even a proud badge of difference. For others, it would be a form of "sexual apartheid," effectively creating second class citizens. So, whatever the result of our discussions, some will be happy with it, and some will be sad, disappointed, even hurt.

Unfortunately, there are no progressive forces in power that could create an inclusive system of institutions suitable for people with different dreams, needs and self-conceptions. The question is which solution would open the process of further social change in that direction. Perhaps this is the one that should be given priority. But who really knows which one it is?

What struck me at the meeting was readiness of many activists to subordinate to the notion of "being realistic." Being realistic means not demanding too much, but focusing on small steps that hopefully might be accepted by a majority. In particular, it means not speaking about adoption or marriage. And the acceptance of the Constitution with its apparent ban on gay marriage as the unsurpassable horizon of LGBT demands.

For many people the idea of demanding a change to the Constitution seems unthinkable. I can understand that. In Poland, projects of constitutional change are the domain of the right and especially of the extreme right. They want to change the Constitution in order better to protect foetuses, to end the system of proportional representation, to trim social entitlements to free health care and education, and so on and so forth. In recent years, progressive forces have been mainly focused on protecting the Constitution. Whereas the Right does not lack courage to revolt and demand a radical change, the Left is focused on the conservative task of defending the status quo. For many left-to-the-centre people, the attitude towards the Constitution constitutes a dividing line between decent and undecent politics.

But what if one should be somewhat less "decent" in order to gain anything?

The Constitution of 1997 says in Article 18 that "Marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland." It is generaly undestood -- and was meant to -- "protect" marriage as a straight-only institution. But as some lawyers have pointed, it may be understood as protecting straight marriage not only against gay marriage, but also against other forms of legal recognition of straight couples. So even a law establishing civil unions as open for both gay and straight couples deems at the moment too radical. The Constitutional Tribunal may strike it down. That is why civil partnerships as an LGBT-only institution seem to be the most realistic from the legal point of view... of course, unless it is too similar to marriage.

It is a catch-22 situation, isn't it? Perhaps we should finally stop thinking about what is and what is not constitutional, and focus on what is actually desirable. We have a chance to learn to be truly realistic, and demand the impossible.

Adam Ostolski