The gesture of the organisers, however, only partly and inadequately addresses the gross unfairness of ostensibly framing the talk as an open ended question, but giving the audience a one sided answer, presented on the grounds of a prestigious university and presented by two authoritative Professors, both strongly biased in favour of one side.

The unfairness is particularly poignant because both Professors rightfully pontificate about the importance of the principles of ‘a fair go’, such as ‘due process’, ‘rule of law’ and ‘Magna Carta’. I guess it is always difficult to live up to the high ideals one expects others to meet. Sadly, the one sided lecture was predicated on an ostensibly open ended question but it better fits the category of fiction rather than an analytical presentation of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The problem begins immediately when Pakulski states “a survey was conducted in Poland in which 55% of respondents agreed that democracy is in danger in Poland, so I feel like speaking for this majority”. Despite the overwhelming mainstream media support for the ruling government, PIS wins the 25th October 2015 election in an unprecedented landslide and Pakulski unquestioningly feels like accepting a November survey and because he spends no time providing the audience with survey source, methodology, phrasing of questions asked, etc, nothing – even though survey sources are provided for all the other surveys he used in his talk – he expects the audience to have faith for his feelings! Professor Krygier later reassures us that he “endorses all” of Professor Pakulski’s “magisterial presentation”.

The Professors want the audience to believe not only that a large majority of people across Poland think ‘democracy is in danger’ but also that the reason for this perception is attributable to the actions of just a few weeks of PIS administration; it has nothing to do with 8 years of rule by the previous administration, an administration they so decisively voted out of office at the election (not a tiny sample) just a few weeks before!!!!???

Dear Professor Pakulski, in a 2013 lecture you expressed concern about the problem of a low birth rate; your trust in surveys is literally so fantastic, I feel I have a solution for you. A recent survey shows that Europe’s Stork population has fallen at the same time as the number of babies delivered to European families has fallen; your problem is solved, breed more Storks.

The presentation continued, but ‘fairness’ did not improve. A government action can either strengthen or weaken ‘the rule of law’. In the context of this lecture, adding the adjective ‘controversial’ to the new administration’s actions serves no other purpose other than to suggest a pejorative sense to the policy named. A policy enacted by a newly elected government that is in fact aimed at strengthening ‘the rule of law’ can nevertheless be attacked and made controversial by those who, having lost their ‘spoils of office’ , orchestrate a smear campaign using allies they have accumulated in the mainstream media, the bureaucracy, international organisations etc during their long time in power.

Rather than spend so much time on the history of Poland’s transformation or on ‘doing social science 1”, Pakulski could instead have given details of a sample of what he considered to be the most egregious policies, revealed the phrasing of relevant sections of the Constitution, described the arguments used by both sides of the divide, then added a little commentary of his own and allowed members of the audience to judge the issues for themselves. Pakulski buttresses his ‘controversy’ ploy by reading an excerpt from an open letter, sent of their own accord, by 3 US Senators out of a congress comprising 535 individuals. A more balanced approach could have been taken; after reading the excerpt the main criticisms of this open letter could have been outlined, such as the points made by Matthew Tyrmand in his Breitbart article of 19th February, 2016 :

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/19/john-mccain-and-his-pro-eu-pals-should-think-carefully-before-denigrating-a-key-nato-partner/.

Pakulski’s lecture uses a “Paradise Lost” narrative. Throughout his lecture he infers that everything was ‘hunky dory’ while PO was in office. All the indicators of good governance were improving, rule of law was flourishing, corruption was disappearing, incomes were rising, the press was free, people were promoted on merit and there was a widespread political consensus; a veritable golden age – until. . . . . . ; until the consensus began to unravel after the 25th October, 2015 election when the villainous PIS party won and became allied with of Kukiz15.

But this narrative creates a seemingly unresolvable problem: if things really were so ‘hunky dory’ before the election, why did PO lose in a landslide????????????? Deus ex machina to the rescue!!!!!!!!! Whenever dramatists write a plot that appears to be unsolvable they employ the theatrical technique of ‘deus ex machina’. Using this technique what otherwise seems inexplicable is explained by the appearance of some new and unexpected phenomena.

Click here to see photos and to refer to Lecture's transcript & audio recordings

Professor Pakulski finds his scapegoats and portrays them in a slide he titles “profiles in outrage’; it’s the poorly educated ‘untermenschen’ existing on farms across Poland’s rural countryside; the disenchanted alienated urban youths, the bigoted and primitive old Roman Catholics unenlighteningly clinging to their religion. PIS and that snake oil seller Kukiz pandered to the lack of understanding and disdain these groups have for the principles that underpin liberty: due process, rule of law, freedom of the press and the like. They are haters and don’t treat their opponents as rivals, they treat them as enemies. As Adam Gajkowski pointed out in Q&A, PIS won every demographic in the election, although it won some demographics by a wider margin than others. Mentioning this would not have fit the narrative and this opportunity for ‘balance’ was not taken.

I find the ‘sneering’ at the non-elite’ that can be inferred from the context of the Pakulski narrative particularly loathsome. Nations in which its citizens live in liberty do so in a large part because that liberty was secured by regular folks who put themselves in harm’s way and fought and won against tyrants; many paid the ultimate price. Since I do a lot of reading on this subject I have come across many such unsung heroes and heroines. To attribute the existence and health of ‘Liberal Democracies’ (I prefer to describe them as Lands of Liberty) to the educated elite is a Non Sequitur. Liberty depends more on human character, judgement and strong ethics; these qualities are not the monopoly of the well-educated elite; any farmer, pious churchgoer or unemployed young person can have as much or as little of these qualities as any other person in society, no matter how high or how low.

Professor Krygier who “endorses all” of Professor Pakulski’s “magisterial presentation”, later chimes in claiming Andrzej Duda was nothing more than the ‘cat’s paw’ of Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Therefore, in reality, PIS won the election somewhat under the false pretences of being ‘a different PIS”. Krygier infers that Kaczynski, on introspection, realised he would be perceived as insufficiently civilised or attractive leader and that because he was seen as the instigator of hostilities and invective against his political opponents, the voting public would shun PIS if he was seen in public as its leader, so he had Duda installed as a ‘front man’ instead. (Krygier’s hate of Kaczynski is palpable, such as can be seen in the assertion described here, and also by him using the “how many times did you beat your wife’ technique” when he stated “I don’t know, whether Kaczynski is out to mangle people’s civil liberties, I am not sure, I have no idea”. The Professor could instead have simply stated “I believe Kaczynski’s aim is to consolidate power” and that would have been sufficient to express what he meant).

Finally, one last issue I have with Pakulski’s paper is his sports umpire analogy. It is a false analogy if applied to power and politics in the real world. While in office politicians can and do make appointments to the judiciary; to the bureaucracy, to public media. When they retire they can and do find employment in commerce and industry; politicians in office can and do peddle influence in all aspects of life. Over time the party in office can hijack these institutions; since government in essence is the legal use of force, once captured these agencies can be used in much the same way they are used in a police state. The “umpire” instead of giving a red or yellow card to government for its indiscretions will instead go after the individual or group that brought the indiscretion to its notice. There is much evidence to show that the former Polish government did in fact do this and used the agencies of government to silence its opponents in which case it would go some way to explain the current political situation in Poland. Nowhere in this lecture is the possibility of PIS having to deal with ‘institution capture’ mentioned.

All of what I have written here explains why I believe Pakulski’s lecture is about “Why Democracy in Poland is in Danger”; the fact Pakulski didn’t use a two sided narrative for his presentation is also why I believe this is how his lecture should have been titled.

Even though some in the audience may be aware that ‘another side of the story exists’ if they received and read the information sheets handed out prior to the lecture. Also, the fact that the “Paradise Lost” narrative was contradicted at the end when Professor Krygier, in his response to Professor Kozek’s question admitted that “I am not talking Angels and Villains here, if we had a discussion of the vices and difficulties of the PO government there would be a lot to say”, may have given a hint to the audience that there is another side to the story presented in the lecture.

Although I put my hand up too late to be recognised at Q&A, I did get a chance to offer my views to Professor Keane at the end of proceedings. I can remember saying these words: Further to Professor Krygier’s comment of “I am not talking Angels and Villains here” an alternative narrative could have just as authoritatively been presented by Professors of History or of Law, based on this analogy: Shareholders of a company sack their old Board, a Board whose members have abused their position of power over the years. The former directors illegally replaced the company auditors with their cronies just before the AGM. The new board takes corrective action, but is smeared for doing so.

Instead of “Is Democracy in Poland in Danger?”, the theme for the presentation could instead be “Free at Last, Free at Last, Thank God Almighty, Poland is Free at Last”.

I further stated that: I have used the word “Free” deliberately because the motto that has inspired so many Poles over the ages to fight at every opportunity for liberty (liberal democracy) is “For Your Freedom and Ours and Not for Your Democracy and Ours”.

Professor Keane reassured me that 'Sydney Network for Democracy' will provide an opportunity for the ‘other side’, the side not given a hearing in Professor Pakulski lecture, to be presented some time later in the year; I hope Professor Keane is a man of his word.

Felix Molski

On the Pakulski Lecture - dr Baterowicz's remarks in Polish