WORTH TO DEBATE?
“Europa – Tygodnik Idei” – initially a supplement to “Fakt“ magazine (for some time in the whole country, then only in the biggest Polish cities), which after appearing a new title on the market, became “Dziennik’s” supplement – or rather considered its integral, crucial part – undergoes a revolution. It is not about slight changes regarding the day of the week “Europa” comes out (a switch from Wednesday to the weekend issue), but about, say, debates conducted by Cezary Michalski.
I would not like it to be an improper comparison but Michalski’s debates remind me in a way of Pospieszalski’s TV programme Warto rozmawiać (Worth to talk). I am explaining. Firstly, the person leading the programme. It is not about Michalski’s views or political sympathies, his role in leading the discussion is more important. The way he leads the discussion is not limited to keeping a tight reign on it, moderating it and tempering excessive emotional trips of his interlocutors. Oh, no. Instead of saying “the debate is lead by” we could write “Cezary Michalski leads the debate and takes part in it himself.” Is it negative from the point of view of a reader? It depends on a particular reader and his likes. Secondly, emotions aroused in a reader by the script of the discussion (the broadcasted live programme Warto rozmawiać has a clear advantage over it.) Because, as it is commonly said, it is hard to pass by indifferently. We either agree with the discussants or not, either throw a magazine away or cut out certain lines, make a larger photocopy and hang it on the wall with solemn dignity. What is a good debate? One more time we should appeal to the reader because my experiences, emotions and reactions connected with the debates published in “Europa” cannot be, in any way, treated as “generation experience”. You could also mention the meaningful subjects of the debates (the question in the issue 37/2006 is: What will be left of Solidarność after the files of Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) are opened?; a few issues earlier they asked about who is responsible for current marginalization of the Left etc) which are being evaded by the discussants who digress from the subject matter in various ways, Michalski’s questions which quite often contain both the question and the answer or seem to be more of a statement, view than a question addressed to the interlocutors, or even the selection of guests. However, we can write in a similar way about any debate regardless of its subject, person leading it, number of people or anything else. What is more important than this is that whatever is said, these debates are interesting, exciting and, without a question, captivating. Let’s start then.
It is Antoni Dudek, Jan Lityński and Andrzej Nowak that talk to Michalski about what will be left of Solidarność after the files of Institute of National Remembrance are opened. Michalski starts by confronting two quotations: Janusz Kurtyka says that the materials that Institute of National Remembrance posses will change our idea about the newest history of Poland inevitably and, on the other hand, professor Andrzej Friszke reassuring that nothing will change, “there will not be any monuments destroyed, sanctity debunked or values redefined.”. The question is: who is right? There is no need to ask Andrzej Nowak, the chief editor of “Arcana” bimonthly, “one of the outstanding history experts on Polish-Russian relationship”, about his opinion as it is commonly known. Jan Lityński, however, says: “A characteristic feature of the Polish secret police was that they couldn’t see the forest for the trees. They had at their disposal bugged and surveillance materials but were not able to grasp the problem globally.” Antoni Dudek reprimands Michalski calling the initial combination of two statements “miserable” (the president Kurtyka’s statement comes from three years ago and does not concern “Solidarność” only but the whole period of post-war Poland). Michalski replies to this correction in the following way: “I understand Dudek’s cautiousness as an adviser to the Institute of National Remembrance president who does not want to embroil the institution into more and more heated war from which there is no way of de-embroilment.”
I would not like to judge or asses, direct the readers or tell them what, in my opinion, is right and what should not have been said at all. I will refer you then to the debate record which is worth reading and, undoubtedly, taking a stance on. It is worth to read one more time the discussion about the round-table agreement, whether it was a betrayal of Polishness or an indisputable victory, it is worth, one more time, to read into further opinions on “the war of those at the top”, divisions in “Solidarność”, Lech Wałęsa’s government, Jacek Kuroń myth, the role of historians in the public life, publications in “Arcana” or the role of Adam Michnik in the newest history. I would stress here that I am definitely against putting all the winners of 1990s together in the way Michalski does when he lists them in one go: “Adam Michnik, Jerzy Urban, Aleksander Kwaśniewski and Czesław Kiszczak”. It is also worth to have a look at the introductory notes written by Robert Krasowski, in whose opinion there was only one winner after 1989 and it was, of course, Adam Michnik. I try to understand the aversion to the chief editor of “Gazeta Wyborcza” newspaper but, firstly, it seems to be puzzling that one should use Michnik’s name in every possible situation and blame him for all the wrong “Dziennik” does not agree with, and, secondly, it is somehow difficult to separate Adam Michnik from the newspaper he runs, which is the main competitor of “Dziennik”.
And besides all that. Would it not be better simply to rest, to take a deep breath and relax, to turn “Europa” to the last page where you can read poems by Edvard Kocbek translated into Polish by Adam Wiedemann? Certainly, it would be better. “The sky sways slightly, the net rocks / the boat with people and its drowned form. / Calmness everywhere, in the middle of / water circles there is a barge and a night falls.”
Grzegorz Wysocki
Translated by Kinga Witowska
Discussed journals: Europa – Tygodnik Idei