Time to cut out the politics

   Just when the enfranchisement issue looked to be buried, the controversial bill was given a very public resuscitation last week. Less than a month after President Aleksander Kwasniewski vetoed the bill in Parliament, his incorrigible opponent, Marian Krzaklewski of the Solidarity Election Action (AWS), was determined to keep it alive.

   Last Wednesday, he took yet another step to bring the issue to the front pages of the newspapers by organizing a 10,000-strong rally of right-wing supporters, mainly from the countryside, to march on Warsaw and denounce the presidential veto. Conveniently for Krzaklewski, the marchers also protested at Kwasniewski's bid for re-election in Sunday's polls.

   During the past few years, Krzaklewski has proved himself an able but unpopular politician. Renowned for being a shameless opportunist, he tends to court favors for anyone who can secure him a seat at the nation's highest table.

   By taking on the mantle as the voice of the disenfranchised, he's again proved he'll do anything to attract attention to his political cause. Many commentators said it was the last act of a drowning man desperately clutching at straws. Another ploy that failed to win over the majority of the electorate was his recent release of a three-year-old videotape showing Kwasniewski parodying the Pope.

   Poles are far to politically mature these days to fall for such unsophisticated dirty tricks and political gerrymandering. As the Business Journal went to press, Krzaklewski's popularity was still hovering around the 7% mark, compared with Kwasniewski's 55%, according to CBOS figures.

   But, sadly, Krzaklewski's gung ho approach has again muddled the enfranchisement debate, using it as a political tool rather than an issue that goes beyond politics. For many lower income families in public housing, the bill is still a hot potato waiting to be resolved – and the debates should continue.

   But for most people, the bill was messy from the start and the controversy surrounding it has been going on now for 10 years. Enfranchisement is important on many levels. Morally it would put property back into private hands after years of expropriation under the communists. It could arguably stimulate the property market and cut out corruption and middlemen.

   Arguments that newly enfranchised occupants would flood the property market with cheap flats are simply not true. Firstly, the law forbids anyone to sell property for two years after claiming ownership, which is plenty of time for the market to ready itself for any changes. Second, most people will almost certainly want to stay where they are.

   But the bill is unfair to the emerging middle classes who didn't wait for a state handout, but worked hard to buy their own homes. Also, the bill doesn't answer concerns that the newly enfranchised might be unable to pay for hefty maintenance costs currently met by local government.

   These issues will not die quietly because of a presidential veto and they should not be allowed to fall in the hands of politicians desperate for last minute electioneering. After 10 years of messy debate, ordinary people have the right to know what they can realistically expect from their politicians.