Funding politics - lots of heat, not much light

The recent arrest of Władysław Jamroży, the former chairman of No. 1 insurer Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń (PZU), opens another chapter in the debate about the financing of politics in Poland. He and another businessman under lock and key, Grzegorz Wieczerzak, were very close to the political process. The way that funds have been abused by certain individuals in state companies has been dubbed "political capitalism." The practice has thrived on the woeful lack of scrutiny of the way politics is funded. Both the Batory Foundation's Anti-Corruption Program and Transparency International have concentrated on proposing legal changes, such as state financing of political parties and supporting transparency regarding politicians' interests and wealth. I have nothing against the entertaining theatrics of politicians demonstrating how little or how much they have. The public has a right to know. There are two schools of thought on this. One prefers the politician of very modest means because that shows he is not on the take. The other prefers the politician who is already rich because he is less likely to be on the take in the future. Take your pick.

I am more skeptical on the issue of state funding for parties. It has been sold as a panacea for making politicians more independent of business interests and for making the political process more transparent. In reality we may have made the same mistake when it was assumed that raising the salaries of state and local government officials would reduce corruption. Salaries were raised and along with them the "commission" demanded for securing contracts and development sites! As the Polish idiom says, your appetite increases the more you eat. No, state funding of parties will do little to stop corruption. The problem lies in the fact that the public has come to expect that politicians will be corrupt. Since there is so much petty corruption in the lower ranks of administration, no one expects the top people to be any better. Giving and taking bribes has become a way of life. The only people who can really help in gradually changing the picture are the media. In Poland the media must get far tougher on this issue. So far, the politicians have been treated with kid gloves. There have been too many nods and winks and too few hard facts. The classic example was the story on the wealth of Warsaw's former mayor. The media pressured him to account for his wealth, but did not follow up on all the leads. He argued that he had made his money in antique trade and on share dealings. When asked to reveal details of his dealings, he replied that such information would constitute a breach of commercial confidence. I cannot imagine that the Western media would have left it at that. He would have been pressured into revealing the exact nature of the antique and share deals.

Equally it would be difficult to envisage Western journalists letting the story of the prime minister getting a low interest mortgage from a bank that does not normally finance mortgages, and which is owned by the man who has a vested interest in a huge deal for the delivery of gas, just fizzle out. In Britain, ministers have had to resign for less. This lack of rigor is hurting all politicians. If these stories are not fully explained and followed up, all politicians get tarred with the same brush. The public begins to think that they are all crooks. A thorough media is a prerequisite for people to be able to defend their good names. The drive against corruption must start with determined scrutiny of public figures. As another Polish idiom says, the fish rots from the head down. It is not enough to just cover the arrests of businessmen made by public prosecutors. The media, to be effective, should name names and practice the "publish and be damned" doctrine. If that meant a spate of libel lawsuits, why don't proprietors get together and set up a fund from which court battles could be financed? The answer to that question is because so much of Poland's media is in some way dependent on the political process. Public TV and radio are in the hands of the governing coalition. Private TV has to watch its step because the National Television and Radio Council (KRRiT), on which Sejm, Senate and presidential nominees sit, has the right to grant and revoke operating licenses. The Polish Press Agency (PAP) is still in state hands and so is a large shareholding in the daily Rzeczpospolita. Even the publishing house Agora, which owns No. 1 daily Gazeta Wyborcza, has to be careful if it wants to have a chance at expanding into TV. Those who are meant to be policing the politicians are in reality policed by them. Expect more scandals and sensations as the politicos brief against each other. Do not expect any conclusions.

Chris Mularczyk is a Warsaw-based consultant. He can be e-mailed at cmularczyk@wbj.pl.