Page:CIA-RDP01-00707R000200070029-7.pdf/31

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2009/06/16: CIA-RDP01-00707R000200070029-7


and certainly before his ouster from the Secretariat the following June. Moczar's ouster from the Politburo at the Party Congress in December was thus anticlimactic. With the passage of time, Gierek progressively whittled away politically embarrassing holdovers from the previous regime and replaced them with his own men.

Gierek's major task in advance of the Party Congress, however, was in gaining firm control over the lower and middle echelons of the party apparatus, where, in Gierek's own words, "the struggle between the old and the new" was most obvious. Gierek's extensive cadre shifts focused on the 22 provincial party organizations, where by mid-1971 he had replaced half of the party leaders who were on the scene in December 1970; on the eve of the Party Congress, only four remained. Most of the new regional party chiefs are younger and better educated than their predecessors and, unlike Gomulka's appointees, most of them gained their experience through work in the provinces they now head rather than in the central party apparatus.

In addition to the changes in the leaderships of the regional party organizations, there was a wholesale infusion of new blood, mainly genuine workers and peasants, into their organizational apparatus. This not only reinforced Gierek's doctrine of reestablishing bonds between the party and the masses, but in many cases had the added value of incorporating working class leaders into the establishment. These personnel changes did not overcome all the passive resistance in the local organizations, but they did result in a party machinery that gave Gierek the delegates and the endorsement he needed at the Party Congress.

Finally, these organizational measures were accompanied by a relatively quiet purge of the rank and file in line with Gierek's theme of "quality over quantity." The carefully phased process of interviewing the party's 2.3 million members (as of December 1970) resulted in an estimated 100,000 members dropped from the rolls or expelled.

With the stage thus set, the Party Congress was a broad-brush affair that formalized what had already been accomplished. The congress endorsed both Gierek and the outline of his reform program, and included in the party hierarchy additional close adherents to his style of rule. Moreover, with almost 60% of the new Central Committee composed of new men, many of them workers, Gierek emerged from the congress with both a leadership team and a central party apparatus on which he could rely to support his programs.

There can be little doubt that Gierek is no less determined than was Gomulka to preserve the "leading role" of the party; indeed, as explained above in the discussion of plans for a new constitution, he has committed his regime to enshrining this principle in constitutional law. Nevertheless, Gierek's practical ideas on just how the party should function within this framework are far different from those of his predecessor. In general terms, he has lowered the party's profile not only vis-a-vis the people, but also in relation to the government. His statements indicate a belief that the party should formulate general policy guidelines - drawing heavily on non-party expertise - monitor and mobilize public opinion, and pressure both the public and the bureaucracy. Without prejudicing the party's ultimate power to intervene, the practical implementation of policy should be left as much as possible to the appropriate branches of the government and to the mass organizations. Streamlining the apparatus of rule and increasing its efficiency appears to be the main consideration, but by divorcing the party from the most visible aspects of day-to-day management of national affairs Gierek also apparently hopes to cushion the party leadership against a future crisis of confidence such as that of December 1970.

With regard to the modus operandi within the party, Gierek has broken with Gomulka's methods by stressing collegial if not collective leadership, and by giving the party's theoretically democratic practices some genuine content. While insisting on party discipline at all levels and moving firmly against a resurgence of old factional groupings, he has encouraged constructive debate, a freer flow of information and suggestions from below, and the delegation of sufficient authority to lower echelons to permit resolution of most local problems without the need for obtaining approval from the central party apparatus. The implementation of the last of these principles has been perhaps the most difficult obstacle to the internal rejuvenation of the party. The major reason is that it is based on the concept of individual and collective responsibility for decisions and actions that goes fundamentally against the penchant of the party bureaucracy for "passing the buck." Gierek has repeatedly made clear that his determination to make the party more responsive to the people will have to be matched by a willingness of party officials at the grass roots to assume commensurate responsibility.


c. The new leadership

Since December 1970 there has been a dramatic change in the characteristics of the top leadership of the Polish party (Figure 5) in comparison with both its


25


APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2009/06/16: CIA-RDP01-00707R000200070029-7