When on the evening of 4th June provisional election results were announced on Warsaw’s Constitution Square and it appeared that the government block had lost almost everything it actually could the enthusiasm of the masses turned into shock, astonishment and anxiety; not only for those who had lost, but also for those who had won. The latter had not expected they would win by such a big margin. Just a few weeks earlier surveys had indicated that most people were still opting for socialism and against capitalism, for public ownership and against the domination of private property. Nothing had suggested that they wanted to wipe the communist party from the political scene.

For this reason there is still uncertainty today how to label that June 4th. It was not a revolution because the transition was bloodless, and it was based on peaceful negotiations. The agreement made then was complied with even though it was against the existing law. Also, it was not an immediate transition of system – for no one had proposed that neither during the election, nor after it, when Tadeusz Mazowiecki’s new government emerged – a government which was in fact an effect of national agreement, including all of the Sejm’s parties. And of course, it was not a putsch – nobody was put in prison: communist generals and General Jaruzelski himself were still in power along with the former anti-communist opposition for a few more months.

The stumbling block is that societies after such peaceful transitions need to break with the ‘bad past’, and politicians sooner or later try to ensure this feeling – even symbolically. This mechanism has caused the long isolation of the post-communist left as well as (unsuccessful) attempts of vetting the state administration. This mechanism is also responsible for the way in which the images of the Round Table and the June election were later created. For its creators – no matter on which side of the Round Table they once sat – it was a result of the lesson of Poland‘s bloody history, full of failed uprisings and uncompromising struggle. Also, it was evident that the national character does not prevent the Poles from making rational, calm and peaceful decisions. The radical left, which in the 1990ies was incredibly weak, have consider the events of 1989 as a betrayal by elites: according to them, the leaders of the opposition and of the Communist Party back then negotiated ways for some to stay in power (over the economy), for others to gain it (in politics), and to mute the voices of those who in the name of the workers and peasants wanted to overthrow the regime and introduce radical changes, or, perhaps, even start a revolution. A much stronger radical right wing has accused the Round Table and the June election of the same position but by using different arguments: according to them enslaved cases were substituted by an allegedly enslaved nation, which was then deceived by an elite which did not allow the people to deal with the former system. The post-communist left located themselves in the centre. They tried to legitimize themselves through the fact that their founders and leaders had contributed to the negotiated change of government; they started creating an image as a pro-European democratic party and as a protective shield of democracy against the impending (according to them) retaliation of extreme forces. For that reason the former Round Table’s antagonists jointly defended its good memory, but differed in the assessment of what had been before. To the post-communist left-wing the People’s Republic was an unsuccessful attempt to pursue Polish interests in accordance with the logic of the Cold War and conflicting systems. To former members of the opposition it was the apparatus of repression, which in the name of the interests of the Soviet Union suppressed a nation’s strive for freedom and human rights. This controversy cast a shadow over any 1989 discussions in the 1990ies and created what famous political scientist Miroslawa Grabowska called ‘post-communist division’: in the elections a competition takes place between the post-communists and post-solidarity parties; the candidates were scanned according to their former behavior and attitudes towards the communists, the Communist Party as well as the secret police. Candidates in the presidential elections were either post-communist left-wing, or anti-communist right wing: Kwasniewski vs. Walesa, Kwasniewski vs. Krzaklewski. This changed early in the 21st century when for the first time two anti-communist candidates collided and the post-communist left - losing a lot of voices and activists - were marginalized. The former interpretation of 1989 gained wider fame - the one speaking about the ‘betrayal of elites’ and the need to ‘make up for the revolution’ and national treatment in the form of a more sincere vetting process. But by that time the political institutions were already stabilized to the extent that any attempts of radical ‘de-communization’ or ‘justification of the state’ were defeated by a veto of the constitutional tribunal, the lack of a majority in parliament or the resistance of the civil society. The populist government of ‘Prawo i Sprawiedliwość’ (‘Law and Justice’), ‘Liga Polskich Rodzin’ (‘League of Polish Families’) and ‘Samoobrona’ (‘Self-defense’) collapsed after two years and since that time the historical heritage of 1989 has been recognized almost unanimously. And even the old contestants gathered around the Kaczyński brothers (who in fact took part in the Round Table) do not raise this issue any more. The prevailing interpretation of 1989 is that it was a continuation of the ‘Solidarity’ movement of 1980/81 which initiated the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block; and even though the Martial Law (1981-1983) retarded this process, it helped Europe to cast off the yoke of communism. That is why 1989 is considered as a continuation of 1981. This interpretation was behind the motto of the official celebrations of the 1989 anniversary in 2009: ‘It all began in Poland’. Just like every interpretation of history this is simplistic and selective. This sentence did not say anything about all the reformatory tendencies which existed before 1980 or were introduced during and after Martial Law. It also disregards all those alternatives which were discussed before 1989. In Poland, there was no revolution in 1989 and - according to surveys, cultural trends and fashion - it was not even a turning point. From our point of view, it was a sudden and unexpected change of the political regime and an important stage in the democratization and decentralization of the state as well as the commercialization of the national economy. But it was not the Zero Hour as which it often appears on exhibitions, in historical albums or political speeches.

In 2009 Poland recalled the year 1989 in many ways and manifestations. There was a host of ceremonies, exhibitions and meetings with the heroes of those days. There were also many books published, and many people were willingly taking part in events celebrating what happened 20 years ago. Was our way of recollecting the past different from other forms of perceiving the past?

The main stream has perceived the year 1989 as a big success and a big victory. In Poland, communism ended bloodlessly and many reforms were made. So the last 20 years were a series of successes. Yet many people remember the events differently. They say the communists did not give up power because the social resistance was so strong but because the economical situation was too bad and the necessary reforms would have been be too harmful. They say that is why the Round Table was an agreement between elites: the one from the communist party and the one from the opposition. The evidence of social distrust was the fairly lowl turnout (64%) at the first and only partially free election on June 4th 1989.

Problems caused by the transformation after 1989 were not covered in depth during official ceremonies. Today everything is a story about success because Poland was able to transform its economy and to establish a stable democratic system. What is even more interesting is that many people who in the past were distrustful about the transformation and its effects, today seem to have forgotten their own words. ‘We succeeded- this is what counts!’

But do we really remember the good moments only? Maybe it is only these we want to remember? Polish official celebrations focused on the June election. The year 1989 needed a symbol. The election was indeed a positive event,but also an important stage of political transformation. The disassembly of communism in Poland began at that moment. On the other hand there were no demonstrations and mass manifestations against the government during that time: there was no distinct moment of transition. Now, a few years later, we have recognized these incidents as crucial. A transformation of the political system was the result of an agreement between the elites, something which did not make many people feel they were part of this change. Many people had acted in opposition and conspiracy, but they were not a majority of the society. The majority had had to deal with everyday problems like finding food during the permanent economical crisis. Most people simply had not had the time for any other activity. That is why it is so important to ask how citizens identify themselves with those events. What do they want to remember, and why?

The celebrations of the year 1989 have shown that our public memory has adopted these events. We as a people identify with them because it appears that they ended successfully. We are proud of the transformation and the significant Polish part in the disassembly of the so-called Eastern bloc.

It seems that the line of official ceremonies tended to ignore many problems and to emphasize the successes only. It was not our plan to judge this way of celebrating history. We decided to use our exhibition to show some of the aspects of transformation that had been omitted.

The late 1980ies brought new trends in art and culture, a fascination of new ways of creating. They were the times when video-art became popular. That is why a part of the exhibition was devoted to cultural events, which occurred in 1989 and which have influenced the artistic world to this day.

We wanted to show that although most changes after 1989 were positive there were still some negative ones. That is why we showed both: the history of devastated monuments of industry and the metamorphosis of Wroclaw‘s market square from an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan. We also wanted to give voice to those who were not the heroes but silent witnesses of those days in 1989. We asked them what they were doing and thinking then. We also asked what their children – the next generation – think about the transformation.

Translation by Anna Tomaszewska and Tadeusz Mincer.

Anna Tomaszewska was a mentor for the Wroclaw-team. Anna Tomaszewska has a Master‘s degree in Political Science from the University of Wroclaw, Poland and a LL.M.Eur degree from the University of Würzburg, Germany. She is director of the foundation for European Studies in Wroclaw (www.feps.pl).

Paulina Poznańska has coached the team in Wroclaw as head of the program department of the Edith-Stein-Haus in Wroclaw.