Kaczynski has reversed Lenin's paradigm

This text was originally published in Polish under the title "Kaczyński odwrócił paradygmat Lenina", and was translated by Marcin Karpiński.

It is an interview with Prof. Roman Kuźniar.


Until now, a large number of commentators believed that PiS is a party that wants to do well, but maybe the principles they operate on are not good, maybe they can't or err, but all in all they have good intentions.

I think that this is wrong thinking - says prof. Roman Kuźniar, political scientist from the University of Warsaw, diplomat, former adviser to President Bronisław Komorowski. - From the beginning it was obvious that they are dangerously leaning towards Leninist obsession with power. They did not want the normal kind of power that every government needs to convey good politics for the country or for society. They wanted a power that would allow them to remain in charge forever. This it what demolishing the foundations of a democratic state of law was needed for. They want to secure unlimited, unpunished and indefinite power by all possible means - including non-constitutional ones. These are the three attributes of the power they want, he adds. - The Banaś case (curent chairman of Supreme Chamber of Control, involved in the scandal of renting rooms for hours right after taking his office - ed. translator) perfectly reveals the nature and level of this party - no honor, no ethos, no shame. Banaś with his downfall of ethos is emblematic for them, but that's the quintessence of PiS - he emphasizes.


JUSTYNA KOĆ: Turkey and Kurds like two small children - you have to let them fight and then separate - said US President Donald Trump a few days ago. Has the American sandbox not been mistaken for international politics?
PROF. ROMAN KUŹNIAR: Most of his comments, which he shoots like fireworks, regarding the Turkish operation indicate a thorough infantilism of his thinking about the world and international relations. He also testifies to this. Anyway, this should not come as a surprise, because he quickly got used to it. This, of course, may be more difficult for us and this part of Europe to accept - mainly because in Poland most public opinion and the ruling party are enthusiastic about Trump.

THOSE WORDS COMING FROM THE MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT ARE NOT ONLY STUPID, BUT ALSO DANGEROUS. LUCKILY TRUMP IS NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT CONSTITUTES TO OVERALL US VIEW ON THESE MATTERS.

As has been the case many times before, his administration, vice president and ministers are trying somehow to tone down and defend America and the world against his mistakes and the consequences of his statements. However, if you look only at his words, they look ominous to American allies, especially to countries such as Poland.

Should Poland learn lessons from the Kurdish people? This is a picture of how Trump can leave his allies at the mercy of fate?

Of course, this cannot be directly compared, but the logic is the same here: we leave our allies without trying to explain (even falsely) such behavior. Or what's even worse by giving translations that make the hair bristle, e.g. "because it doesn't pay off".

Of course, we are in a better position than Kurds, because we have our own state (which by the way is becoming weaker under the current rule in terms of its defense capabilities, but it is still a state). Today, rather, this is not how countries are attacked, this form of conflict is "out of use" for many reasons. Fortunately, Poland is not only an ally of the United States, but of the North Atlantic Alliance, where there are a number of other states, which means that our security is much higher. There are also various connections with other NATO members.

Unfortunately, it must be mentioned here that Trump has repeatedly criticized the alliance and even considered with his advisers how to lead the United States out of NATO. It's only Congress - the lower and upper house - that issued resolutions urging him to refrain from this kind of thinking. Poland should analyze all this and observe it and not believe that Trump loved Poland especially and we can count on him.

WE CAN'T COUNT ON TRUMP, MORE ON AMERICA. BUT THEREFORE, YOU NEED TO CAREFULLY, CAREFULLY SHAPE SECURITY POLICY AND SEEK SAFETY IN ALLOCATIONS AND COOPERATION THAT IS NOT LIMITED TO STATES.

Poland relies heavily on Trump, as the Polish government and president love the American president. And this policy probably seems to be favored by the public, because during recent the elections the government got another mandate for the next 4 years.

Indeed so, but this time it's much weaker. I would not call it a victory at all, since the conditions of the game were very uneven. Never in the elections since 89 has there been such unequal conditions for campaigning. The opposition "Solidarity" in spring 1989 had better conditions in this respect than today's opposition parties. At least, it was not as defamated and intimidated as compared to what as PiS did to his opponents during it's four years of ruling.

It is true that PiS got an extension of the mandate, but it is also known that it was counting on more. Kaczyński is not stupid, "only" evil (in a political sense) and understands that this mandate is weak - he lost the Senate. Despite such massive measures, from using the taxpayer's money to buy a part of the electorate in a coarse way, Kaczyński understands that there is no such support. He never really had it. It's an electoral system that gave them sole power.

IN PiS, THERE IS NO INTELLECTUAL POTENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES IN THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL POLICY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS. SECONDLY, I BELIEVE THAT THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT POLAND'S INTEREST. INTERESTS OF AUTHORITIES ARE OVERARCHING TO COUNTRY INTERESTS.

Therefore, we cannot have great expectations regarding foreign policy. Moreover what has happened so far does not even qualify for the academic definition of foreign policy. Maybe there will be at least no continuation - at least not with impetus we had so far - of demolishing the Polish state and its ability to function (also in matters connected with security).

You write in the latest Newsweek that PiS is aware of the damage it is doing to Poland, and despite this awareness they are doing everything to maintain power. These are serious accusations.
From the very beginning I had no doubts about it, although until now, a large number of commentators believed that PiS is a party that wants to do well, but maybe the principles they operate on are not good, maybe they can't or err, but all in all they have good intentions.

I think that this is wrong thinking - says prof. Roman Kuźniar, political scientist from the University of Warsaw, diplomat, former adviser to President Bronisław Komorowski. - From the beginning it was obvious that they are dangerously leaning towards Leninist obsession with power. They did not want the normal kind of power that every government needs to convey good politics for the country, for society. They wanted a power that would allow them to remain in charge forever. This it what demolishing the foundations of a democratic state of law was needed for. They want to secure unlimited, unpunished and indefinite power by all possible means, including non-constitutional. These are the three attributes of the power they want, he adds. - The Banaś case (curent chairman of Supreme Chamber of Control, involved in the scandal of renting rooms for hours right after taking his office - ed. translator) perfectly reveals the nature and level of this party - no honor, no ethos, no shame. Banaś with his downfall of ethos is emblematic for them, but that's the quintessence of PiS - he emphasizes.

YOU CAN SAY THAT KACZYŃSKI REVERSED THE LENIN'S PARADIGM. WHEREAS LENIN NEEDED A FULL AUTHORITY TO BUILD A SPECIFIC SOCIAL SYSTEM, KACZYŃSKI AND HIS PARTY ARE TRYING TO BUILD A SOCIAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FULL AUTHORITY. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS TO POLAND.

Did Marian Banaś really stand up to Kaczyński and return to the chair of the head of the Supreme Chamber of Control (Supreme Audit Office) or is this a theater for the public and everything has been staged?
The latter hypothesis seems more likely. The very case of Banaś reveals perfectly the nature and level of this party - no honor, no ethos, no shame. Banaś with his downfall of ethos is emblematic for them, but that's the quintessence of PiS. Seemingly they are trying to cancel it, but they can't because it is constitutionally irrevocable. They also want to change the constitution so that the nation cannot recall them. It is in the interest of PiS that the trustee and his person remain as the head of the Supreme Audit Office. He has a specific role to play, especially when it comes to controlling power - the Supreme Audit Office should show all iniquities or inefficiencies of power. Someone like Banaś will not properly perform this function in a state that has come under the control and in the service of one party, his party. Of course, I'm not sure if this hypothesis is correct, but taking into account PiS's cunning, I indeed focus on this variant.

What is the significance of recovering of the Senate by the opposition?

PiS still does not lay down their weapons. This is of great psychological significance, because it showed that PiS can be overcome. I do not think that it was possible in the Parliament elections - here I differ from those who thought that it was possible to win these elections. As I said before:

Given this massive scale of lies, bribery and intimidation, it was only possible to achieve a little better result without equal opportunities, but not to win.

Anyway, what we are observing at the moment in the main opposition party shows a certain immaturity. Returning to your questions - if the opposition does not start shooting at each other or kicking on the ankles (and this is likely in Polish conditions) then the Senate can play a very important role, greater than that stated in the constitution. If the Senate remains united, it will be able to stop PiS from various madness and further corruption of the state. It will also force the president to at least explain himself to the public. E.g. from signing of laws in the middle of the night without even reflecting on them.

Who should be the opposition's presidential candidate?

In my opinion, a lot of opposition's people can relatively successfully play the role of president, but not all of them can win elections with someone like Andrzej Duda. I know that what I will say can be perceived as a subjective statement, but I believe that President Komorowski did his duty very well, in spite of him not winning the election for the second time. That's why is why the ability to carry out the duties of the president, like representing the dignity of the Republic of Poland, is something very different than the ability to win the presidential election. Look at the example of Mr. Duda - I must admit that he had a very good campaign and with (what also should be noted) rather poor campaign of his opponent (Komorowski), he won the election. Not long after though - he turned out to be the president, whose littleness and dependence is breathtaking. And I am not talking only about the latest joke the President gave at AGH, but about the fact that he humiliates the dignity of Poland in more serious, constitutional situations. So these are two different things.

THE OPPOSITION SHOULD LOOK FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL HAVE THE ABILITY OF BEATING THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, AND LATER THE ABILITY TO PERFORM THE FUNCTION. IN THE OPPOSITION, THERE ARE MANY POLITICIANS WHO ARE MORE THAN COMPETENT FOR THIS FUNCTION. SURE BETTER THAN THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, HOWEVER not everyone has the ability to beat him.

And has Poland matured enough to have a woman president?

This is not the issue. Poland is mature in many aspects. Sometimes some media try to set us up in such a way that we have not matured for something. I don't think this is a gender issue anyway. Poles will accept both - a woman and a man - provided he or she will be good. I wish Poland the best and it indeed does not matter whether it is a woman or a man. It was said once that America was not mature enough to have a black president, then it turned out that the black candidate significantly won the election in a country that still deals with a lot f racial issues. Hillary Clinton did not become president (though it is worth noting that she got significantly more votes from Trump) not because she was a woman, but not a good candidate at that time. It is not a matter of gender or orientation that will determine it, but the candidate's political potential.