On 21^st September Poland goes to the polls to elect a new government. Poland now stands at a critical cross-roads in determining its political and economic future, and the choices that the Polish people make this Sunday will have an enduring effect on the ability of the Polish people to determine their own future.

The first country in the former Soviet Block to throw off the cloak of Soviet communist control, Poland has had to pay a heavy price for taking the lead role in rolling back the frontiers of Soviet communism and restoring sovereignty and democratic rights to the people. In understanding the political situation in Poland today we have to consider the harsh political realities faced by Solidarity as it negotiated with Russia for sovereign independence and the right of the Polish people to democratic self-determination at the end of the 80's. At that time the western world had formed a deeply entrenched view that communism was irreversible, and that once a country became communist there was no possibility of a return to democratic freedom and self-determination. In the political climate of today by contrast we have come to take for granted the tendency of communism to give way to democracy and it is easy to take for granted the achievements of Solidarity in standing up against the overwhelming political and military might of the Soviet Union which even the western nations thought was irreversible. One of the few external players who gave real strength to the Polish people in their fight against the communist menace was the Pope, who from an early stage gave to the Polish people the inspiration, the courage and the resolve that they needed for this great battle of resolve. In the first two months of the existence of Solidarity in the 1970's the movement gained more than ten million members, over a quarter of the nation's population. This is all the more striking a figure when one considers that Solidarity was an banned organisation within a brutally authoritarian regime, and gives some indication of the feelings of desperate need of the Polish people to put an end to the communist regime. The fight of Solidarity against the Soviet military might was a remarkable and historic illustration of the ability of pure moral strength and political argument to win a war against the world's most heavily armed military forces without enormous loss of life.

However when the Russians accepted the need for negotiation and political settlement Solidarity was not in a position to dictate the terms. As the first ever country to break away from the Soviet Block Poland had to make critical concessions that have prevented Poland from making a complete break with the political past. Lech Walesa had to make a calculated compromise which has to this day meant the break from communism and her Russian masters has only been partial. Walesa had to agree to absolve the communists from all responsibility for everything that had happened during the communist period, including abuses of human rights, abuse of powers and profiteering. If Walesa had not agreed to this compromise Poland may perhaps never have gained independence from the Soviet Union and the rapid collapse of Soviet communism that followed around the world might never have occurred; yet that compromise has had serious consequences for Poland. When Walesa took over the reins of power from the puppet leaders installed by Russia he was able to fill the National Assembly with elected delegates to support him, but in order to govern the nation he had to use the same old communist executive. The National Assembly could pass resolutions by the democratic process but the implementation of those decisions required the cooperation of the executive - the army of officials who were responsible for the day to day decisions and actions required to implement the policies of government around the country. Since Walesa was not able to make a clean sweep of the executive branch of government and remove from power the executive arm of the old communist government his newly elected government was impotent. Every decision taken in the National Assembly was delayed, diverted and sabotaged by the communist elite who controlled every aspect of the decision making process in the executive arm of government and the execution of those decisions.

Even the news media were still controlled by the communists, and every time the National Assembly made unpopular decisions that the communist elite would not accept they managed to distort the image presented to the public so as to create an illusion that the problem was one of mismanagement and ineptness by the new government when in reality the problem was quite simply a conspiracy by the communist elite who still controlled the executive arm of government to evade and sabotage the decisions of the elected National Assembly. One might have hoped that the international media might have picked up this point, but for a variety of reasons they concentrated their attentions on the superficial collapse of the "ideology" of communism around the world and the fact that the Soviet Block which had once been thought indestructible was suddenly disintegrating and conveniently ignored the fact that many of the newly emerging "democracies" were crippled by the communist elites that still maintained a back-door control of government through the myriad network of ex-communist officials who exercised control of the execution of policies. Under the old regime the press was completely controlled by the communists but it is widely accepted that a democratic regime should have a free press which is allowed editorial independence without interference from government. As firm believers in the principles of democracy and freedom of the press the Solidarity government were put into an impossible position: the communists had managed to retain effective control of the media and so were able to distort and seriously undermine the operations of the elected government with impunity. The role of the communist controlled press was critical in influencing public perception of a government which was not seen to have the ability to control the country, promoting a negative interpretation of government actions which was sufficiently biased to undermine the image of the government and yet at the same time maintaining a cunning and carefully managed appearance of independence that benefited from the well established communist propaganda machinery.

As the whole country was thrown into chaos by the deliberate sabotage and political manipulation of the communist officials in the executive arm of government and the economy rapidly deteriorated many members of the Polish public came to view the Solidarity government as responsible for the failure, a view deftly managed and moulded by the communist controlled press. As the situation created rapidly increasing dissatisfaction and economic difficulty throughout the country elections were called again. The communists (no longer calling themselves communist but comprised of the exact same power base of collective vested interests) made effective use of their well established political base and their control of the media and astonishingly managed to win sufficient seats in the National Assembly to be able to form a coalition government.

With the return of the old elite to power in the National Assembly the former communists were soon able to show that they were in control of the economy. Since the crux of the problem of the Solidarity government had been caused by the vested interests of the pervasive communist power base spread throughout the national and local structures of government resisting change, it is not surprising that when the former communists came back to power they were immediately able to call on the support of these same officials to ensure that their policies were implemented and the power of the communist apparatus reasserted.

Though the new government was essentially the same organism as the former communist regime with the same power base and the same apparachiks, it publicly espoused free market principles, rebuilt the national economy, and became widely viewed as in many key respects the archetypal capitalist system. This has been quite widely regarded as paradoxical - the stolid communist officials who had made the old regime so inept, inefficient and unproductive soon metamorphosed into dynamic capitalist entrepreneurs who nimbly took advantage of opportunities as they arose and developed profitable small businesses that became the driving force of a glittering and dynamic new private sector. In reality there are two crucial factors that go a long way to explaining this apparent paradox. The first factor is a serious and fundamental misunderstanding in the western world of the nature of communism and the communist regime (see inset, "So what is Communism anyway?"). The communist regime is widely regarded as being based on and dependent on a socialist political ideology. The term "communism" is almost universally associated in the imagination with workers' rights and the power of the proletariat even though we all know so well that in all the practical communist regimes of the world the real power was concentrated in the politburo while the supposed power of the proletariat was purely fictional. The propaganda of communism was apparently so effective even in the west that after 80 years the western world has still not come to grips with the concept of the communist regime in the real world. The fundamental reality is that the basic and intrinsic ideology of the communist regime is no different from that of the capitalist dictatorship - both involve the concentration of real power in the top leadership and an executive arm of government with vested interests in the preservation of the status quo. The fact that the communist regime is nominally based on the power of the proletariat is neither here nor there because in reality the power of the proletariat in a communist regime is purely fictional. This essential fact is universally accepted throughout the western world as the most basic injustice of the communist regime, yet surprisingly political analysis of communist and former communist countries is invariably based on the fundamental assumption that communism is an ideology where in the real world it is not an ideology but simply an excuse for the monopoly of power and wealth. Communism as an ideology may on occasion exist in the revolutionary process but in a mature communist regime it is invariably no more than an exploitational device which allows those in power to stay in power and become rich. How does this differ from a classical capitalist dictatorship? One should not therefore be so surprised to find that many of the factors which would make for a successful communist apparachik would also be very useful in a capitalist system, especially one which is based on an elite derived directly from the old communist hierarchy - which brings us to the second factor explaining the apparent paradox of the super-capitalist communists.

Just as the capitalist system provides ample opportunities for the unscrupulous to take advantage of opportunities for personal gain so too does the communist system. The special feature of the communist system is an institutionalised loyalty to a single Party which gives a sense of unity and common purpose to all Party members. Since all medium to high level government officials and managers of state enterprises are necessarily Party members this effectively forms the ultimate unitary vested interest group. Under the communist regime officials take advantage of their position to carry out business deals which can generate considerable personal profits, and these deals constitute the perfect training for the transition to post-communist capitalism. Once the Party is "privatised" it becomes a very powerful medium for the preservation of existing networks of mutual interests and business contacts. Just as the mafia have a very effective monopoly of business interests in Sicily so the "privatised" Communist Party becomes the perfect monopoly of business interests in the post-communist capitalist economy.

Once the former communist regime had returned to power after the collapse of the Solidarity government it was quick to take on board the Thatcherite approach to privatisation of state enterprises, with devastating effects. Inefficient state businesses were sold at ridiculously low prices, almost invariably to either Party officials or to foreign companies. The Party officials were of course the only members of society to have the wealth to buy significant shareholdings in the businesses, and the managers of the state enterprises overnight became owners and business tycoons. Much of the management buyout of state enterprises was almost certainly funded by Russia, anxious to regain economic control of its former proxy state, thereby firmly re-establishing the old communist hierarchy as the controlling power base of the new capitalist system. Many state industries, particularly shipyards and paper mills, were sold at prices well below the value of assets to foreign competitors who immediately closed the companies down to eliminate competition to their existing interests in their own country. The shipyard industry which had provided the original impetus to Solidarity and the drive against communism was decimated and the workforce thrown into redundancy.

The younger generation of Party apparachiks became a potent force of entrepreneurial small businessmen and foreign banks poured in money for the latest fad investment in the fast growing post-communist economies. There can be no doubt that the old communist regime has deliberately set out to nurture the original Communist Party power base as the nouveau riche of the new market economy, and in so doing have ensured that their power base can be converted from its original politically derived form to a new economically derived form. It is this latter factor that makes this Sunday's election such an important turning point in the future of Poland. If the former communists are able to win sufficient seats to put together a coalition government then there will be nothing which can stop the further conversion of the original politically derived power base into an economically derived power base and an irreversible consolidation of power. The monopoly of mutual business interests that derives from the "privatisation" of a Communist Party forms such a powerful political force in the market economy that a just and truly democratic system would probably be permanently unattainable.

The AWS coalition between Solidarity, Confederation of Independent Poland and other pro-democracy groups that forms the principle opposition to the former communists in the election have a very comprehensive understanding of these problems and have learnt the hard way what measures are needed to prevent the irreversible ossification of such a dangerous monopoly of society. The former communists have many important political advantages in the election with a very strong power base, control of television, and the advantage of currently being the government in power; they also have many opportunities to bend the rules which will be a temptation difficult to resist with so much at stake. It will be a close fight, and the outcome will not only determine the future of democracy in Poland but will also set an important precedent which will be watched closely by all other communist and post-communist states from the Czech Republic to China.

Inset:

When one mentions the word "communism" in the western world most people immediately think of a socialist ideology based on the rights of the workers and the power of the proletariat. Yet if one were to ask those same people whether the proletariat had any power in the communist system most would immediately say that they do not. Careful consideration of the way people think and talk about communist regimes and former communist regimes shows that peoples attitudes to communist regimes are paradoxically completely inconsistent with their knowledge of the nature of communism. The human being is by nature selfish and opportunist, especially when put into large complex societies and given positions of power. The actions of a human being tend to be guided above all by results that appear advantageous to the individual concerned and his or her interest groups much more than by the interests of society as a whole, yet if you ask a politician why they did something they will always try to justify their actions in terms of alleged benefits to society as a whole rather than their personal interests. It is these two core features of human nature that determine the key properties of communism.

From time immemorial political groups have sought to take power from other groups for themselves. Some have been powerful right-wing groups determined to take power for themselves and become right-wing dictators. Others have been left-wing idealists determined to tackle social injustice. Still others have been simply opportunists taking advantage of a drive for power by either of the previous two groups, whether right-wing or left-wing, hijacking their movement for their own selfish goals. Any idealist movement struggling for power will invariably and unavoidably find opportunist groups trying to hijack their movement for their own purely selfish goals, and there is essentially no difference between such groups and the right-wing groups seeking to become a dictator. In both cases they are simply opportunists, and questions of ideology do not determine their behaviour except to the extent of their efforts to gain and protect their power. Socialist movements are particularly vulnerable to hijack by opportunists because the belief in equality and sharing of power provides easy access to opportunists who see the ideological movement as the means to gain the popular support that will propel them into a position of power; once they have attained power they then have to protect their position by defensive measures.

The communist system is quite simply a means for gaining and preserving a position of power using the ideological goals of socialism as tools for gaining the support of large bodies of the uneducated population. Once a position of power has been gained it is then fortified by creating a strong autocratic system of government which rigorously controls dissent and regulates every aspect of power and every aspect of life, so that any opportunity to challenge to power can be immediately countered before it becomes a threat. Once the communist system has achieved this level of control it is politically very stable provided the system as a whole is economically self-sufficient, and in general can only be overthrown by an essentially revolutionary process. Beyond the deliberate deception of the justification for its existence ideology has no place in the communist system. Having defined the communist system as simply a means for gaining and preserving power without reference to ideology is there any reason why we should expect the communist system to significantly differ from right-wing dictatorships? Both types of regime face the same problems of protecting the power of the leadership by imposing a strong top-down hierarchy of control, and so it should not really be surprising that many of the methods used to suppress the people in communist regimes are much the same as those used to suppress the people in right-wing dictatorships. Both types of regime provide ideal opportunities for officials at all levels to carry out business deals which take advantage of their positions of office. Position within the right-wing faction or within the Communist Party is analogous to a position within a mafia organisation, and provides the same benefits for capitalist transactions.

Testing whether our definition of the communist system matches the communist systems found in the real world is not difficult - if we consider the actual properties of communist systems and the properties we would expect to find in a system which conforms to our description we find that there are no differences. For example if the communist system was ideologically tied to the principle of equality we would expect to see a large measure of restraint exercised by the leadership in the lavishness of their lifestyle when the poorer members of society are given very limited resources and a very basic standard of living. Instead we find the principle of privilege applies to the communist elite in exactly the same way as it does to the elite of the right-wing dictatorship. A socialist regime should champion the right of workers to form trade unions which represent their interests, but communist states always retain control of the workers' unions and ensure that they are not free to represent workers' interests. It is notable in this context that Solidarity itself of course started out as a demand for the Polish Shipbuilders to have an independent trade union which genuinely represented the frustrations of the shipbuilders instead of carrying out orders from the Communist Party, and perhaps it was this strike at the heart of the lie of communism that make Solidarity so difficult for the Russians to crush. In both communist states and right-wing dictatorships the citizens are denied the right of free speech, basic human rights are abused, and secret police ensure that any signs of dissent are stifled. Corruption is endemic, and national laws are drafted more to ensure the supremacy of the ruling government than to protect the collective interests of society. All these properties of communist societies are well known, and it hardly seems necessary to enumerate them. Yet the paradox is that discussions and media analyses of communist regimes invariably assume that the regimes have a left-wing ideological motivation when all the evidence shows that they are just the same as any right-wing dictatorship, and this leads to serious misjudgements of political developments.

Just as the media have allowed the myth develop that communism is a left-wing ideology, in discriminating a democracy from it they have concentrated above all on election of political leaders as the principal litmus test of democracy, arguing that classical communist states always lack free elections. Yet the existence of free elections is not at all the meaning of the word democracy. A democracy is a society which is governed by representatives of the people who govern in the best collective interests of the people. A system of free and fair elections to elect political leaders is a way of constitutionalising a parliamentary democracy in order to increase the chances of preserving a democracy once it has been achieved, but to concentrate on the elections as the defining characteristic of a democracy is a dangerous mistake. Elections are only one of a great many factors needed to preserve and protect a democratic system, and most important of all is not the means by which political leaders gain office but the attitudes and motivations that guide their actions. The second most important factor is the constitutional structure of the government - the way in which the political leaders interact with the various branches of government and the way those different branches interact with each other. In a democratic system it is essential to have adequate checks and balances between different arms of the government - the legislative, the executive, the judicial system, and so on. If a single party has a virtual monopoly of all or most arms of the machinery of government then it is unlikely that the government will act as the democratic representatives of the people, and this is the reason for the failure of both the first Solidarity government in which all but the elected legislative body were still controlled by the communists, and the post-communist government which followed them. Democracy is a fragile beast that is difficult enough to preserve but even more difficult to create.

If you rename "communism" and call it "capitalism" does the new terminology make it any different as a political system? Having established that "communism" is not in any respect the socialist ideology that it claims to be shows that using terms to categorise political systems is fraught with problems. When a communist system metamorphoses into a new system with free elections and a market economy but with the same old former communist elite controlling every aspect of power and the economy is it fair to say that the regime is no longer a communist regime? If one were to believe that the original communist system was an ideology then one would have to accept that the transformation to a market economy was a real change; when one accepts that the original communist system was not an ideology at all but simply a collective conspiracy to preserve the power of the elite, however, one clearly can argue that the change of superficial title from "communism" to "capitalism" does not involve any substantive change of nature and it would be more illuminating to refer to the system as a communist system even though it may be a typical capitalist system in its superficial appearance. The term "communist" as applied here then is not referring to an ideology but to the mafia-type relationship between opportunists strategically placed throughout the government machinery and the economy whose membership is broadly based on former membership of the Communist Party.