The political writer Adam Bromke sees an enduring dichotomy between idealists and in Polish politics, a dichotomy which produces specific historical cycles. Periods of (i.e., unrealistic) struggle for national independence alternate with retreats into realistic efforts to survive and adapt to limited or non-existent autonomy. The realists do not abandon freedom as an ultimate goal, but repudiate hopeless struggle in order to protect the nation and to secure a normal as possible internal development. Such retreats, in the inevitable cycle, are followed by new, supposedly romantic efforts to expand or to regain national sovereignty.1 Cyclical, bipolar interpretations of history are appealing. They are direct, uncomplicated explanations, both attractive to the popular imagination and possessing the comforting assurance of apparent scientific certitude. While not denying the pre-eminence of idealism and realism as major currents in Polish political culture, the dichotomy is simplistic. It obscures the lineal continuity, evolution, and complexity of Polish political thought over the past two centuries, and exacerbates the stereotype of the romantic Pole. In reality, both trends have co-existed since 1795 in diverse forms and numerous political figures defy easy categorization. The democratic opposition of the 1970s, particularly individuals associated with the Committee for the Defence of the the Workers (KOR- Komitet Obrony Robotnikow), is an especially interesting example of the difficulty of rigidly affixing labels and of the complexity of the relationship between idealism and realism. Bromke, within his own schema, harshly assesses the programme of the post- 1968 democratic opposition, whose activities significantly contributed to Solidarity's emergence. With Spenglerian presumption, he writes: The cycle of Polish history has once more worked with the precision of the proverbial Swiss watch. After a period of political realism in the 1950s and 1960s, with the
Read full abstract