To hear the international media tell it, Poland's current row over the wooden cross in front of the Presidential Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście is a symptom of a sharp cultural divide that is now beginning to manifest itself more visibly.

Certainly that's part of it, but the reports, in the English-language mass media at least, verge on the simplistic. They portray the conflict as one of young-versus-old, rural-versus-urban, educated-versus-non-educated and, especially, religious-versus-secular.

But as those of us living here in Poland know, the divide is more complex than that.

Poland is often described as a “deeply Catholic” country – and that is more-or-less accurate. After all, about 90 percent of the population is Catholic, with around 75 percent practicing. But many polls have found that around two-thirds of Poland's population want to see the cross moved. Therefore there must be a huge number of practicing, even devout Catholics here, who favor its removal.

Several Poles I have spoken with refused to give credence to the idea that the conflict is more about secularization than pure politics. “The people defending the cross are just plain crazy,” said one, who considers herself a devout Catholic. “They're not real Catholics – what Catholic would treat a priest like that?” asked another, referring to some of the slurs the so-called “defenders” hurled at  priests when they attempted to move the cross a couple of weeks ago.

The upshot is this: the divide emerging in Poland is not so much of a religious-secular one as it is a modernist-traditionalist one. Many young, educated Poles believe that one can be both Catholic and modern at the same time. Those who oppose the cross' removal, however, feel that they must defend symbols they associate with traditional Polish values wherever they appear – even if that is in front of the Presidential Palace – to avoid them being erased altogether.

Surely, the modernists are right. Poland must move forward, but that doesn't mean that its citizens – including the country's many Catholics – have to abandon their values.

There were many twists and turns, but finally Poland's next president has been chosen – and Poles have made the right choice in electing Sejm Speaker Bronisław Komorowski.

Mr Komorowski's vision for Poland differed significantly from his opponent's – his was a forward-looking vision, a vision of a modern Poland which interacts with other countries on the global stage as a responsible member of the international community. He envisions a Poland where there is less state interference in peoples' lives and in business, and where entrepreneurship and foreign investment are encouraged and rewarded.

The majority of voters in this election weren't convinced by Mr Kaczyński's moderate rhetoric, or that he had really changed his backward-looking tune. Under his government in 2006-2007, Poland chose conflict over partnership with Germany, Russia and the EU. His government preferred hunting for suspected communist agents rather than for investors. Voters yesterday remained unconvinced that his outlook would be any different in his capacity as president. Such an outcome could have meant more hurdles in the way of much-needed reform.


Just the beginning

This newspaper disagrees with those who say Civic Platform's (PO) three years in power have so far been wasted – important budget cuts and belt tightening have been put in place, as have some streamlining of the judiciary and state institutions. Privatization continues apace, and Poland has gained new respect from its international partners.

But this is only the beginning for PO and Mr Komorowski. The changes made so far have been small-scale and incomplete. Much more needs to be done. Top of the list should be reform of Poland's creaking health care system – some public hospitals must be commercialized (or even privatized, though Mr Komorowski says he opposes this solution). Next up should be a further streamlining of the judicial system – conflicts still take far too long to resolve. More cuts must be made to Poland's bloated budget if the country is to maintain its finances at a sustainable level and enter the euro zone as soon as possible. The retirement age should rise – some special early retirement benefits have been cut, but these reforms are still a long way from solving the insolvency of Poland's social security system. Public media must also, finally, be reformed.

The list goes on. Now, voters have removed PO's well-worn excuse that an obstructionist president has blocked their reforms. It must now act. Elections are coming up next year, and it would be a shame if the opposition could continue to make the argument that the PO government has not accomplished anything significant – even with their man in the Presidential Palace.

The temptation to not rock the boat before these elections is great – but it would be a huge disappointment. Better to make the reforms Poland needs and have something to show the voters, than to hold back in the hopes of not angering a portion of the electorate.

There is much to be done. PO must now get to work.

Our editorial after the first round of the presidential elections:

In the first round of elections on Sunday there were few surprises, save a slightly better-than-expected showing by leftist candidate Grzegorz Napieralski. The end result was more or less what was expected – Law and Justice party leader Jarosław Kaczyński and Sejm Speaker Bronisław Komorowski will go head-to-head in a July 4 runoff, with neither having received an outright majority.

Focus on the issues, please

Perhaps now we can get down to a genuine debate of the issues, as the campaign so far has been less than substantive. Though it was admirable that the candidates – at least at the beginning – strove to avoid sharp rhetoric during such a sensitive period for the country, what voters got was a paucity of concretes. That must change in the next two weeks if Poles are to make an informed decision.

In the run-up to Sunday’s polls, the two main candidates squabbled over the topic of a possible debate. Mr Kaczyński wanted it to focus solely on the future of Poland’s health system, whereas Mr Komorowski wanted a debate on a range of issues. In the end, the two never gave voters a chance to see them spar.

But Poland deserves a debate between its two main candidates, one of whom will wield the power of the veto for the next five years. As was proven by Lech Kaczyński’s presidency, that power can be used to significant advantage.

Whether several debates are held, each focusing on a different issue or set of issues, or whether it’s a single debate covering the gamut of topics, Mr Kaczyński and Mr Komorowski must define their stances. The Presidential Palace is too important for voters to accept further vagueness from its would-be residents.

A crucial period

The political decisions made over the next five years will be critical to Poland’s development – pervasive poverty must be tackled and living standards brought closer to that of Western Europe.

Difficult decisions will have to be made when it comes to pensions and early retirement – will Poles opt for slower economic growth and high deficits, or will they accept an increase in the retirement age? Neither option is politically popular. Where will the president stand?

Then there is the euro. While the chances of Poland entering the euro zone within the next five years look shaky at best, the question of whether it will enter in the next decade will depend on actions taken by today’s politicians. If Poland has a euroskeptic president, he could make life difficult for a government looking to adopt the euro as soon as possible.

Much to prove

As this newspaper has opined previously, Mr Komorowski would likely come down on the right side of these issues, while Mr Kaczyński could make it very difficult for the government to enact legislation that would move Poland forward. If the polls to date are any indication, Speaker Komorowski should win the second round, barring any major gaffes.

But he has far from shined in this campaign. If he finally makes a solid case for his presidency, he could unite a significant bloc of voters behind his policies; many of his supporters currently back him as the lesser of two evils.

There are good reasons to vote for Mr Komorowski. He must now make clear exactly what those are.

On the other hand, Mr Kaczyński has the opportunity to show that he has really moved to the center – if that is indeed the case. While his party and the media have tended to echo this theory, the reality is that he seems less divisive mostly because he has said so little. A substantive debate would give voters a clearer idea as to whether he has really changed his tune.

Too much to expect?

Unfortunately, there’s little chance of this happening. A debate will probably be held, but the candidates will likely just trade platitudes. Mr Komorowski will not want to risk his lead by putting down too concrete a position, while Mr Kaczyński knows his best chance at seeming centrist will be to keep quiet.

If the candidates do disappoint, it would be a tragedy for Polish voters. With so much at stake, they deserve to know who will be leading them.

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, here's WBJ's endorsement for this weekend's presidential election:

A critical decision lies before Poles this weekend. The choice they make during Sunday’s election – whether the final vote turns out to be this weekend or in a runoff two weeks later – will have profound, far-reaching repercussions for society, the economy, the business environment and the level of prosperity.

There are 10 presidential candidates vying for Poles’ votes, but only two have a chance of making it to a second round – Speaker of the Sejm and Acting President Bronisław Komorowski of Civic Platform (PO) and Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of the Law and Justice (PiS) party.

If Poles want to improve upon the relative economic stability and prosperity they have enjoyed over the past two years – a period of strife between the government and president – then Mr Komorowski is the clear choice.

Candidate Komorowski – positives and negatives

Mr Komorowski is not without fault. During a recent trip to London he blundered by stating that Poland didn’t need investments in shale-gas extraction – investments that could potentially give a massive boost to the country’s energy security – and confused its environmental risks with those of open-pit coal mining.

He has demonstrated a sometimes tenuous grasp of economics, and recently said that Poland should not demand that the US lift its visa requirement for Poles. That’s not a position that is likely to endear him to voters.

While Mr Kaczyński’s campaign has been disciplined and visible, Mr Komorowski’s has stumbled at times. He has visibly struggled to campaign effectively while discharging the duties of both Sejm speaker and acting president, although the latter role offered easy press during the recent floods.

In the eyes of WBJ’s editorial board, these drawbacks illustrate that the newspaper was right to have endorsed his opponent in the Civic Platform primary – Radosław Sikorski, whose education and international experience trump those of Mr Komorowski. Such drawbacks do not, however, make the other candidates in the election more attractive.
Mr Komorowski has plenty of upside. His choice to lead Poland’s central bank, former Prime Minister Marek Belka, was superb. He assumed the office of acting president under difficult circumstances, but with poise. He has quietly signed important legislation and has worked well together with Prime Minister Tusk to handle difficult issues – not least of which has been the recent flooding.

If these past two and a half months are anything to judge by, Mr Komorowski should make a competent president.

Candidate Kaczyński – toned down, but unchanged

His main opponent, Mr Kaczyński, has smartly moved towards the center despite the emotionally charged political environment. He is roundly panned by much of the media, but his patriotism is unquestioned. Mr Kaczyński’s heartfelt desire to deal with historical wrongs and his passion for snuffing out corruption are admirable and desirable traits in a president. He is widely credited as the brains behind Law and Justice’s rise to power, a master of the political scene (although typically from behind the scenes) and a strong leader.

But Mr Kaczyński’s record tells a less flattering story. The 2005-2007 Law and Justice government, which he led and served as prime minister of for the majority of its rule, courted controversy with reckless abandon. Mr Kaczyński’s crusade to root out former communist collaborators turned into a witch hunt, and the country gained an international reputation for being stubborn, uncooperative and prickly.

When it came to business, the record was also negative. Personal income tax cuts passed at the end of its term were beneficial, as Law and Justice MP Paweł Poncyljusz points out in our interview this week (see p. 9). But the economic growth that Poland underwent during those years – which Mr Poncyljusz also points to as a positive – came about despite the PiS government, not because of it.

There was a worldwide economic boom at that time: how much stronger would Poland’s growth have been if PiS officials hadn’t been discouraging foreign investment (as when Finance Minister Teresa Lubińska said that investments from firms such as Tesco were not welcome), or impeding business processes (such as Pekao’s takeover of BPH, which was drawn out for months in order to find a solution that would keep state-owned PKO as Poland’s biggest lender)?

In opposition, the record is also ugly. Law and Justice has looked to impede the government at every turn – and has opposed pro-business and pro-reform legislation. Fair enough, that is an opposition party’s prerogative. But it would have done the country a much greater service by offering viable solutions in return.

Remove PO’s excuse

The current government is slow on the uptake and many of its goals are left unachieved or, indeed, forgotten. But it has delivered on its two most important promises: it has improved Poland’s international image and it has steadfastly promoted economic growth.

Until recently, though, it cited an obstructionist president as its primary excuse for not doing more. Now is the time to remove that excuse, forcing Civic Platform to make good on promises to implement economic reforms, slim the state and improve the business environment. Either the party delivers on these promises, laying the groundwork for future prosperity and gaining international clout in the process, or it does not, giving the electorate a great reason to vote it out of power.

For those with Poland’s economic future in mind, a Komorowski win is the best-case scenario. For better or worse, there is no alternative.

Warsaw Business Journal made a splash yesterday with its story on US President Obama deciding to go play a round of golf instead of attending the funeral of President Kaczyński and his wife on Sunday. The story, which was originally broken by The Washington Times, found its way onto a prominent spot on the conservative news aggregator “The Drudge Report” and consequentially lit up the blogosphere and conservative-leaning news sites. We were even quoted by FoxNews.com. (UPDATE: Fox News ran our headline on TV as well)

“Obama's Golf Game Draws Ire from Polish Press” read one headline, referencing our story. “The move sparked some anger at the Warsaw Business Post [sic] newspaper in Poland,” read a line in Canada's National Post.

For the record, the story wasn't written with any “ire” or “anger,” though we were certain it would draw some. Those of us on the editorial board admit to some disappointment at Obama's decision – it was obviously made without thought to how it would play in Poland, marking the second Poland-related faux pas he has made in his 15 months as president. The first was his terrible decision to announce the scrapping of George W Bush's missile shield deal with Poland on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's invasion of the country in 1939. At best the decision was insensitive. At worst it was blatant disregard.

Nevertheless, there has begun a stout defense of Mr Obama as well: “Let Obama play golf” reads the title of an opinion piece by The Telegraph's Harry Mount. “In defense of Obama's golfing adventures” is the headline of on op-ed by The Washington Examiner's Stephen G. Smith. All seem to make the argument that the president deserves some R&R – he is a hardworking guy, after all.

We take no issue with Obama relaxing – though with an election coming up and a Supreme Court battle on his hands, we wonder if his time couldn't have been better spent. We do, however, take issue with Obama's lip service to Poland as an important ally, then clearly disregarding that allies' sensitivities. Though the Polish Embassy in Washington DC was closed on Sunday – meaning he couldn't have gone to pay his respects by signing the book of condolences (as his Secretary of State and Vice President had) before he went out golfing – one wonders why he didn't choose to do so earlier in the week. That could have been on Friday for example, when he cancelled his trip due to the volcanic ash spewing from Iceland. *(UPDATE BELOW) An easier solution would have been to stop by a church and light a candle – a photo op that would have gained him enormous credibility here in Poland.

The blog American Thinker put it nicely:

“Some world leaders were also unable to attend, others found alternate means of travel. Barack, rather than visiting, paying respects, and signing the sympathy book the Polish Embassy in Washington DC, decided to solemnly commemorate the death of a world leader by shooting a few rounds of golf. Focused like a laser on the 18th hole, Barack did not allow his birdie to be distracted by how blatant irreverence might 'tee off' the world community.

French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also were unable to attend the funeral. However, Sarkozy did not express condolences while toweling off after a tennis match, nor did Chancellor Merkel commiserate from International Dance Week in Dresden.”

The writer concludes by mentioning that President Bush gave up golf, because it sent the wrong signal to be frolic king on the golf course while American soldiers were dying.

“Excuse me Mr. Bush, do you mean 'sends the wrong signal,' similar to the type of signal the leader of the free world sends by choosing to play golf while the president of Poland is laid to rest – that kind of wrong signal?”

What signal has Mr Obama sent to Poland?

 

Notes:

In our review of the reaction to this story, we noticed some terrible errors in the re-writes of our story and The Washington Times'. One of these was the mis-naming of Warsaw Business Journal as The Warsaw Business Post (as mentioned above). This mistake was repeated by an alarming number of news outlets. Do none of these journalists use Google?

More egregious, however, was the horrible misspelling of President Kaczyński's name by FoxNews.com, which cited our headline as "Obama Goes Golfing Instead of Attending Kachinsky's Funeral."

Leaving aside the style point that we don't capitalize every word of our headlines, as is American convention, our headline was: "Obama goes golfing instead of attending Kaczyńskis' funeral" -- that's with the apostrophe after the "s" - since after all it was also the funeral of Maria Kaczyńska, the president's wife. Together, it was the funeral of the Kaczynskis. This was missed by many outlets as well. (Incidentally, Polish skirts the issue of having two slightly differently spelled male and female last names with the collective Kaczyńscy.)

 

*Update:

While my quick check of the embassy's website had led me to believe it was closed on Sunday, the Ewa Błaszczynska - the Washington, DC-based author of our CEE policy watch blog - tells us that the Polish Embassy WAS INDEED OPEN ALL DAY SUNDAY. She knows, she was there personally. She writes: 

"I wanted to let you know that the Polish Embassy in Washington DC was in fact open on Sunday. They opened it up so that the American-Polish Forum ... could host a LIVE viewing of the Kaczyński funeral. The embassy was open as early as 7:45 am EST and yours truly even organized a lovely buffet breakfast for everyone. We had about 40 plus people attend including embassy staff and other friends of Poland. Had President Obama been aware, he could have stopped by to catch a glimpse of the funeral, grab a bagel and coffee and even sign the book of condolences (which was still on display and available for signing) all before hitting the links. This was even more possible given that the Polish Embassy is conveniently located just a few blocks up from the White House."

So President Obama had no excuse for not finding the time to find some way to pay his respects. Thanks for the tip, Ewa!