Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:02:42.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lustration and Truth Claims: Unfinished Revolutions in Central Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Maria Łoś
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article focuses on discourses conducted in Central/East European countries, and Poland in particular, with respect to the issue of participation of former secret agents in the new power structures. It exposes the reader to the range, style, content, and variety of lustration discourses. It explores their relevance for the ongoing power struggle, paying special attention to their focus on and contribution to the processes of construction and control of truth about the past.

Given that the procedural and legal-institutional issues occupy a marginal place in the debate, it is inferred that the main sources of discord are more ideological and political than legal. The two main strains within the global lustration discourse are identified as: (1) dystopian discourses that paint a frightful picture of a lustrated society and imply that the upheaval of lustration would ruin the chance for democratic evolution, and (2) affirmative discourses that assert the need for lustration and portray the refusal to implement it as a barrier to successful transition to democracy. The article elaborates on assumptions and beliefs, which tend to link the dystopian opposition to lustration with the left-wing political affiliation or self-identification and the affirmative discourse with the right-wing orientation.

Type
Symposium: Law and Lustration: Righting the Wrongs of the Past
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , Winter 1995 , pp. 117 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1995 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lustration involves barring former (communist) secret police agents and collaborators from public office for a certain period of time.Google Scholar

2 This text is based on my analysis of the Polish Senate debates, political speeches, press articles, and other publications for the periods of the greatest interest in the lustration issue. I also drew on materials from other Central European countries that through their publication in Poland became embroiled in the Polish public discourse. I have also acquired some insight into those countries' lustration discourses by reading English-language translations of selected speeches and articles.Google Scholar

3 See Michel Foucault, “Politics and the Study of Discourse”in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller, eds., The Foucault Effect 53–72 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991) (“Foucault, 'Politics'”).Google Scholar

4 Indeed, both in the public discourse studied and in private conversations during my visits to Poland, 1 was impressed by the intensity, akin to the “political correctness” in the West, with which questioning the past of individuals was subject to social censure and considered unworthy.Google Scholar

5 The length of this list varies considerably from one proposal to another.Google Scholar

6 In this text, “Czecho-Slovakia” (a shortening of the names for the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics) refers to that territory during the period between the June 1990 free elections and the January 1993 separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics.Google Scholar

7 For more details, see two articles from Truth and Justice: Delicate Balance (Working Paper No. 1; Budapest: Central European University, 1993) (“Truth and Justice”): Mary Albon, “Rapporteur's Report” at 20–36 (“Albon, 'Rapporteur's Report'”); and Jaroslav Basta, “The Lustration Process in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic: The Genesis of the Problem” at 45–46; and Wojtech Cepl, “Lustration in the CSFR: Ritual Sacrifices,” 1 (1) East Eur. Const. Rev. 24–26 (1993); Lawrence Weschler, “The Velvet Purge: The Trials of Jan Kavan,”New Yorker, 19 Oct. 1992, at 66–96.Google Scholar

8 Emphasis added; Czedaw Kiszczak, “Tajemnice Magdalenki” (The Secrets of Magdalenka): An Interview,”Polityku, 8 Sept. 1990, at 11, 14. See also Witold Beres & Jerzy Skoczylas, General Kiszczak Mówi … Prawie Wszystko (General Kiszczak Tells … Almost All) (Warsaw: BGW, 1991).Google Scholar

9 For a critical interpretation of this process, see Rafal A. Ziemkiewicz, “Wspólny wróg” (A Common Enemy), Spotkania, 27 Aug.-2 Sept. 1992, at 40–41.Google Scholar

10 Marek Henzler, “Prześwietlanie SB (X-raying SB), Polityka, 18 Aug. 1990, at 1.Google Scholar

11 Aleksander Chećtko, “Prywatny wymiar sprawiedliwości: Prawonadność spuszczona z lańcucha” (Private Law Enforcement: Legality Unleashed), Polityka, 7 Nov. 1992, at 3; Jan Dziadul, “Gorzkie Zale: Stowarzyszenie Bylych Pracowników MSW” (Bitter Recriminations: Association of Former Employees of the Interior Ministry), Polityka, 2 Feb. 1991, at 7; id., “Pod Twoja Obrone” (Under Your Protection), Polityka, 2 May 1992, at 3; Marek Henzler & Jacek Mojkowski, “Polski rynek strachu” (Polish Fear Market), Polityka, 23 Oct. 1993, at 14. The overall number of people working in private security/detective agencies has been estimated as exceeding the number of those employed by the various state police organs at the end of 1992. Andrzej Zybertowicz, W Uścisku Tajnych Sluzb (In the Embrace of Secret Services) 82 (Warsaw: Wyd. Antyk, 1993) (“Zybertowicz, W Uścisku Tajnych Sluzb”); Janina Czapska, “Growing Privatization of Penal Justice in Poland” (presented at World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, July 1994).Google Scholar

12 Minister Maciarewicz explained in his written statement that the list reflected the information contained in the Secret Archives, which was not necessarily a decisive proof of collaboration. He postulated that the credibility of the individual files should be assessed by a special commission headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.Google Scholar

13 For details, see, e.g., Wiktor Osiatyński, “A ‘Grand-Scale Political Provocation’ in Poland: Agent Walesa?” 1 (2) East Eur. Const. Rev. 28–30 (1992). Osiatyński is a professor of law at the University of Warsaw.Google Scholar

14 They included a Senate proposal, passed in July 1972 by a narrow vote of 41 to 38 votes (2 abstentions). Minutes, Senate of Poland, 1992, II:19, at 5–54 (“Senate, [1992] [—]:[—]”). (See also “Jak lustrować?” (How to Conduct Lustration?), Gazeta Wyborcza, 28 July 1992, at 2; Andrzej Rzepliński, “Attempting to Design a Fair Lustration Procedure: A Lesser Evil?” 1 (3) East Eur. Const. Reu. 33–35 (1992).Google Scholar

15 Piotr Zaremba, “Co myśla partie o lustracji?” (What Do Parties Think about Lustration?), Zycie Warszawy, 21–22 Aug. 1993, at 4.Google Scholar

16 The Democratic Left Alliance, born of a coalition of the party created from the ashes of the former Communist Party and the organization of former communist trade unions; and the Polish Peasant Party, which emerged from the United Peasant Party, formerly allied with the Communist Party. These two parties won 36% of the votes in the 1993 elections but secured 66% of the seats in the Lower House and 73% in the Senate. Due to peculiar election rules, about 35% of all valid votes did not result in any seats, and several well-established parties ended up with no representation in the Parliament. Only 52.2% of those eligible voted in the elections.Google Scholar

17 Based on his interpretation of the existing law, the current Minister of the Interior, who controls access to the archives, has repeatedly refused information the courts needed for criminal proceedings against former communist functionaries.Google Scholar

18 Edmund Wnuk-Lipiński, “Recydywa PRL—z nasza pomoca” (The Return of the Polish People's Republic—with Our Help), Gazeta Wyborcza, 5 July 1994, at 10–11.Google Scholar

19 Predictably, the bill was rejected on the first reading in the Lower House, which was dominated by former communists and their allies.Google Scholar

20 Statements made in 1992 by Jacek Kuroń, a leading member of the former opposition and a current political elite in Poland.Google Scholar

21 Statement by a former leading member of the opposition and the editor-in-chief of an influential Polish daily. Adam Michnik, “Wszystko to byto jak czarny sen” (It Was Like a Bad Dream), Gazeta Wyborcza, 6–7 June 1992, at 24.Google Scholar

22 In July 1991 (before the 1991 parliamentary elections); in June 1992 (after an aborted attempt at lustration initiated by the Lower House); and in July 1992 (in connection with the Senate's own legislative initiative). I have coded and analyzed the minutes of these debates as a part of my larger study of the Senate's rhetoric in the 1989–93 period.Google Scholar

23 Senate, 1991, I:53, at 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Senate, 1992, II:15, at 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 26.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 36.Google Scholar

27 Id. at 43a.Google Scholar

28 Senate, 1992, II:19, at 46a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Michnik, Gazeta Wyborcza, 6–7 June 1992, at 24.Google Scholar

30 A well-known Czech dissident, currently a freelance joumaIist; Jan Urban, “Keeping Silent about Silence,”Truth and Justice 52 (“Urban, ‘Keeping Silent’”).Google Scholar

31 Centrum Badania Opinii Spolecznej, “Oczekiwania i Obawy Zwiazane z Lustracja” (Expectations and Fears Related to Lustration) table 9 (Warszawa: Centrum Badania Opinii Spolecznej, March 1993 (mimeo.)) (“Centrum, ‘Oczekiwania’”).Google Scholar

32 Senate, 1991, I:53, at 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Joachim Gauck, “Caly ten brud” (All That Dirt): An interview, Polityka, 18 July 1992, at 1, 13.Google Scholar

34 Joachim Gauck, “Wywiad z Joachimem Gauckiem” (An Interview with J. Gauck) (“Gauck Interview”) (reprinted (from Uncaptive Minds, No. 2, 1992)' in Michal Grocki, Konfidenci Sa Wsrod Nas (Collaborators Are among Us) 117–18 (Warsaw: Editions Spotkania, 1993) (“Grocki, Konfdenci”).Google Scholar

35 Helga Hirsch, “Musicie Otworzyć” (You Must Open), Polityka, 27 Nov. 1993, at 18.Google Scholar

36 Adam Krzemiński, “Niech beda zamkniete” (Let Them Be Closed), Polityka, 27 Nov. 1993, at 18.Google Scholar

37 Ethan Klingsberg, “The Triumph of the Therapeutic: The Quest to Cure Eastern Europe through Secret Police Files,” in Truth and Justice 9 (cited in note 7) (“Klingsberg, ‘Triumph of the Therapeutic’”).Google Scholar

38 Senate, 1992, II:19, at 39a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Osiatyński, 1 (2) East Eur. Const. Rev. at 30 (cited in note 13).Google Scholar

40 Andrzej Miklaszewicz, “Teczka po glowie” (Hit with a Secret File), Sztandar Mlodych, 2 July 1992. (Miklaszewicz is a Polish journalist.)Google Scholar

41 Adam Michnik, “Czy grozi nam powrót komunizmu?” (Is a Return of Communism Possible?), Gazeta Wyborcza, 31 Oct.-l Nov. 1992, at 9.Google Scholar

42 Jeri Laber, “Witch Hunt in Prague,”N.Y. Rev. Bks., 23 April 1992, at 6.Google Scholar

43 Urban, ‘Keeping Silent’” at 51 (cited in note 30). In his well-researched report in the New Yorker (at 90; cited in note 7), Lawrence Weschler quotes sources in Prague telling him that “the StB archives seemed to be becoming a veritable lending library.”Google Scholar

44 Klingsberg, “Triumph of the Therapeutic” at 17.Google Scholar

45 Its editor-in-chief was the last press secretary for the communist government.Google Scholar

46 Klingsberg, “Triumph of the Therapeutic” at 17.Google Scholar

47 Established in 1992 to investigate the ill-fated attempt at lustration.Google Scholar

48 Miklaszewicz, Sztandar Mlodych, 2 July 1992 (cited in note 40).Google Scholar

49 Jacek Snopkiewicz, ed., Teczki Czyli Widma Bezpieki (Files: The Spectre of the Secret Police) 22 (Warsaw: BGW, 1992) (“Snopkiewicz, Teczki”).Google Scholar

50 Grocki, Konfidenci 69–75 (cited in note 34).Google Scholar

51 Mariusz Janicki, “Lustracja w impasie” (Deadlocked Lustration), Polityka, 14 Nov. 1992.Google Scholar

52 Weschler, New Yorker, 19 Oct. 1992, at 85–86 (cited in note 7); Leszek Mazan, “Spotkamy sie na szafocie” (We Shall Meet at the Gallows), Polityka, 23 May 1992.Google Scholar

53 See, e.g., Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980); id., “Politics” (cited in note 3).Google Scholar

54 Senate, 1991, I:53, at 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 56.Google Scholar

56 Quoted in Weschler, New Yorker, 19 Oct. 1992, at 94.Google Scholar

57 Sylvester Garnet, “Slów kilka o SB” (Several Words about SB), Sztandar Mlodych, 5–7 June 1992.Google Scholar

58 Id. Google Scholar

59 Interview with Henryk Majewski, Gazeta Gdańska, 3 June 1992 (“Majewski interview”).Google Scholar

60 Andrzej Paczkowski, “Notes on the Problem of Establishing the Material Truth about the Network of Agents,” in Truth and Justice 56 (cited in note 7) (“Paczkowski, ‘Notes on the Problem’”).Google Scholar

61 Rzepliński, 1 (3) East Eur. Const. Rev. at 33 (cited in note 14).Google Scholar

62 Snopkiewicz, Teczki (cited in note 49).Google Scholar

63 Radoslaw Januszewski, Jerzy Klosiński, & Jan Strekowski, Olszewski: Przerwana Premiera (Olszewski: An lnterrupted Premiere) 96 (Warsaw: Tygodnik Solidarność, 1992) (“Januszewski et al., Olszewski”).Google Scholar

64 Gauck Interview at 116 (cited in note 34).Google Scholar

65 Id. at 114.Google Scholar

66 Januszewski et al., Olszewski 13.Google Scholar

67 Interview with Piotr Woyciechowski, Zycie Warszawy, 27–28 June 1992.Google Scholar

68 Piotr Woyciechowski, “Zdradzeni tajniacy” (Betrayed Secret Agents), Tygodnik Solidarność, 3 July 1992, at 5–6.Google Scholar

69 Different classification categories were used for actual, potential, and unwitting (duped) informers. See Grocki, Konfidenci 20 (cited in note 34).Google Scholar

70 Interview with Piotr Naimski, Express Wieczorny, 26–28 June 1992.Google Scholar

71 Petruska Sustrova, “Kontrowersyjna lustracja” (Controversial Lustration), in Grocki, Konfidenci 111–12 (cited in note 34) (“Sustrova, ‘Kontrowersyjna lustracja’”).Google Scholar

72 Majewski interview (cited in note 59); see also Leszek Luczak, “Nie zdradze moich agentów” (I Will Not Betray My Agents): Interview with an SB Officer, Gazeta Poznańska, 3 June 1992; Senate, 1991, I:53, at 196; Januszewski et al., Olszewski 14.Google Scholar

73 Paczkowski, “Notes on the Problem” at 55 (cited in note 60); see also Grocki. Konfidenci 20; Senate, 1991, I:53, at 206.Google Scholar

74 Some earlier waves of document eradication have also been recalled. For instance, there was “a massive ‘elimination’ of agents … in the years 1955–56 [in Poland], after which there remained only a trace of evidence in the existing files” (Paczkowski, “Notes on the Problem” at 56). A former Polish Interior Minister, Szlachcic, also recalls in his memoirs that he ordered the destruction of all the remaining operational documentation of Department X (dealing mainly with “subversion” within the Party) from 1948 to 1953 (Franciszek Szlachcic, Gorzki Smak Wladzy (Bitter Taste of Power) 203 (Warsaw: Wyd. FAKT, 1990)). The Executive Director of the Hungarian National Archives acknowledges a notable gap in his inherited documentation: “in the 196Os, under circumstances of the highest secrecy, the party destroyed extremely important archive materials concerning the show trials (1940s–1950s) of the leaders [of the] communist party.” Janos Lakos, “Some Remarks on the Access to the Archives of the Former Regime,” in Truth and Justice 41 (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

75 See, e.g., Grocki, Konfidenci 24–34.Google Scholar

76 Senate, 1992, II:15, at 60.Google Scholar

77 Grocki, Konfidenci 25. For more details see Jan M. Jackowski, Bitwa o Polske (The Battle of Poland) 60–61 (Warsaw: “Ad Astra,” 1992) (“Jackowski, Bitwa o Polske”), and a document of the Ministry of the Interior distributed among all Polish parliamentarians on 4 June 1992, also published as “Jak sporzadzano te liste?” (How Has This List Been Prepared?), Gazeta Polska June 1993, at 4, and paraphrased in Jerzy Jachowicz & Dariusz Fedor, “Co bylo w kopercie Maciarewicza?” (What Was in Maciarewicz's Envelope?), Gazeta Wyborcza, 6–7 June 1992, at 4.Google Scholar

78 Snopkiewicz, Teczki 106 (cited in note 49).Google Scholar

79 Sustrova, “Kontrowersyjna lustracja” at 112. According to the Constitutional Court ruling on the lustration law, almost 90% of the StB files had been deliberately destroyed.Google Scholar

80 This kind of verification by double-checking was undertaken with the Polish archives and resulted in a “reconstructed file register.” Woyciechowski, Tygodnik Solidarność, 3 July 1992, at 5–6 (cited in note 68). Yet, even including reconstructed files in the general count, the number of all types of personal files is believed to have shrunk from 3.1 million cards in 1987 to 2.5 million in 1990. Jachowicz & Fedor, Gazeta Wyborcza, 6–7 June 1992, at 4; “Jak sporzadzano te liste?”Gazeta Polska, June 1993, at 6.Google Scholar

81 “Jak sponadzano te liste?”Gazeta Polska, June 1993, at 6.Google Scholar

82 Senate, 1991, I:53, at 207.Google Scholar

83 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 26.Google Scholar

84 Id. at 39.Google Scholar

85 Senate, 1992, II:19, at 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 Id. at 39a.Google Scholar

87 Michnik, Gazeta Wyborcza, 31 0ct.-1 Nov. 1992, at 9 (cited in note 41).Google Scholar

88 Albon, “Rapporteur's Report” at 21 (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

89 Id. at 35–36.Google Scholar

90 Senate, 1992, II:19, at 43a.Google Scholar

91 Senate, 1991, I:53, at 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 36a.Google Scholar

93 Id. at 26a.Google Scholar

94 Vice. Minister of the Interior in Czecho-Slovakia in 1991, quoted in Sustrova, “Kon-trowersyjna lustracja” at 108 (cited in note 71).Google Scholar

95 Jackowski, Bitwa o Polske 57 (cited in note 77).Google Scholar

96 Urban, “Keeping Silent” at 48–49 (cited in note 30).Google Scholar

97 Emphasis in original; Jirina Siklova, a Czech sociologist, quoted in Weschler, New Yorker, 19 Oct. 1992, at 84 (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

98 Laber, N.Y. Rev. Bks., 23 April 1992, at 7 (cited in note 42); based on her interviews conducted in Prague.Google Scholar

99 Zdenek Kavan, an international relations scholar, quoted in Weschler, New Yorker, 19 Oct. 1992, at 83.Google Scholar

100 Urban, “Keeping Silent” at 49.Google Scholar

101 The exact meaning of this phrase has been subject of many disagreements (see, e.g., Aleksander Hall, Spór o Polske (The Disagreement over Poland) 105–6 (Warsaw: Rytm, 1993). Although it was certainly not meant to absolve evident criminals, in reality no effective prosecutions, even of those suspected of crimes against humanity, have taken place.Google Scholar

102 Tadeusz Mazowiecki, “An Interview with Tadeusz Mazowiecki,”Uncensored Poland News Bull., No. 21, 30 Nov. 1990, at 12.Google Scholar

103 Andrzej Paczkowski, “‘Wron za Don!’ czyli Dylematy Dekomunizacji” (The Dilemmas of Decommunization), Politicus, Nos. 3–4, July-Dec. 1992, at 42.Google Scholar

104 Senate, II:19, at 46a–47a.Google Scholar

105 Jacek Kuroń, “Lustracja i co dalej” (Lustration and What Next), Gazeta Pomorska, 4 June 1992.Google Scholar

106 From Havel's 1990 New Year's address, quoted in Theodore Draper, “A New History of the Velvet Revolution,”N.Y. Rev. Bks., 14 Jan. 1993, at 19.Google Scholar

107 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 19a.Google Scholar

108 Id. at 2Oa.Google Scholar

109 Andrzej Miklaszewicz, “Gabinetowy pucz” (A Cabinet Coup), Sztandar Mlodych, 8 June 1992.Google Scholar

110 George Ross, “Crime and Punishment,” in Truth and Justice 65–66 (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

111 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 54.Google Scholar

112 Kazimierz Orloś, “Co nas dzieli?” (What Divides Us?), Kultura, March 1993, at 154.Google Scholar

113 Cepl, 1 (1) East Eur. Const. Rev. at 25 (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

114 Id. at 26.Google Scholar

115 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 3Oa.Google Scholar

116 Id. at 54.Google Scholar

117 Senate, 1992, II:19, at 2Oa.Google Scholar

118 Quoted in Tomasz Wiścicki, “Aleksander Kwaśniewski przeprasza” (A. Kwaśniewski Apologizes), Wieź, Dec. 1993, at 156.Google Scholar

119 Id. Google Scholar

120 Id. at 156–57.Google Scholar

121 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 55a.Google Scholar

122 Senate, 1992, II:15, appendix.Google Scholar

123 Centrum, “Oczekiwania,” at table 4 (cited in note 31).Google Scholar

124 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 31.Google Scholar

125 Id. at 49a.Google Scholar

126 Senate, 1992, II:19, at 35a.Google Scholar

127 Emphasis in original; Gustaw Herling-Grudziński, “Dziennik pisany noca” (A Diary Written at Night), Kultura, Dec. 1993, at 17–18.Google Scholar

128 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 52a.Google Scholar

129 Cepl, 1 (1) East Eur. Const. Rev. at 25 (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

130 Draper, N.Y. Rev. Bks., 14 Jan. 1993, at 20 (cited in note 106).Google Scholar

131 Centrum “Oczekiwania,” at table 2.Google Scholar

132 Senate, 1992, II:18, at 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

133 Senate, 1992, 11:19, at 2Oa.Google Scholar

134 Id. at 27.Google Scholar

135 Id. at 39.Google Scholar

136 Id. at 35.Google Scholar

137 Sustrova, “Kontrowersyjna lustracja” at 108 (cited in note 71).Google Scholar

138 Senate, 1992, II:15, at 55a.Google Scholar

139 Woyciechowski, Tygodnik Solidarność, 3 July 1992, at 6 (cited in note 68).Google Scholar

140 “Tajni wspólpracownicy a bezpieczeństwo RP” (Secret Collaborators and the Security of Poland), Tygodnik Solidarność, 3 July 1992, at 5 (“‘Tajni wspólpracownicy’”); see also Iwona Jurczenko, “Powrót Czerwonego Smoka” (The Return of the Red Dragon), Prawo i Zycie, 27 April 1991, at 6; Zybertowicz, W Uścisku Tajnych Sluzb 96–110 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

141 Robert Jastrzebski, “Wyrok zapadl?” (A Verdict Has Been Pronounced), Tygodnik Solidarność, 3 July 1992, at 6.Google Scholar

142 Grocki, Konfidenci 60 (cited in note 34).Google Scholar

143 Zybertowicz, W Uścisku Tajnych Sluzb 100.Google Scholar

144 Roman Daszczyński, “Esbek od microfilmów i uranu oskarzony” (SB Man of Microfilms and Uranium Accused). Zycie Warszawy, 2 July 1993, at 5.Google Scholar

145 Januszewski et al., Olszewski 18 (cited in note 63).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

146 Marcin Gugulski, “Zadania i wzory” (Tasks and Models), Przeglad Rzadowy 5 (11), May 1992, at 5.Google Scholar

147 Zybertowicz, W Uścisku Tajnych Sluzb (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

148 Id. at 121.Google Scholar

149 Id. at 118.Google Scholar

150 Id. at 59.Google Scholar

151 Grocki, Konfidenci appendix 1; see also appendix 2; “Tajni wspólpracownicy” at 4–5 (cited in note 140).Google Scholar

152 Id. at 4.Google Scholar

153 For descriptions and analyses of the latter, see Gregory Grossman, “The ‘Second Economy’ of the USSR,” in V. Tanzi, ed., The Underground Economy in the United States and Abroad 245–69 (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1982); Maria Los, “Corruption in a Communist Country”, 22 (1–2) Int'l Ann. Criminology 194 (1984); id., “Red-Collar Crime: Elite Crime in the USSR and Poland” (Occasional Paper No. 216; Washington, D.C.: Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, 1987); id., Communist Ideology, Law and Crime (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988); id., “From Underground to Legitimacy: The Normative Dilemmas of Post-Communist Marketization,”in B. Dallago, G. Ajani, & B. Grancelli, eds., Privatization and Entrepreneurship in Post-socialist Countries: Economy, Law and Society 111–42 (St. Martin's Press, 1992); and id., ed., The Second Economy in Marxist States (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990); Adam Podgórecki, “Tertiary Social Control,”in A. Podgórecki & M. Los, Multi-dimensional Sociology 194–204 (London Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979);id., Social Oppression 20–21 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1993); Konstantin Simis, USSR: The Corrupt Society (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982); Jacek Tarkowski, “Endowment of Nomenklatura, or Apparatchiks Turned into Entrepreneurchiks, or from Communist Ranks to Capitalist Riches,” 4 (1) Innovation 89 (1990).Google Scholar

154 From Havel's 1990 New Year's address, quoted in Draper, N.Y. Rev. Bks., 14 Jan. 1993, at 20 (cited in note 106).Google Scholar

155 Zybertowicz, W Uścisku Tajnych Sluzb 33, 32 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

156 Adam Strzernbosz, “Na granicy bezprawia” (On the Verge of Lawlessness), Dziennik Zachodni, 29 Sept. 1994.Google Scholar

157 This distinction is negated in some legal proposals. Their authors make it clear, however, that they do not want lustration to succeed and that the law is meant only to appease public demands (e.g., Rzepliński, 1 (3) East Eur. Cart. Rev. (cited in note 14)).Google Scholar

158 For related discussion, see Maria Loś, “Property Rights, Market and Historical Justice: Legislative Discourses in Poland,” 22 Int'l J. Soc. L. 39 (1994).Google Scholar

159 Klingsberg, “Triumph of the Therapeutic'” at 12 (cited in note 37).Google Scholar

160 Colin Gordon, “Afterword,”in M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge 245 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980).Google Scholar

161 A recent resolution by the Czech Parliament and several earlier remarks by Polish politicians stand our as exceptions from this rule.Google Scholar

162 Draper, N.Y. Rev. Bks., 14 Jan. 1993, at 20.Google Scholar

163 Ziemkiewicz, Spotkania, 27 Aug.-2 Sept. 1992, at 41 (cited in note 9).Google Scholar

164 Based on several public opinion surveys, Fedyszak-Radziejowska concluded that those who declare their identification with the Right dlffer from the followers of the Left in their emphasis on national sovereignty, their respect for the values symbolized by the original Solidarity movement, and their support for religion, the Catholic church, lustration, decommunization, privatization, reprivatization, and decentralization of state power. Barbara Fedyszak-Radziejowska, “Pytania o Wspólnote” (Questions about Community), Arka no. 3, 1994, at 9.Google Scholar

165 One should remember, however, that most political parties in Poland are not congruously “right,”“center” or “left” but can be variously characterized based on the nature of the economic, political, and cultural aspects of their ideologies (for research evidence, see Miroslawa Grabowska & Tadeusz Szawiel, Anatomia elit Politycznych (The Anatomy of Political Elites) (Warsaw: Institute of Sociology, University of Warsaw, 1993).Google Scholar