The signing of the agreement took place “in the large conference room of the shipyard, decorated with a crucifix and bust of Lenin, under the rattle of lightning and the roar of television cameras of several countries,” AFP reported. Walesa signed the document with a pen in the image of the pope. On August 31, an AFP bulletin spoke of “an agreement between the authorities and the Gdansk strike committee, as Walesa announced.” Adam Michnik (to give just one example) had a very different view of the issue: “A hybrid system, a cross between the totalitarian organization of the state and democratic social institutions, would be possible. It is a plaster solution by nature, but such solutions sometimes turn out to be the longest. [9] A few months later, Michnik provided more specific reasons why he believed it would be a permanent solution. “What I am proposing here is a compromise with the authorities. With authorities that I do not like at all, whose rules I do not approve, but who are for us what is a parenthesis for the sick: oppressive, but indispensable. […] Those in power may not be loved, but they should be seen as negotiating partners. [10] For Michnik, the social contract was therefore not a temporary agreement based on trust, but a permanent agreement. Given the prospect of imminent and far-reaching reforms, it was the Communists who were supposed to guarantee a professional [governmental] administration that would protect the country from anarchy. In Michnik`s vision, communists became an important part of change; a component whose absence would render Solidarność incapable of governing.

They became like a plaster for the sick condition. “So far, in Poland, as in all other socialist countries, it has been understood that the working class, which is itself in power, has no reason to strike or form unions independent of the party it represents,” AFP wrote at the time. One way to understand the 1970s in Poland is that it was a time when the population as a whole was beginning to understand the truth in this joke. “We didn`t get everything we wanted. But we understood what was possible in the current situation. And we`ll have the rest later,” Walesa said. Thus, the August agreements were the second stage of the statutes. The first phase was that the political community was born when people came to an agreement among themselves. During this second phase, representatives of this community (the Representative Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease) established the rules for peaceful cooperation with representatives of the contemporary State. The second stage of the social contract was the agreement between totalitarian authorities and society.

Unimaginable a few weeks earlier, the Gdansk agreement followed two months of social unrest in the central European country, triggered by a rise in meat prices in July. On the occasion of the second anniversary of the agreement, on 31 August 1982, a massive wave of anti-government demonstrations took place throughout Poland. The regime responded with the police force; According to Solidarność, at least seven people were killed throughout Poland. [1] J. Jedlicki, Forma i treść umowy społecznej, Warszawa 1980 [samizdat], p. 14. [2] Décision programmatique des délégués pour la première convention nationale de la NSZZ « Solidarność », première partie. [3] Constitution of the People`s Republic of Poland, adopted by the Sejm on 22 July 1952. Uniform Text of 16 Février 1976.

[4] Constitution, Article 3. [5] Protocol of an agreement reached by the Government Commission and the Strike Committee between the Factories on 31 October 1980 at the Gdańsk Shipyard, point 1 paragraph 2. [6] T. Kowalik, « An attempt at compromise. Sur le comité d`experts du MKS à Gdańsk », Zeszyty Literackie Nr. 2 (1983), p. 115. [7] Nous planifions la conversation ensemble. Entretien avec des militants du Comité fondateur inter-entreprises de NSZZ « Solidarność » à Gdańsk, Polityka No. 44 (1 November 1980), p.

6. [8] « Polska, septembre 1980 », PPN nr. 47 (2 October 1980), no pagination. [9] A. Michnik, « Czas nadziei, Sierpnia-Września 1980 », dans A. Michnik, Szanse polskiej demokracji, Warsaw 2009, p. 78. [10] A.

Michnik, “Nadzieja i threat, October-November 1980”, in Szanse polskiej demokracji, S. 8485. [11] K. Dziewanowski, in Czabański Krzysztof (ed.), Niepokoje i nadzieje, Warsaw 1981, p. 24. [12] J. Staniszkis, Ewolucje form robotniczego protestu …, Wrocław 1981 [samizdat]. The “theoretical novelty” of the above solution is easily undermined by the fact that many commentators have tried to find analogies between history and the current situation.

The comparison of the current circumstances with the political system of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was particularly popular in the trade union press. The similar nature of the written commitments that a candidate for the Polish throne was to make at that time was particularly emphasized. In this sense, Kazimierz Dziewanowski wrote that “agreements of this kind have been concluded on many occasions throughout history. They were committed in feudal times: the result was the English Magna Carta and some time later the principle of “habeas corpus”, which protected citizens from arbitrary arrests. In Poland, the same principle was known as neminem captivabimus and was dated 1425-1433. Pacta conventa, or colonies that established the conditions of rule of each monarch, had been another such agreement. In Hungary and Bohemia, pacta conventa were already completed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: in Poland, they are part of political practice from the sixteenth century. Agreements of a similar nature have also been concluded in other countries, especially where power should belong to a foreign dynasty.

[11] The present was no different from history in this regard: the most important decisions of the state had to be made by mutual agreement of the “House of Parliament” (i.e., of solidarity) and the “king” (communist authorities). 15. Conformity of old-age pensions with what was actually paid. The strikers had an unwavering conviction that “under normal circumstances” it was the people who played the role of sovereign in a state. This conviction is confirmed by the programmatic resolution [Uchwała programowa] adopted by the delegates at the first National Convention of the Independent Autonomous Solidarity Union [NSSZ “Solidarność”] in 1981. The authors of the document acknowledged that “the rule of the people is a principle that must not be denied. The domination of the people must not be the rule of groups of people who place themselves above society, who grant themselves the right to represent the interests of society and to determine what society needs. Society must have the opportunity to speak in full voice, to express different social and political opinions, it must have the opportunity to organize. [2] In other words, those who created Solidarność saw as their ideal a democratic state governed by the rule of law, in which society was sovereign. In this type of society, the law, the foundation of any social relationship, has its roots in the social will. Despite government censorship and attempts to prevent news of the strike, similar protests erupted in Poland`s industrial cities. On 17 August, an Interfactory strike committee presented the Polish government with 21 ambitious demands, including the right to organise independent trade unions, the right to strike, the release of political prisoners and more freedom of expression.

Fearing that the general strike would lead to a national revolt, the government sent a commission to Gdansk to negotiate with the rebel workers. On August 31, Walesa and Deputy Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Jagielski signed an agreement that yielded to the demands of many workers. Walesa signed the document with a huge ballpoint pen decorated with an image of the newly elected Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla, the former archbishop of Krakow). The Gdańsk Agreement states: “In calling for new independent and autonomous trade unions, the strike committee between the factories [Międzyzakładowy Komitet Strajkowy or MKS] declared that these unions would respect the rules set out in the Constitution of the Polish People`s Republic. The new unions would defend the social and economic interests of workers and should not assume the role of a political party. They were based on the principle of social ownership of the means of production, which formed the basis of the socialist political system currently in force in Poland. While recognizing the party`s leading role in state affairs, and without attempting to undermine the established network of international alliances, the unions sought to ensure that workers had the appropriate means of control, expressed their opinions and protected their interests. [5] This provision covered the core of the agreement. State power remained that of the party: the members of the union pledged not to undermine the PZPR`s monopoly in this area.

For this reason, the strikers took the conscious decision not to demand free elections of the parliament and national councils (which applied to the local authorities of the Polish People`s Republic, which temporarily appeared as the twenty-second demand). Although this abandoned demand is in line with the principle of people`s power (adopted by the trade unions), it is also explicitly in contradiction with the constitutional order of the Polish People`s Republic. .