A Response to Prof. Przystawa's statement on Poland's need to change its electoral process

I have the following comments on Prof. Przystawa's views about the need for Poland to change its electoral process.

1. First of all, it is important to stress that there is no absolutely "best" system for determining the will of the electorate in a democracy. The "single member district" system followed in the United States and in the United Kingdom of course has its plusses, but this system is by no means without its flaws. For example, in the U.S. we have many Congressional districts where "gerrymandering" occurs. Gerrymandering is the practice by which the borders of electoral districts are so drawn as to guarantee that one party's candidates will always win election and the minority will always remain in the minority. In Britain, too, it has been noted with respect to the upcoming parliamentary election that the Labour Party enjoys a built-in advantage in the seats that will be filled in the election. Only if the Conservatives win by a substantial overall margin are they likely to be able to gain an absolute majority in the House of Commons. If the vote is fairly close, Labour wins.

Moreover, in single member district election systems, only the two major parties usually "count" in what is often described as a "winner take all" system. Third or fourth parties have virtually no chance to win or even become factors in elections, due to the often-made argument that people are "throwing away" their votes by supporting such parties in single member district contests. Only the candidate who comes in first, even by the narrowest margin, wins.

The proportional representation system used in many countries to determine the will of the voters has its flaws too. While every party that surpasses the minimal threshhold to be taken seriously will win seats in the parliament, the result can be a situation where no party has an absolute majority to put through its program. Bargaining for power becomes the rule after the election, and the results of such bargaining may well be very different from what the voters imagined. Moreover, in proportional representation systems, people vote for the party and its program, not the candidate who can best represent the interests of the population in a particular constituency of the country.

2. Let's turn specifically to Poland. There, the decision after 1989 was to go with a very generous PR system of electing legislators. This action had the effect of saving the former communist party from extinction. This was because the Communists, or post-Communists, or SLD or SDRP, or whatever they called themselves, had they operated in a "single member district plurality wins" system would nowhere have won more than 10 or 15 percent of the total vote in any district. As a result, the party would have been relegated to the "ash heap" of politics in Poland.

The original (and radical) proportional representation system adopted in Poland after 1989 also stimulated an extraordinary fragmentation of the Solidarity movement into many small parties. These groups engaged in a great deal of infighting, even though in point of fact they had more in common than they admitted.

Proportional representation as practiced in Poland led to the amazing election of 1993, where the SLD and the PSL gained power with almost 2/3 of the seats in the parliament, despite winning only 35 percent of the total popular vote! In that election, nearly all of the post-Solidarity parties failed to meet the very low threshhold of 5 percent in order to gain seats in the parliament, even though together they received more than fifty percent of the popular votes in the election. It was a mess and enabled the SLD to be a major force in Poland's politics until the early years of this decade.

But that situation has since been reversed. The SLD has been marginalized and Poland's two major rival parties (both of which have genuine origins in the Solidarity movement and a commitment to democratic values) now dominate the country's political system.   

In short, the very same proportional representational system of elections has produced dramatically different results in Poland since 1993. I think that's significant.

3. Another interesting feature of Polish politics is that Poland's two current dominant parties are quite different from our two major parties in the U.S. and the two major parties in Britain. This is because Poland's politics has evolved along its own lines since 1980 and 1989. The Civic Platform party, for example, is not Poland's Republican party and the Law and Justice (PiS) party is not its Democratic Party, or vice versa, although there are certain aspects of the Civic Platform - its commitment to market capitalism, for example - that resemble the Republicans, and PiS has a strong support base among working people and small farmers.

Indeed, party formation is a long term process. For example, the U.S. party system bears little or no resemblance to what existed in 1789! In fact, it wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that the Democrats and Republicans began to assume the characteristics that we attach to them today. And party systems are always evolving, as we can see today in the U.S. with the increased polarization of our two parties, something that dates back to the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and perhaps before.

This is because political parties in a democracy are voluntary organizations, here and in Poland, Britain, Germany etc. This means they are continually evolving, even though they may keep the same names over time. 

4. Poland's method of election is a matter for the Polish people and its leaders to decide - pure and simple. We as Americans can watch and be of help, when and if we are asked. But that's it. The good Doctor for his part can argue his views there and I wish him well. But it is for the Polish people to decide for themselves what is best for them. 

And let's keep in mind that since 1989, Poland has had a host of national elections - four for president, six for the legislature, a couple of referendums, and lots of local elections (where local issues count more than national party labels - just as it is in the U.S.)

All of these votes have been marked by relatively high turnouts, lots of competing parties, fair counts of the votes, good debates on the issues, substantial media coverage, and respect for the results -  all in an environment where everyone can vote over the age of 18.

Poland indeed has a great deal to be proud about as a democracy!

5. Incidentally, Polish public opinion is decidedly in favor of Poland's membership in both NATO and the European Union. And in Europe, Poland is a valuable and valued contributor to both organizations. I really found this out for myself during my recent visit to both NATO and EU headquarters.

Our fellow Americans and our government ought to give more attention to Poland, a true and important ally, and a thriving democracy with a solid economy besides.

*Don Pienkos Political Science Department University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Donald Pienkos' articles on the 1995 and 2005 Polish elections are published in the December 1997 and June 2006 editions, respectively, of the quarterly journal, The Polish Review.