Poland Watch

Gambling affair: the great triumph of Donald Tusk

The recent scandal involving top politicians from the ruling party, Civic Platform, had a potential to uproot its popular support and grant victory in the next elections to its opponents. But a way of defusing the affair may be shown as an textbook example of solving political crises.

Let us start from the beginning. After the 2005 elections the triumphant Law and Justice established a new governmental agency – Central Anticorruption Bureau (Centralne Biuro Korupcyjne – CBA) – in order to pursue one of the most explicit goals of party agenda. As the PiS chairman and mastermind Jaroslaw Kaczynski proclaimed, Polish politics and economy has been dominated by the so-called uklad (“deal”) – vast network of informal and illegal connections with mafia and corrupt security agencies which hindered the national development. CBA, led by staunch anti-Communist Mariusz Kaminski, started to fight with that ephemeral notion, gaining controversial and rather mixed results.  Nonetheless, after the new elections in 2007 and victory of more liberal Civic Platform the new prime minister Donald Tusk decided to retain Kaminski at his post, feeling his zeal would discipline other politicians from his party, who could potentially hinder Tusk’s support and dream about the presidency. The Bureau kept a rather low profile in the last years, being occupied mainly with arresting fraudulent football players and referees.

Logo of CBA

The dubious activities of CBA under the Law and Justice government  came however under judicial scrutiny as one of local prosecutor offices decided to file charges against Kaminski for his actions regarding minor coalition parties of that time. Just when the Bureau’s director was to be charged with misuse of powers and interrogated by the prosecutor, the right-wing paper Rzeczpospolita which has been sympathizing with Kaczynski for several years printed recordings from another CBA’s operation, this time related with the so-called gambling bill. The proposed novelization of the law regulating gambling business in Poland, lobbied for by entrepreneurs from that industry, could, according to the Bureau, seriously hurt Polish public finances. And the published records proved without a shadow of doubt those businessmen convinced to lobby in their name some politicians from the core of ruling party: chairman of the Civic Platform parliamentary caucus Zbigniew Chlebowski and minister of sport Miroslaw Drzewiecki.

What is more, conversation between them suggested that eminence grise of the government, the immensely powerful deputy PM Grzegorz Schetyna might also be involved. The media and the opposition had a feast unknown in years. The first for a long time scandal involving top ruling policymakers encouraged their political opponents and pundits to cast serious doubts on the future of the government and the ruling party itself. Tusk and Schetyna disappeared from the public view. Chlebowski and Drzewiecki tried to defend themselves on their own but those attempts were disastrous. Both the left- and the right-wing opposition called for formation of special parliamentary committee which would clarify the matter and bash Civiv Platform from all its might. Civic Platform was initially seen as unable to react quickly. But the time has proven that approach was right.

Donald Tusk, the prime minister of Poland. Author: Sebastian Zwez. Lic. Creative Commons Attribution Deutschland 3.0

After some time taken for reflection Tusk did not hesitate to act decisively and cut big names from his surroundings. Chlebowski and Drzewiecki, still reassuring about their clean intentions, submitted their resignations. As the situation progressed, the PM reacted accordingly. Deputy minister of economy Adam Szejnfeld, who was most likely also interested in changing the bill, was as well asked to leave, despite attempts of his superior Waldemar Pawlak. The same fate met minister of justice Andrzej Czuma whose unconditional support for Drzewiecki and Chlebowski cast doubts about the impartiality of judicial system in solving the case. Last but not least, Tusk decided to finally fire Kaminski who, while being interrogated by the prosecutor, in his uncompromising stance publicly accused the prime minister of paralyzing the Bureau’s activities.

By these decisions Tusk  achieved everything he could. Firstly, he placated the public by giving what it demanded – punishment for those involved. Secondly, quick pace of decisions reinforced the image of a man who is not afraid of taking dramatic decisions if necessary and protected him from all the stain that can come out in the next weeks or months. Thirdly, by simultaneously dismissing Kaminski, Tusk could present him as the source of all evil, which promptly he did.

But the true example of political mastery is resolving the situation of Schetyna. Tusk’s closest accomplice was indeed removed from government but under completely different conditions than that of Chlebowski or Czuma. Schetyna, officially proclaimed by Tusk to be clean, is to replace Chlebowski as the chief of caucus and supervise the establishment of special committee, which is for now also supported by Civic Platform. This solution does not diminish Schetyna’s status (after all he is a man who does not need formal position to have power) and allows the party to gain control of a tool which otherwise would be used against it. The committee won’t be able to force Tusk or Schetyna to testify when the latter will be its chairman and its activities will most likely end with the conclusion Drzewiecki and Chlebowski acted alone.

Changes in government also require new names to replace the old ones and also in this context Tusk showed real political cleverness, considering Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz as the replacement for Czuma. Inclusion of Cimoszewicz, well-known, very experienced  and popular left-wing politician in the government would boost its ratings and in the same time helped the PM to pacify perhaps his most serious rival in the 2010 presidential elections. If this affair did not stop Tusk on his way to the Presidential Palace, nothing will.

Maciej Jozefowicz  

Polish illustrator Andrzej Mleczko designed a theme for Google Chrome

Google has asked famous artists from all over the world to design themes for its web browser, Google Chrome. Among prominent artists are Jeff Koons, Jenny Holzer, Karim Rashid, Jonathan Adler, Oscar de la Renta, Anita Kunz, Tom Sachs, Kate Spade, Donna Karan, Kid Robot, Casey Reas, Dolce & Gabbana. Andrzej Mleczko [EN] is a first Polish illustrator invited to design Google Chrome theme.

"If we can decorate our desks or walls with our favourite paintings, then why don't we decorate our web browesers? I think it's a good idea and I'm glad about cooperation with Google. Thanks to such ideas artists are able to reach broader audience which is outside the gallery" said Mleczko.

 

Andrzej Mleczko pictured an elephant and ant in love. Download Mleczko's theme.

source: Gazeta.pl [PL], Dziennik Internautow [PL], Google Chrome Themes Gallery

Anna Dryjanska

Under the new Polish law Polanski would be castrated

Both Polish and abroad media are still abuzz with Roman Polanski's case. The famous Polish director, citizen of France, was arrested last Saturday in Switzerland in connection with sex charge.

"The Academy Award-winning director pleaded guilty in 1977 to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, acknowledging he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, but fled the United States before he could be sentenced. U.S. authorities issued a warrant for his arrest in 1978." (CNN).

Roman Polanski (source: Guardian.co.uk)

Many Polish politicians and artists decided to speak up for Polanski:

Lech Walesa, former president, refers the case using catholic discourse: Polanski is a great person, he has done much for Poland and world. He might have sinned. If he had, then forgive him this one sin (Gazeta.pl).

Radoslaw Sikorski, Minister of Foreign Affairs also calls Polanski's crime a sin: I think that everyone who admires his films just like I do, shares my opinion that when you sin you might get a free pardon (Gazeta.pl). 

Krzysztof Zanussi, filmmaker, was interviewed by journalist Monika Olejnik and blamed the 13-year-old, outraging many people: 

Krzysztof Zanussi: If Polanski wasn't famous, then the fact, that over thirty years ago in Los Angeles, which is the city of particularly easy virtues, he decided to have services of the underage prostitute, cause that might be what had really happened...

Monika Olejnik: No! She was a 13-year-old girl who wasn't a prostitute. Money wasn't concerned, so it wasn't a prostitution.

Krzysztof Zanussi: In this world a whole lot of things is done not for money, but to get famous, to make a career. I think Polanski made a mistake (...) I don't believe in innocence of the victim. She didn't seem to be there accidentally (Gazeta.pl).

Bogdan Zdrojewski, Minister of Culture points out that Polanski didn't have a fair trial: We can't forget that the victim has forgiven Polanski and stated clearly: it wasn't a rape. At the beginning of eighties I was very interested in philosophy of law and American law, and even then it was a common opinion, that Polanski avoided the legal lynch in court: the jugde wasn't acting fair (Gazeta.pl).

Donald Tusk, Prime Minister seems to be more distanced: None of us would like to see Roman Polanski going to prison, this is obvious. But I don't think we should perceive the things that are going on as a particular tragedy or harm. A serious crime had been commited and it was well known that in these matters Americans are consequent and pretty ruthless (Gazeta.pl).

The Polanski's case is by no means simple. It raises a lot of questions of political, moral and legal nature. Opinions in Poland are much more polarized and divided than mainstream media discourse might show. Some people admit Polanski did wrong but want him to be immediately released. Some argue that nobody should be above the law. The polarization is clearly visible in the internet. There is a Polish petition on Facebook demanding release of Polanski, signed by Oscar winner Andrzej Wajda and other known Polish artists. The opinions of Polish Facebook users are divided: almost four hundred declared to support the petition, still over three hundred declared to be against it.

But there is one thing most of them could probably agree with: over thirty years ago Polanski did wrong, but he deserves a fair trial. Yes, Polanski have had sex with 13-year old girl (and admitted it), but yet he didn't have a fair trial as even Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza in Los Angeles says there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original cast (Associated Press).

The biggest irony of the moment of Polanski's arrest is the fact, that a few days earlier the lower house of Polish parliament approved legislation that would make it obligatory to chemically castrate offenders who rape children under 15 (Taiwan News). The bill still needs approval from the upper house and president, but if it was in force and Polanski would have commited the crime in Poland, he would have been castrated. Now, some of the members of the government which proposed the bill want Polanski to be forgiven for committing the very same crime. Apparently life isn't as simple as preparing the bill.

Anna Dryjanska 

Polish Ombudsman: I don't like feminists

Ombudsman is an independent central office,  which is supposed to protect freedom and rights of the people. Janusz Kochanowski who helds the office since 2006, appeared on Thursday evening popular political programme of a prominent journalist Monika Olejnik (TVN24).

 Janusz Kochanowski, Polish Ombudman for Citizen Rights (fot. PAP)

"I don't like feminists, because they don't like women. Women who are satisfied with their social roles don't become feminists. Feminists are very often frustrated, unhappy, don't have husbands, lovers, children." said Kochanowski.

The remark of Ombudsman is very peculiar for a few reasons. Firstly, as a person who is supposed to protect freedom and rights of the people he should be well aware of the fact, that they are often limited on the basis of prejudices and stereotypes concerning the whole social groups. That's why he should be the last person to promote hostile comments about any social group. 

Secondly Kochanowski himself sometimes supports legislation for a gender equality, which is exactly what feminists do all of the time (among other things). Feminists in Poland worked hard for gender equality long before the Ombudsman office has been established (1988) and have achieved much more than Kochanowski in this respect. Deprecating them and claiming they don't like women seems to be at least absurd, not to say thoughtless or disrespectful.

And thirdly in a democratic country considering oneself a feminist (anti-racist etc.) should come naturally to an Ombudsman. Person who is prejudiced and promotes stereotypes doesn't fit for an office obliged to prevent discrimination and promote equality. 

Astonished journalist asked Kochanowski what do frustrated men become (as we aleready have been told frustrated women become feminists). He didn't answer. Maybe one of them became the Ombudsman? 

source: TVN24 video [PL]

Anna Dryjanska

Former Prime Minister of Poland: the freedom of speech in Western Europe is limited

A Polish court on Wednesday ordered a Roman Catholic magazine to pay a fine and apologize to a woman [Alicja Tysiac] for likening her to a killer for wanting an abortion and equating the practice with Nazi crime (Associated Press). 

Former Polish Prime Minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the conservative leader of the biggest opposition party Law and Justice, commented on the court’s ruling.

As for the case of Alicja Tysiac it's a matter of the freedom of speech in Poland. It's a step toward enforcing the restrictions which function in many countries in Western Europe. The freedom of speech is dramatically limited there. Police intervenes when somebody says that from homosexual relationships there can be no children. I recall the French politician having case in court because of saying this. 

In short, what we have to deal with is craziness, which is in fact the radical limitation of freedom and religion. In England the family centres were forced to be closed because the catholic centres were obliged to offer children to homosexuals. The centres were closed because no one who claims to be catholic can do such a thing. Moreover no one who consider oneself a decent person can do such a thing, because it's a creation of situation which shouldn't happen. We need to defend oneselves against it.