Chapter Two
The
Rise and Fall of Poland
Poland,
like Sweden, was for a time a dominant and feared power. Poland also had traditionally hostile
relationships with Habsburg Austria
and especially with Russia.
As with Sweden, as long as Poland was powerful, Russia
was shut off from access and territorial expansion into the Baltic and with no
real connections with the heart of Europe. As
with Sweden, the fortunes of
Poland were tied to the
story of Russia; as long as Poland was powerful, Russia
was largely shut out of any meaningful role in European relations, thus Poland had an
important influence on developments in regional power relations.
Ultimately,
Poland did fall prey to the
rabid ambitions of Russia,
as well as the emerging power of Prussia. The long, grueling history
of violence, distrust and competition between Poland, Russia, and modern day
Germany (the descendent of Prussia) is important to understand both in terms of
events of the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as kept in
mind when looking at 20th and 21st century relations
between these antagonistic powers
THE KINGDOM OF POLAND - LITHUANIA
The great kingdom of Poland
reached its peak when it joined with the kingdom of Lithuania
in the 1500’s, forming a massive land empire. For a time,
Poland-Lithuania was the second largest state in Europe; more massive even than
Austria, dwarfing the
smaller Prussian state, and boasting more territory than France. The
only European power larger was Russia.
However, remember, in the 16th and 17th centuries, Russia was not yet a player in
European struggles. It was still predominantly an Asian based power,
prevented from taking a larger role in European territorial, diplomatic and
economic relations by Sweden in the north and Poland on its Eastern border.
Poland was an important foe of, and check on, the ambitions of the Ottoman Empire and the Austrian empire. Poland reached
its military and territorial peak between the 1500 and 1600’s. (see map)
However, this massive
state had serious internal weaknesses and divisions. It was far less
stable in social and economic terms than Western European states, or even Sweden. Poland
was led by a very repressive, exploitative aristocracy, which clung ferociously
to its feudal powers and privileges. This arch-conservative, self-interested
aristocratic class was known as the szlachta. The vast majority
of the population remained poor. Many remained serfs, living in abject and
miserable conditions. The middle class was small, weak, and subservient to the
power and decisions of the dominant aristocracy. Thus, this was an empire, but
one mired in a primitive agriculturally-based economy. No Commercial Revolution
took place in Poland.
Poland, as is often the
case with such a large land empire, was also very diverse and divided. It was
not made up of an integrated or unified population. One source of internal
division was religion. Although dominantly Catholic, the Protestant Reformation
took root in this region and there were significant numbers of Lutherans, a
strong Calvinist movement and pockets of Orthodox Christian communities.
Poland also was divided into numerous
ethnic and cultural groups. As in Austria (discussed in the next Chapter), Poland
was a multi-national state which included Poles, Germans, Czechs,
Russians, as well as substantial Byleurus, Ukrainian and Lithuanian
populations. So many different languages and dialects were spoken that it
required an imposed state language to enable communication in the
kingdom; the state language of Poland
was Latin!
Thus, the most significant
problems Poland
faced, the greatest threat to its power, came from intractable internal
divisions. The Polish political system did nothing to solve these deep
and destabilizing divisions; in fact Poland’s governmental system
only made things worse. Poland's
governance was hampered and ultimately destroyed by the unresolved schisms in
this society. The example of Poland represents the divisiveness
and weakness that a shared power system can potentially lead to in a deeply
divided society, the possible flaws of a shared power system.
THE POLISH DIET
The political system of Poland was an
interesting model and is hard to categorize; it was not absolutism, but not
truly constitutional either. There were over 40 local assemblies (diets)
that retained a great deal of feudal (local) power. The central
government took the form of a central Diet (an assembly) and a monarch. Poland (during
this era) is sometimes referred to as a republic since there was an assembly which
shared power with a (weak!) monarch that was selected, not hereditary. As
was seen in the Netherlands,
the Polish aristocracy chose their king, creating a system of shared
power between the aristocracy and a very weak king. No other groups were
included.
However, it is inaccurate
to call this a constitutional system. There was actually only limited sharing. Virtually
all the power was in the hands of a very assertive, aggressive aristocracy; no
powerful monarchy was able to take root since there was no hereditary monarch
or dynasty. Also, Poland
was not truly constitutional since there was no strong, overarching law which the
nobility was bound by. Instead, Polish aristocrats ruled, largely unchecked,
and ultimately wrecked havoc on this country. Poland, in short, was an oligarchic system; long
standing feudal interests and divisions became institutionalized in the form of
aristocratically dominated Diets. And very little was actually accomplished by
this government.
Without a powerful
monarch, there was no "check" on the dominance of this quarrelsome
aristocracy. The middle class was far too weak and oppressed to check
aristocratic actions, or hold them accountable. There was no over-arching legal
authority in Poland,
no established legal document to keep these aristocrats in check. The excesses and short-sighted
leadership of the aristocracy was, in the end, disastrous for the Polish
state.
At the most fundamental
level, in a system where aristocrats ruled, what occurred was a great deal of
in-fighting between them, based on the substantive differences between them,
differences in terms of religion, region, even cultural or ethnic identify (e.g.
Czech, German, Slavic, Lithuanian.) This meant that what occurred at in the
central Diet was primarily posturing, confrontation and political gamesmanship on
domestic issues; this was especially true in terms of the selection of a new
monarch. Aristocrats in the Diet fought tooth and nail for someone
of their group – based on religion, ethnicity etc.; and fiercely opposed a
possible monarch from a competing region or religious community. Because
of these many competing, conflicting interests, the man selected as monarch, in
most cases, was a compromise (and compromised) selection, so weak,
non-threatening, not-affiliated with any strong interest group, and thus a monarch
completely lacking in support or any kind of mandate. In fact the norm was to
choose someone as king who had no direct links to any of the competing groups, resulting
in the fact that the Polish king was often not Polish, did not speak any
of the languages of the kingdom and had little knowledge of or investment in
its well-being.
The central Diet reflected
the worst-case scenario of a divided and participatory system. There were
so many competing religious, regional, personal and ethnic voices in the Diet
that very little was ever accomplished. They were all aristocrats, but they
spoke different languages, were from different ethnic groups, practiced
different religions, and had competing regional or personal/selfish interests. Dramatically
exacerbating this political mess was the unique feature of the Polish
government; it was a rule of the Diet that any major legislation had to be unanimous!
Any one individual had the right of the "liberum veto" –
that one stubborn, recalcitrant, obstructionist person could prevent passage of
a law with their veto. One zealot or one frustrated person, with one
negative vote, could hold up the deliberations or obviate the vote on any
issue. Imagine the degree of political stalemate that resulted. How many issues
could or would ever be unanimous? In their fervor to protect minority interests,
each seeking to safeguard their own regional/religious/ethnic agendas, they
prevented any possibility of political compromise and eliminated the possibility
of majority rule, which is critical in a participatory system.
Even worse, Polish Diet
procedures made it possible for a member of the Diet to "explode"
the Diet; one person could stand and demand new elections, require the
current Diet be disbanded and a new Diet be formed. This happened frequently;
between 1652 -1764, a staggering 90% of the Polish Diets elected were
"exploded". Imagine the chaos that resulted, and the political
paralysis. Remember, during this time when aristocrats were fighting each other
to promote their interests in a stalled Diet,
Poland was
facing constant and growing threats from old enemies and new powers. Yet it was
governed by a Diet system that was totally ineffective.
Poland’s system was demonstrably NOT
a successful political model. The inherent danger of fragmentation and division
that is potentially the fatal flaw in a participatory system was vividly
demonstrated by this Polish model. In fact, you can find in the writings of
this century those who pointed to Poland as an example of why
absolutism was needed and preferable!
THE PARTITION OF POLAND
The weakness of Poland’s governance system resulted in severe and fatal
consequences for the country. As Poland’s leaders continued to squabble, consumed by internal
power struggles, exploding successive legislative sessions, Poland’s
neighbors such as Prussia and
Russia and Austria became increasingly looming threats, and
Poland
simply did not have the leadership necessary to confront these threats.
Ultimately, in three different periods, these three powers, led by a Prussian
leadership exemplifying Machiavellian diplomatic tactics, took advantage of
Poland's
weakness. Prussia, Russia and Austria moved in and carved up this once massive
empire by imposing three different treaties: in 1772, 1793
and in 1795, finishing the process by wiping Poland completely off the map. By
1795, Poland
was NO MORE. It ceased to exist, gobbled up by its neighbors. (see
map) Poland did not reappear again, it was not an autonomous country until 1919,
after World War I when it was recreated as part of the border drawing that took
place at the Paris
Peace Conference. And, the later, reborn Poland
will still have to contend with threats from the East (Russia), and the West (Germany) throughout
the 20th century. You need to remember this to understand current
priorities and concerns Poland
has today vis a vis both of these neighbors. (see Prussian
Frederick the Great's description of the partition)
GO TO CHAPTER
THREE
BACK TO CHAPTER
ONE
BACK TO UNIT NINE
PAGE
