1
Influence of Former Political Borders on Election Results in Poland
Marek Barwinski Department of Political Geography
University of Lodz, Poland marbar@geo.uni.lodz.pl
Lack of authentic elections in Poland during the communist period after Second World
War prevented researches in a field of electoral geography. This situation has totally changed
after 1989 when, following the democratization of political life, the real election in Poland as
well as the researches in that field, have become possible (Kowalski 2000, 2003, Rykiel 2004,
Sobczynski 2000, Zarycki 1997, 2003, Zukowski 2003).
Starting from the first democratic election in pre-war Poland in 1989, up to the most
recent one in 2005, one can easily notice very specific geographic variation in the support for
different political parties. This variation, which proved to be very persistent, is clearly related
to the course of former state borders from the partition period in the 19th century and in the
interwar period. It is also affected by distribution of national, ethnic and religious minorities
(Kowalski 2000, 2003, Szul 2003).
This paper analyzes spatial diversification of electoral preferences using the example of
three elections:
- the second round of 1995 presidential election between Kwasniewski and Walesa;
- the EU referendum in 2003;
- the second round of 2005 presidential election between Kaczynski and Tusk;
Those elections were characterized by very even results, which have clearly and
characteristically divided Polish society. Despite the fact, that in those analyzed elections the
final choice was made between different options –the Left versus the Right, pro-European
versus anti-European and conservative versus liberal respectively, the vote distribution was
much the same in every case. Through the last several years most of the inhabitants from the
individual regions is voting in the same way. The boundary of the electoral preferences
usually do not cross the historical regions, but invariably cover former political borders. In the
individual elections the voters from the former Austrian, Russian and Prussian annexed
territories exhibit different electoral preferences, which also differ from that in the territories
incorporated into Poland after Second World War. Although this borders were marked out
almost 200 years ago and in political sense they have not existed for several dozen years (in
some parts for almost 90 years), they still constitute permanent culture, social and mental
2
borders that obviously reflect the electoral preferences, which results in a characteristic
‘crack’of Poland in each next elections.
The 2nd
round of presidential elections in 1995, between Kwasniewski and Walesa was the
most competitive elections in Poland after 1990 and the most spectacular electoral battle
between leftist and rightist options. It brought the surprising defeat of Walesa (the legend of
the ‘Solidarity’movement) and clear electoral division of Poland (fig. 1).
Bydgoszcz
Szczecin
Koszalin
Slupsk
Gdansk
Elblag
Olsztyn
Suwalki
BialystokLomza
Ostroleka
Ciechanów
Siedlce
Biala Podl.
Chelm
Lublin
ZamoscTarnobrzeg
Rzeszów
Przemysl
KrosnoNowy Sacz
Tarnów
Kraków
Kielce
Radom
Warszawa
Skierniewice
Piotrków Tryb.
Czestochowa
Katowice
Opole
Sieradz
Lódz
Konin
Kalisz
Wroclaw
Plock
Wloclawek
Torun
Pila
Poznan
Leszno
Gorzów Wlkp.
Zielona Góra
Legnica
Walbrzych
Jelenia Góra
Bielsko Biala
%50 70 7560
Voivodships, in which
Walesa
Kwasniewski
77
partition
inter-war
Borders:
victory was won by:
Fig. 1. Results of the second round of 1995 presidential election between
Kwasniewski and Walesa
Walesa has won outright victory in the former Austrian annexed territory (Galicia) and in
his home city of Gdansk, furthermore, although less markedly, he won in industrialized
regions of southern Poland and also in north-eastern part of Mazovia (fig. 1). A substantial
victory in Galicia was caused by democratic sympathies of inhabitants (noticeable in all
elections also in the interwar period), their patriotism, autochthonism and conservatism as its
consequence, attachment to tradition, land, strong local relations and the very strong influence
3
of the Catholic Church. The combination of those elements led Walesa to the victory. Largely
it was a consequence of Austrian rules in Galicia in the 19th
century, among others due
political, linguistic and cultural autonomy and also Habsburgs’support for the Catholic
Church. The north-eastern Mazovia is also the most numerous concentrations of lesser
nobility descendants, who inherited traditional patriotic and democratic attitude (Kowalski
2000, Sobczynski 1993, 1996).
Kwasniewski had decidedly won in the territories incorporated into Poland after Second
World War (‘regained territories’), especially in Pomerania and in former East Prussia, but
also in the Prussian annexed territory and –only in the 2nd
round of elections –in the most
part of Russian annexed territory which is central and East Poland (fig. 1). The ‘regained
territories’inhabitants distinctly differ from inhabitants of Austrian and Russian annexed
territory as to their origins and socio-professional structure, and those differences cause the
domination of leftist political views. It is the population, which after Second World War has
been uprooted from territories of today’s West Ukraine and Belarus, and majority of them are
living here only from two or three generations, which largely explains the lack of tradition,
regionalism and the weak influences of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the local
countryside looks much different, dominated by large state rural farms that employ agrarian
wage-labour. Although today this population is living in West Poland, in terms of origins it is
related to former East territories, which causes vital differences in culture, traditions and
customs (Kowalski 2000, 2003, Szul 2003). Large part of this population reminisce
communist period with nostalgia, as a time of relative stabilization and social safety and also,
which is very important, associate this period with their own social and financial promotion.
However the decisive factor for the elections results was Kwasniewski’s victory in former
Russian annexed territory, where the large part of especially indigent and poorly educated
population, was disappointed with economic changes introduced a few years earlier, which
reduced their standard of living. For this population the economic factors were more
important then history and policy. Moreover voters of defeated candidates in the 1st
round
have usually given their votes to Kwasniewski in the 2nd
round.
Kwasniewski received 51.7% votes, whereas Walesa got 48.3%. Voting participation
amounted to 68.2% and was the highest since the fall of the communist system in Poland.
During the EU referendum, in June 2003, once again the voting tendencies were clearly
reflecting the former political divisions (fig. 2). The most anti-union votes were among
inhabitants of central and East Poland that is the former Russian annexed territory. All
administrative districts where the population was against joining the EU are located in this
4
region of Poland, especially in its eastern part. That was caused among others by large
participation of rural population, which is attached to the land, tradition, catholic religion, that
is very conservative, full of anxiety and mistrust towards changes and the ‘others’
(‘strangers’). Moreover the inhabitants of this region, especially in its eastern section, have in
majority rightist views, and some rightist parties before referendum were against Poland’s
access into EU. Furthermore, the ultra-catholic broadcasting station ‘Radio Mariah’, very
influential among the rural population, pointedly urged to vote against the accession.
%50 60 70 80 85
partition
inter-war
Borders:
Fig. 2. Results of the EU referendum in 2003
Opposite to this, the support for EU accession was considerably larger in former Austriaoccupied
territories (Galicia) and, even more markedly, in former Prussian sector of
partitioned Poland. This can be explained in terms of positive experiences – especially
economic – of contacts with West Europe, among others with Germany and Austria. Of
certain importance here was also much lesser influence of the Catholic Church on the territory
of former protestant Prussia.
5
However the most striking result of referendum was strong support for EU accession
voiced by the inhabitants of West and North Poland, that is ‘regained territories’, where about
85% of the electorate have voted for EU integration (fig. 2). The inhabitants of Silesia,
Pomerania, and former East Prussia turned out to be the most pro-union part of Poland’s
society. These are much differentiated regions – both rich and poor, industrialized and
typically rural, that border upon Germany and the Czech Republic, but also upon Russia.
What they have in common is total population replacement after Second World War.
Consequently, the inhabitants are all immigrants: 1st
, 2nd
and 3rd
generations after the shift.
Migrations that took place 60 earlier represented for those people enormous changes, which
brought about social and financial promotion. The inhabitants of those regions are definitely
more open to changes, less conservative and more receptive then in other regions of Poland,
which was reflected in the results of the EU referendum (Zakowski 2003). Furthermore,
among the inhabitants of West and North Poland, sympathizers of leftist and liberal parties
predominate and those groups univocally voted for the integration.
Apart from former political borders and political sympathies –the differentiation of the
referendum results depended on urbanization level (especially in large cities some 85-90%
citizens voted for EU integration), as well as distribution of national minorities, for example
Belorussians in Podlasie and Germans in Opole region (fig. 2). In expectation of some
advantages, the minorities predominantly voted for the accession.
The final referendum results were 77% for accession, 23% against it, and the participation
reached 59%. Such a remarkable superiority of integration supporters is largely a result of
markedly lower voting participation in the regions where the union-opponents prevailed.
All elections in Poland after 1989 were dominated by conflict between leftist versus
rightist options, which largely depend on historical rather than ideological factors (Kowalski
2003). Presidential elections in 2005 were the firs ones in which the main division was
between liberal and conservative option and the main candidates were descended from anticommunism
opposition. It was caused by a drastic decline in popularity of leftist wing after
their rules in 2001-2005 and also by withdrawing the leftist candidate before elections.
Kaczynski, the conservative candidate, strongly supported by catholic media, have
decisively won in the regions of former Austrian (Galicia) and Russian annexed territories,
especially in the countryside (fig. 3). Characteristically, he achieved the largest support in
those regions, where the opposition against Poland’s accession to EU in the referendum held
two years earlier was the strongest (fig. 2, 3). The population of Galicia and Mazovia
(especially its eastern section) is characterized by strong attachment to tradition as well as
6
patriotic and religious values, and that is the reason why Kaczynski, who proclaim
conservative, national and –first of all - social slogans achieved here substantial superiority.
Of great importance here was also the support of the Catholic Church for Kaczynski,
additionally enhanced by sharp criticism of the church towards liberal ideas proclaimed by his
opponent. The victory in the 2nd
round in central Poland and in the eastern part of former
Prussian annexed territory, guaranteed Kaczynski the support of other candidates that were
eliminated in the 1st
round and appealed to their electors for voting in favour of anti-liberal
Kaczynski (Kublik 2005).
partition
inter-war
Borders:
%
50 85%60
Tusk
Kaczynski
Districts, in which victory
was won by:
Fig. 3. Results of the second round of 2005 presidential election between
Kaczynski and Tusk
Tusk, the liberal candidate, won in all largest cities, in the western part of Prussian
annexed territories and also in the most of territories incorporated into Poland after Second
World War (fig. 3). Tusk’s victory in West and North Poland can be explained by lesser
attachment to tradition, lack of so called ‘roots’of inhabitants and weak Church influences.
7
That is the reason why the liberal slogans could receive here wider reception, which was also
confirmed by the results of previous parliamentary elections (Kowalski 2000, Kublik 2005).
However it seems that the traditional domination of leftist views here was a crucial factor. It
can be argued that so distinct declaring of inhabitants from ‘regained territories’for Tusk, was
more voting against Kaczynski then voting for the Liberal Tusk. Also representatives of
national and religious minorities (especially Orthodox Belorussians in Podlasie) were voting
for Tusk because they have been afraid of Kaczynski’s national-catholic slogans. It was then a
typical case of voting ‘against’.
Altogether Kaczynski received 54% of votes, Tusk 46%, with low voting participation of
51%. After 10 years, once again central Poland turned out to be the region that decided about
victory in presidential elections –in 1995 post-communist Kwasniewski brought off victory
there, and so did anti-communist Kaczynski in 2005. In both cases the successes should be
ascribed to pro-social economic slogans heralded by those two politicians, rather than their
political ideas, which were totally different.
In conclusion:
∑ The historical political divisions of the present-day territory of Poland strongly
influence electoral behaviours of inhabitants. On the electoral map of Poland one can
distinguish the areas that during the partition period were occupied by Russia, Austria
and Prussia, as well as areas incorporated into Poland after Second World War. The
political borders do not divide those lands from several dozen years, however mental
borders turn out to be persistent and remain clearly visible and, although most of the
inhabitants do not know the course of historical borders.
∑ The former borders and political divisions were visible during elections no matter
what main politico-ideological options were clashing during voting –the Left versus
the Right, pro and anti European, conservative versus liberal.
∑ The Catholic Church still has an important political role in Poland. It influence
election results, which is especially visible among the most conservative, traditional
and autochthonic population, particularly in the rural areas of Galicia, East Mazovia
and Podlasie, which are former Austrian and Russian territories.
∑ The former political divisions influence also the differences in the voting participation
–the highest is on the Prussian and Austrian annexed territories, the lowest on the
former Russia-occupied areas. It is explained by long-lasting parliamentary traditions,
8
typical of 19th
-century Austria and Prussia population, and also by a lack of such
traditions among inhabitants of former tsarist Russia (Kowalski 2000, 2003).
∑ Ethnically and religiously, Poland is highly homogeneous country. However
distribution of small national, ethnic and religious minorities is not without influence
on election results. Minority communities generally vote for leftist and liberal groups,
because in Polish reality rightist groups are univocally associated with Polish nation
and Catholicism. The most typical example of these behaviours is the region of East
Podlasie inhabited by Orthodox Belorussians, Cieszyn Silesia with Protestants and
Opole region with German minority (Kowalski 2000).
∑ The factor that makes difference in electoral behaviour is urbanization. There are
differences in voting patterns in urban areas (especially in large and medium-size
cities) and in the countryside, inhabited by 40% of Poland population. It is mainly
caused by lower education and living condition level of rural communities, stronger
influence of the Catholic Church, much stronger attachment to national-catholic
tradition, conservatism and distrust towards any changes.
∑ Historically conditioned regional differentiation, stemming from incorporation into
foreign countries in the past, is manifested in election results, but also in economic
development, infrastructure, wealth and education level. This is not, however, a
specific characteristic of Poland. Similar phenomena can be observed, for instance, in
Germany, Italy, Spain, Romania or Ukraine (Kowalski 2003, Szul 2003).
Bibliography:
1. Kowalski M., 2000, Geografia wyborcza Polski. Przestrzenne zróznicowanie preferencji zachowan
wyborczych Polaków w latach 1989-1998, Warsaw
2. Kowalski M., (ed.), 2003, Przestrzen wyborcza Polski,Warsaw
3. Kowalski M., 2003, Polaryzacja zachowan wyborczych w Polsce jako rezultat cywilizacyjnego rozdarcia
kraju [in:] Przestrzen wyborcza Polski, Warsaw, pp. 11-48
4. Kublik A., 2005, Kaczynski zdobyl srodek kraju[in:] „Gazeta Wyborcza”25.10.2005, pp. 2
5. Rykiel Z., 2004, Geografia wyborcza i problematyka wyborcza w Polsce [in:] „Czasopismo Geograficzne”
no. 75, vol. 4, pp. 275-296
6. Sobczynski M., 1993, Trwalosc dawnych granic panstwowych w krajobrazie kulturowym Polski, Warszawa
7. Sobczynski M., 1996, Królestwo Galicji i Lodomerii, czyli co dzieli polska przestrzen [in:] „Geografia w
szkole”, no. 3, pp. 164-167
9
8. Sobczynski M., 2000, Zróznicowanie przestrzenne postaw politycznych mieszkanców Lodzi, Lódz
9. Szul R., 2003, Wplyw uwarunkowan historycznych na zachowania wyborcze. Refleksje nad geografia
wyborcza Polski i Hiszpanii [in:] Przestrzen wyborcza Polski, Warsaw, pp. 49-56
10. Zarycki T., 1997, Nowa przestrzen spoleczno-polityczna Polski, Warsaw
11. Zarycki T., 2003, Polska przestrzen wyborcza w perspektywie modelu centrum-peryferie [in:] Przestrzen
wyborcza Polski, Warsaw, pp. 57-72
12. Zakowski J., 2003, Nowy rozbiór Polski, [in:] „Polityka”no. 25 (2406), 21.06.2003., pp. 32-33
13. Zukowski T., 2003, Wybory samorzadowe 2002 i referendum akcesyjne 2003 –perspektywa subregionów
[in:] Przestrzen wyborcza Polski, Warsaw, pp. 131-152