MAPPING THE ACTIVISM OF ETHNIC AND NATIONAL MINORITIES IN POLAND

ABSTRACT

For more than 40 years, minorities in Poland were deprived of the opportunity to publicly voice their demands and explicitly address mounting concerns over ethnic problems. For several decades, the ethnic presence in the public arena was restricted to a folkloric and apolitical façade. This article demonstrates that the tide of change brought about by the momentous year of 1989 has opened novel opportunities for minority groups. The article's objectives are twofold. First, it examines the boundaries of the national discursive structure in the minority rights area in Poland demonstrating that it is deeply embedded in Poland's history. Second, it explores the identity of actors who contributed to the debate in the field of ethnic politics in Poland and reveals that ethnic groups and state representatives are the most active players in the game when the regulation of minorities’ social and political position in contemporary Poland is at stake. The article shows that using minority language as an auxiliary one in contacts with public authorities and the issue of topographic double-naming are major sources of political contention. On the other hand, it reveals that minorities address these topics by pushing for more rights in the contentious area of the auxiliary function of ethnic languages.

Keywords:

• ethnic and national minorities
• discursive opportunity structure
• clams-analysis method
• Poland

Notes

¹It is useful to emphasize that the communist state's attitude and policies towards national and ethnic minorities were not constant during the 1945–89 period. On the contrary, they changed over time. Shortly after the war and until the 1950s, governments followed a strict and hostile policy towards groups of different ethnic origin. From the 1950s up to 1968, the minorities’ situation slightly improved and then, after 1968, it deteriorated again. In the 1980s, state policies underwent a moderate liberalization.

²This method was successfully applied to other topics by Koopmans and Statham (1999a, 1999b). I apply this technique to the examination of ethnic-minority claims in the public sphere. It allows for the analysis of the distribution of minorities’ claims, arguments and frames. The unit of analysis is the political claim, defined as an act of strategic communication in the public sphere, entailing the expression of a political opinion or demand through physical or verbal action, which may take various forms and be made by various actors (see Koopmans 2002). I did not collect newspaper data from the years 2000 and 2001 since only a small number of events linked to ethnic issues occurred during this period that could have triggered public discussion related to Poland's minority relations field. The amount of gathered data (excluding the 2000 and 2001 period) was sufficiently large, however, as to allow for a meaningful analysis (I coded 889 claims, each claim containing up to three different issues). Given that the application of the claims-making method is labor-intensive, I was not able to examine all Gazeta Wyborcza's editions. Thus, I selected every second issue (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) of this newspaper.

³Poland's transformation toward democracy was a gradual process and the implementation of EU norms was at times problematic. Poland was generally late in ratifying European anti-discriminative provisions. This was especially true for the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. While Poland signed the Convention in 1995, it only ratified it in 2000. Poland also postponed signing the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and only ratified it in 2003. Although the EU conditionality's direct impact was rather limited, pressure by supranational organizations enhanced the resonance of the ‘minority question’ in the Polish public sphere.

⁴National groups that live in compact communities are exempt from meeting the 5% electoral threshold at the country level.

⁵For instance, Germany lobbied the League of Nations in the interwar period in order to reclaim the territory (see Tesser 2003), and Soviet Russia appointed members of the Jewish minority to high official posts in post-war Poland.

⁶Such as the acceptance of the self-identification principle in accordance with the Copenhagen Document (1990) and signing up bilateral treaties with neighboring states.

⁷In the 1994 survey, however, there was no question on national self-identification. Therefore, it is not possible to meaningfully compare the 1994 and 2005 findings.

⁸ Minority organizations and groups covers claims issued by minority members (also legislative, executive, media and church representatives that come from minority groups). I coded claims put forward by members of all ethnic and national minorities, including Kashubs, Roma and Silesians. On the other hand, Government/executive representatives, and state agencies encompasses claims made by actors that hold executive positions. Politicians, political parties, former statesmen includes claims made by people active in the political sphere who are no longer parliamentary or government representatives. Racist and extreme right organizations and groups includes verbal and behavioral acts made either by organizations commonly considered as extremist (such as Web portal Nacjonalista.org) or by actors whose identity was not revealed in the press (mainly in cases of aggression against Roma).

⁹The Constitution that includes references to minority rights was promulgated in 1997 whereas a special act on minorities’ protection was passed only in 2005.

¹⁰These findings indicate that claims advanced within the ethnic-relations field frequently relate to specific events. Some events captured the attention of various minorities (e.g. the 2002 Census) while at other times certain subjects were touched upon by particular ethnic groups (e.g. Action Wisla was a common topic for Ukrainians’ and Lemkos’ claims).