As Krzysztof Szczerski, the Commissioner-to-be rejects constructionism and embraces a historical approach, he draws three important lessons for Europe from the Polish historical experience.

This comes as I continue to read for you Mr Szczerski 2017 book on Europe called European Utopia. My previous inputs from his book include:

1. Noah’s Days
2. Europe without a soul is dead
3. Euro’s good only for the powerful

Mr Szczerski asks a genuinely good question: “what can we teach our friends from other Union states, especially those of its core” and gives three answers.

Poland defends Europe

First, the Polish political choices have impacted not only the fate of Poland, but also, “the shape of Europe“. In this perspective Mr Szczerski draws attention to the 1683 Vienna siege and asks “what would happen if the Polish king Jan III Sobieski would not decide to go to rescue Vienna in 1683 from an Islamic onslaught“?

The other examples used refer to the Polish defence of Europe against the Tatars in 1241 and the Soviets in 1920. Mr Szczerski concludes: “We need to remind the Western countries […] what has been the role played by Poland on our continent“.

There are two reflections of the author in this context. First, “a good policy is the one which allows for making choices which do not incapacitate us“. Second, “Poland is the country which over the centuries in reality has made fundamental choices alone for itself as well as for the whole of Europe“. Surely, there were mistakes along the way, too, admits Mr Szczerski. There is an important warning: “when Poland was deprived of the choice by the external powers, or it has deprived itself of the choice, or when it has led an unthinking or a subordinate policy vis-a-vis other capitals, it would lose its resources and its own subjectivity. Europe would lose out too, as it would lead to much greater crises later, on a continental scale“.

Poland’s sovereign choice is one of the very important stabilising elements of our continent.

Krzysztof Szczerski, European Utopia 2017

Free Poland = Free Europe

The second historical conclusion of Mr Szczerski is that the history of Poland is the history of freedom. “Poland was free when freedom ruled Europe“, and subordination of Poland effectively means a domination of larger nations. When Poland was not free, in late 18th and 19th centuries, many others suffered, writes the Commissioner-appointee, including the Belgians and the Italians.

The Polish freedom is linked with the European freedom, but one should not “confuse freedom with frolics and lawlessness“.

Deep Roots

Lesson number three relates to historical identity. “Polish history is a history of a community connected by culture, identity, values and traditions originating from the Christian fundament“.

Mr Szczerski writes that today’s Europe “has a fundamental problem with its own identity, its own civilisation, when it turns itself into a post-cultural, post-civilizational or post-identity conglomerate of some undefined forces and processes“. If Europe is truly lost, it can survive only if one relates to the identity. In fact, Mr Szczerski argues, a community can survive only when “the community roots are deeper than just ad hoc business, political identity, economic wealth or opportunistic choices of being politically correct. Only deep roots give a guarantee of long lasting.”

There are three elements Mr Szczerski would like to upload as Polish experiences into the European political dimension: the issue of choice, the issue of freedom and the issue of a culture based on centuries-old values. “If those three things we could merge today for the sake of Europe, it would truly become a different political community“.

Et alors?

I truly agree with the sentiment of Mr Szczerski when it comes to freedom: what freedom is and what freedom is not and that the value of freedom is important to Poles. Freedom, however, is not only a freedom of a nation from a foreign oppression. Individual freedoms matter! Personal freedoms are relevant. The European and, wider, the Western thinking about liberties has massively advanced since 1945. Today human rights are part of the Western understanding of freedom.

In a way it is amazing how simplistic the historical analysis of Mr Szczerski is. It does not include the centuries old tradition of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation. In fact, the fact that some 97% of citizens of Poland are “ethnic Poles” is a historical anomaly for Poland. Poles do not have a concept of an ethnic Pole like many other European nations do. Poles are those who speak the language, said the 1931 census. It was a linguistic category, not an ethnic one.

I am missing also the reference to the Second World War. There would be no European Union without the War. In Poland the WWII is considered “the War” and not to draw lessons from it seems to be a major omission. The War changed Poland: its borders were moved, its citizens were killed or relocated. It’s cities were deplored and the country was in ruins. All that was locked under a Communist freezer; the historical debates only resurface post-1989. As the War’s fallout all the minorities disappeared. A third of Polish citizens before the War was not “Polish”, but Ukrainian, German, Jewish, Dutch, Scottish, Czech, Belarusian, Lithuanian, Russian, Armenian or another. Poland was a melting pot the same way the Austro-Hungarian empire was a melting pot of nations. It was not a paradise, there were many problems of the day, but the multi-culti was the norm. The mono-culti is an abnormality, for Poland, too, Mr Szczerski.

For excellent texts about the history of Poland look for the books of historians like Norman Davies, Timothy Snyder or Adam Zamoyski.

I am also missing nuance in Mr Szczerski analysis. As much as Poland cherishes its freedom many Poles tend to forget that our freedom is not exactly someone else’s freedom. See Lithuanians for it, and their experience, their reading of what a “free Poland” means: occupation and often a forced Polonisation. Yes, Poles were subjects to Germanisation under Bismarck, but similar processes took place against other nations. When General Żeligowski entered Vilnius in 1920 what exactly did his army mean by “freedom”? Or, was it more politics with fait accompli as the international politics of the day were still largely based on rude power?

Maybe this is why Europeans decided to draw a line making a distinction and a decision: we focus on the future, because the past can divide us as easily as before? We need to build trust between Europeans before we build fences between us.

I do not share Mr Szczerski reflection that Europe’s doomed because it lost its identity. Who am I to tell others they lost their identity?

I do agree, however, that the political community of Europe is something important. It should be built and developed further, in a constructive way, even if the Commissioner-to-be does not like the approach.

I hope for his perspective to be included in the European political discourse. It is an important input, but to preclude it is the only one correct is too much, it is presumptive, and as such, offensive to others.

An open, tolerant, culturally and religiously diverse Poland is the true nature of this smiling country. Not the grey mono-religious and a righteous perspective of some Poles. In order to be inclusive I shall say that both versions, or all versions of a complex and multi-dimentional Poland should be included in the statement of Mr Szczerski: “More of Poland means more of Europe“.

Krzysztof Szczerski is a candidate for the position of a Commissioner in the College of Ursula von der Leyen. Earlier this week there was a meeting between the nominee and the Commission President. The only relevant information Mr Szczerski shared after the meeting is that he has signalled his interest in an economic portfolio. No decision has been taken.

Divided Europe forgets its roots

Back to his 2017 book “European Utopia” where Mr Szczerski explores the roots of the European Crisis. He offers an interesting and original take on what the European Union is. It is a practical-spiritual integration that has been based on practical cooperation and Christian values. Mr Szczerski argues that the integration has an original flaw in its construction: the limitation of the integration to a few Western European countries and the approbation of “the brutal and unnatural division of Europe into two hostile parts“, with the Central and Eastern European part of the continent left behind the Iron Curtain. “When one side of a plant is permanently in the shade, while the other side has access to the light, both of them grow in an unnatural way – one is poor, the other one extensively exuberant – the entire system loses its harmony“. Mr Szczerski empathically remarks “both sides of the Iron Curtain were victims of the division (…) since both parts were separated from each other“.

This unnatural situation results with the Eastern Europe economically underdeveloped and Western Europe alienated. The year 1989 and the new opening is not “optimally used” for reunification of the divided continent, according to Mr Szczerski. The stereotypes of Central and Eastern Europeans among the Western European political elites dominate the approach. In consequence, “they strived for simple domination over the backward Eastern countries and their economies. This was called the need of westernisation of the Central and Eastern Europe, what effectively was to be a repetition of the East German take over by West Germany“. That process has an important side-effect: “the contempt for the Eastern Germans, the Ossi“, among the Western Germans.

The spiritual element evaporates over the years: “Western Europe that we’ve met in 1989 was becoming a different continent, in which the public life was based on new, fully secularised rules“.

The Western European material domination over Central Europe results in unnatural relationship, in which the “external domination, for example in terms of owning business, or the unfavourable conditions (for us) of the opening of our national markets for Western corporations, which had very strong bargaining positions. This frequently led to market disorders, and in some areas even to practical elimination of home companies“. Mr Szczerski contradicts this reality with early days of integration: “the inivial historical project assumed respect” no matter if the country was Luxembourg or France. “Then, the base of relations between the integrating states were the Christian values“. In 1989 and today it is no longer the case.

Mr Szczerski concludes this part of history: “even if according to me the European integration has never taken the optimal developmental shape, the presence of Poland in this process is essential“.

Poland needs free and stable Europe of equal states and free nations.

Krzysztof Szczerski, European Utopia, 2017

Mr Szczerski’s key disillusionment is in the reality of the year 1989. This is when “the chance to rebuild the true European unity was lost“, because the West forgets its Christian values. There is a general happiness that dictators of Eastern Europe are gone, but there as an accompanying fear. The West is worried about the “backwardness” of the new democracies and their alleged nationalism and social conservatism. There are also the material worries of “flooding of the West with hordes of hungry workers (better version) or simply – thieves (worse version)“.

The Western fear results, according to Mr Szczerski, with a policy of re-education: “immediate buying out of the media and giving them a liberal-left profile as well as creation and financing of all sorts of foundations and educational centres of so-called new elites. Education obviously in one binding meaning of political correctness“.

Mr Szczerski says that the Central Europeans are considered “barbarians” and this is so unfair “when Europe is currently flooded with a true uncontrolled wave of migrants that is endangering its security, and caused by the very same politicians of the same countries who used to scare their citizens with Poles or Hungarians“.

I wonder if according to Mr Szczerski the 2015 and later waves of migrants pouring into Europe constitute a “flood of barbarians”, since he uses the term.

In his analysis of Western Europe losing touch with its own religious past Mr Szczerski turns to the social turmoil of 1968: Europe “turned more and more, for a long time, and especially since the social revolution of 1968, to the left. The turn was exacerbated in many Western European countries after the government positions were filled by politicians, who once were the revolted ‘children’ actively participating in the 1967-68 student protests“.

The 1968 revolution was not a generational conflict, it was a “clash of ways of life and a vision of social peace“.

The constructivist virus

Mr Szczerski is not a fan of social constructivism. In short, this approach mean that societies are social constructs, not a result of long historical processes. The Commissioner-to-be writes it this way: “so you can imagine creation of a multi-culti society and accordingly, systematically make it real and develop through children education, adult propaganda, through correctly chosen instruments of mixing human groups“. According to Mr Szczerski this is an EU policy: “step by step complete rebuilding of the social environment of the European policy” and many Europeans are terrified as they are “unable to identify themselves in this modern reality” and argues for return to roots.

The only way forward, writes Mr Szczerski, “to reintegrate Europe […] is a return to the source of our identity, to the core of European culture, distorted by the constructivist projects (like the gender ideology[…]).”

The Economy

Krzysztof Szczerski says that social constructivism is used in European policy to create “a new economy” which rejects the free market economy. The free market approach Mr Szczerski supports is effectively deregulation and removal of market obstacles and creation of incentives for economic exchange.

Yet, Mr Szczerski argues, with time this original free market approach was compromised with the regulatory framework. The most relevant elements, that is the “financial mechanisms supporting the poorest EU regions (structural funds) and extended protection of competitiveness preventing monopolies” are supported by Mr Szczerski. However, the “constructivist virus” entered the free market, and “single market” is on the increase: “the more regulated the market, the more room for corruption and competition manipulation. A true competition is gone. This is one of the reasons for stagnation“. He notes cynically, “for the bureaucratic regulatory mind there are no cordons“.

The economic integration is “in the phase of advanced constructivism“. Mr Szczerski is not a fan of the Eurozone: “Project Euro […] has no basis in the economic reality” and “the Eurozone is condemned for permanent instability that can be mitigated, but not liquidated“.

According to Mr Szczerski the Eurozone is impossible, hence the ECB “has to take decisions serving the interests of a few at the same time trying to hurt the others as little as possible. The strongest come out of the process as winners“, hence the Eurozone is based “at the expense” of the needs of the economies outside of the decision-making centre.

His idea for renewal of Europe is to create a common, not single market. Deregulation is the key in this process.

As for the Eurozone, Mr Szczerski would like to keep the zone open, “but not mandatory, as it is today de facto. Maybe even gentle ways of leaving the Eurozone by some countries should be considered.“

Mr Szczerski says that Eurozone own budget is “the easiest way to a Europe of two speeds, hence practically, to final break off of the community“. The alternative is “to subject oneself to the euro hegemony and related regulations that are not beneficiary for countries like Poland“. In other words, Euro accession.

Et alors?

It is an interesting way of looking at the way European integration between the Western and Eastern parts was truly an expansion. 12 countries joined the Union in 2004. The Union that pre-existed for a number of years. It has been a long Polish belief that even if this was an accession, what really happened in 2004 was a reunification of Europe.

The debate on accession or reunification is relevant in the context of ownership for the project, if not for what Mr Szczerski argues – economic advantages of certain economies. Poles do not share the ownership for the European project, at least Mr Szczerski clearly does not. It is important to point out that Mr Szczerski in his analysis finds only problems (secularism) in Western Europe and no problem in Central and Eastern Europe (the shaded part of the plant) were analysed between 1945 and 1989. As if those societies did not undergo any relevant evolution in their own right.

I agree with Mr Szczerski that there are many Western Europeans who are sceptical of the Eastern Europeans. Isn’t this our task to eradicate the sentiment? Over the years there are fewer of them. Elections of Jerzy Buzek (EP President, 2009) or of Donald Tusk (European Council President, 2014) help the process. If the sceptics are back on the increase – maybe it is because of the policies of governments like the one Mr Szczerski is backing. Still, over the years the fears and scepticism are rather going away, and it is the Poles and Romanians, who en masse travel abroad for work, who create new opinions about our nations among other Europeans. The most important quantification in this regard is that there is no one “Poland”, “Romania” or “France” and in each and every society there are different people of different skills and qualities.

And this is a constructivist approach, too: we are constructing the perception of the Poles and of Poland. A complete rejection of constructivism is a rejection of the European integration at its core. The very Christian first leaders, Fathers of European integration who Mr Szczerski values so much, were not only deeply rooted in their religion, nation-states, but they knew that the future is in the hands of men. Robert Schuman in his Declaration writes: “Europe will not be made all at once“. Be made. “It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity“. Built.

Supranational character of the Union is from the start, not from after 1968.

Regulatory approach of the Union is from the start (regulate the coal and steel market), not from after 1968.

Over-regulation is a good objective; PM Cameron of UK and PM Rutte of the Netherlands even performed audits seeking similar results “what should be deregulated at the EU level from the national perspective”. Outcome of those reports were unimpressive for the populists.

It is easy, overly easy, populist maybe even, to argue that “Europe over-regulates” for each time it regulates it does so with the countries on board. And the citizens.

Maybe this is the problem: Mr Szczerski portrays himself as a political conservative thinker and politician who would like to associate himself with the likes of Schuman, de Gasperi and Adenauer, but the policies of his government and his political party are not only conservative, but also populist. They seek enemy, they need enemy to thrive and build support. They criticise constructivism in Europe, yet they do the same in Poland – use constructivism to raise a new generation of Poles deeply rooted in history and national narrative – this is, after all, the objective of the Law and Justice educational reform. A constructivist approach.

It is worrisome Mr Szczerski, the Commissioner-to-be does not know the difference between de iure and de facto. Poland is under obligation de iure to join the Eurozone, not de facto.

Clearly Mr Szczerski does not recognise the benefits of the Eurozone membership for the smaller nations. Maybe the Baltics’ and the Slovaks’ arguments and advice should be revisited as I am sure they had their reasons to take a decision “contrary to their national interests”, according to Mr Szczerski.

And this simplification… all of the West is liberal and left-leaning, all of Poland is socially conservative… Those presumptions are simple speaking, wrong.

I do agree that there are three ways forward for Poland: in the Eurozone, with the EU broken from inside by the Eurozone budget, or by muddling through as today. There is a chance for this choice to be relegated to irrelevant, but it would require for a series of bold decisions to be made. The true question is not how to avoid forcing Poland into the Eurozone but how to maximize the benefits of Eurozone accession for economic growth and political security.

Krzysztof Szczerski, the Commissioner-nominee for the Ursula von der Leyen Commission, published a book in 2017 entitled “European Utopia“. I am reading it for you. Today’s part: “Europe without a soul is dead“.

According to Mr Szczerski the European identity is based on Christianity. He seeks a special role for the Poles: “we have a special role to play and we should not run away from it or abandon it due to political correctness or fear generated by the media“.

“Many countries await for us, for the fatherland of saint John Paul II, to lead the way. The way leading to a spiritual unity, to respect of fatherlands and tradition. We are predestined to play the role not only because we gave the great son of our nation John Paul II, the saint pope, to the world“, writes the Commissioner-to-be in 2017, “we are predestined because of our geographical location and our territorial and demographic potential“.

Mr Szczerski refers to the Polish in-built dilemma: it is a much smaller country than the larger nations in the EU, but it is equally much bigger than the mid-sized nations of the EU: “We do not threaten anybody: we can’t dominate the small, we can’t knock down the big. Nobody should be afraid of us. This is our great asset“.

He cherishes the European identity based on diversity, but rejects the Brussels bureaucracy attempts to replace it: “One should not be told that the Brussels bureaucracy, due to its international, or, better said, cosmopolitan character, is able to replace the true European identity“.

“The Noah’s days” means a situation in which life goes as usual, but there is a major event in sight only Noah knows about and is preparing for. The biblical Noah was preparing for the biblical Flood. Mr Szczerski writes: “Europe we got used to know might truly disappear flooded by mighty waves“, and continues: “[Europe] may disappear if it continues to deliver ‘the European utopia’ over the real needs of nations and the continent’s nations“.

Europe needs renewal. The rules of this renewal should be: “freedom of nations, equality of states, unity of the continent and a base in its centuries-developed identity“.

There is a special role for Poland in this “Europe of the future“. Why? “Poles, in their majority, are a nation who is at the same time attached to its sovereignty and understands the value of having their own state, and at the same time support the membership in the European family“. Mr Szczerski rejects the opposition between “integrationists” and “souverenists“. “It is not true, that if you are a supporter of the integration you have to sign up to the camp advocating the European utopia, which preaches that national state is evil and should be abolished and replaced by a European federal superstate. This vision is one of the most dangerous concepts of the European utopia.”

Mr Szczerski rightly concludes, “it is possible to maintain independence, that is self-reliance and subjectivity, while being part of a common Europe“. Only that, he argues, “this Europe needs to act differently and leave the road of a dangerous utopia, and our state needs to be more effective, more honest and positioned to service the needs of citizens“.

Mr Szczerski writes of the Poland-led coalition, “community of aspirations” between the Baltic, Adriatic and the Black seas. This is a group of nations “who still wants”, as they seek to catch up the economic development from the old days Communist past. The group is composed of nations who are competitive, ambitious and fight hidden protectionism. Many people have left the region, but as the process is negative, at the same time “it shows the dynamics of our, Central and Eastern European societies“. The same applies to CEE scientists, entrepreneurs and farmers.

This dynamism is not in contradiction to traditional values. “Modernity does not mean breaking up with identity“, argues Mr Szczerski and attacks: “different actors have thrown enormous resources and measures trying to impose a model of modernization by eradication, suggesting this is the common and biding trend, some sort of ‘social physics law’ that should not be debated. In order to be modern one needs to be a multicultural, atheist, devoid of family ties and a very morally loose society“. Mr Szczerski claims that this approach has “almost entire media dominance” to promote such behaviour. He is proud that “most Poles are not convinced” and “their European utopia loses with the Polish attachment to traditions and values” to conclude “our social model is the future of Europe, if it chooses to survive“.

Europe must feel internally strong with its civilisation and its dynamism. Like Poland does.

Krzysztof Szczerski, “The European Utopia”, 2017

Et alors

I agree with Mr Szczerski that there is no contradiction between being pro-European and being a proud citizen of Poland. One does not exclude the other. But I do not see the Brussels-imposed unilateralism that Mr Szczerski calls “European utopia”. I do not see the multicultural imposition of values such as openness and inclusiveness at the expense of traditional values.

Quite to the contrary, the diverse Europe embraces traditions. Europe cherishes and supports cultural events and traditions. Europe respects the member states’ individuality and uniqueness.

I also agree when Mr Szczerski writes, “Modernity does not mean breaking up with identity“. But there is a contradiction in what Mr Szczerski is arguing: on the one hand he advocates for the diversity, but at the same time he seeks for a promotion of traditional Christian values in places where those values are no longer relevant. Why is it not fair to promote atheist values in Poland while it is fair and desired to promote religious values outside of Poland?

He plays into the Polish tradition of seeing Poland as a country with a special historical mission. Poles are taught to believe that about four hundred years ago Poland was the ultimate defender of Christendom against the Ottoman invasion. Again it defended the free world against the Soviet invasion in 1920. This perspective has a name: it’s called “messianism”.

Does Europe need a messiah as a Commissioner?

I may be short-sighted and not see the upcoming Flood. Yet, somehow I cannot escape a thought that if Europe was doomed it was not because of its (lack of) religiosity, but because of climate change.

Mr Szczerski rightly points to the threats of a European super-state, as advocated by some. Ulrike Guerot wrote a book about it: Why Europe Must Become a Republic! A Political Utopia, and the two use the same word. Ms Guerot argues in favour of a European superstate. Mr Szczerski is fundamentally opposed. The two agree: this is a utopia, a dream, NOT a reality. It is strange that Ms Guerot is not quoted once in Mr Szczerski book. What an omission!

Mr Szczerski is not trying to distinguish between the European federalists, some of whom advocate for a European state, and the majority of European federalists, who simply stand by the “ever closer Union”. Here’s a link to what the mainstream European federalists think: they advocate for a Federal Political Union, not a state. They seek policy integration in fiscal and economic policies, in justice and home, migration and asylum policies, in completing the single market. More on the European Federalists here.

I am unsure if this “community of aspirations” truly exits. To put all the countries known as “the new member states” is a risky business. They are as diverse as they come. Estonia and Czechia are among the most secular and least religious nations in Europe. Hungarians are angry with their neighbours, Czechs and Slovaks are not depopulating, unlike Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic nations. Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are in the Eurozone, and Bulgaria and Croatia would like to join it. Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia remain outside of the Schengen system. On top, Etc. Etc. Etc.

What does exist is the Three Seas Initiative, since 2016. It is a useful instrument complementary to the European policy of the 12 states. It is political, diplomatic and no alternative to the EU. Clearly the 12 participating EU nations (CEE and Austria) have certain joint interests steaming from the geographical closeness. It is positive Jean-Claude Juncker attended two of those summits. It is important to know that the Americans (Donald Trump attended once) and the Chinese (present at the initial event in Dubrovnik in 2016) are also watching.

Still, as much as the Three Seas Initiative is there, I am quite sure this is not an alternative to the European Union. It could be a useful complementation of the EU membership.

As regards the clash of values in Poland today, between the traditional values and more liberal values, in relation to the role of women, LGBT rights, equality, discrimination, place of religion in the society, etc. this is not some sort of a liberal, conspiracy imposed clash. This conflict is domestic and is serious. It is between various groups of Poles who think differently. Should the religiousness in Poland be on a decrease (it is not) it is not because of some external-led campaign. There is no such campaign. The diversity of Poles is growing. Simply there are people asking for their rights to be respected by the ruling party which stigmatises minorities by instigating the public majority against them.

And no, majority of the media is not anti-traditional. It so happens, Mr Szczerski, that when Law and Justice overtakes a certain medium (TVP, Polish Radio), its viewership or listenership or readership radically decreases. It does not mean that liberals have an upper hand. It means the liberal media are more popular to read, listen to and watch.