“The worst is already behind us,” General Jaruzelski announced in parliament on July 21, 1983, as he justified the lifting of martial law. He was actually referring to the economic situation, but his words can also be interpreted more generally. For the governing clique and its numerous supporters, the entire period after August 1980 was “bad,” and certainly “worse” than what had preceded it. In its very existence, Solidarity was undermining the status quo and posing a threat to the position of entire social groups: the party functionaries and a large portion of the state administration, members of the security apparatus and militia, and those in the professional army. They had a growing sense of being personally under threat. The rigors of martial law could not immediately alleviate all these fears. For many months, Solidarity had been trying to force the government to make concessions and negotiate. Street clashes, calls for strikes, distribution of flyers, anti-government graffiti, a selective boycott of state institutions, and conspicuous displays of religious participation accompanied these efforts. Solidarity's opponents and those who were indifferent to the union perceived the fact that the government did not yield under this pressure as a positive thing, while the lifting of martial law demonstrated that stability and order were beginning to return to Poland.

In his speech, First Secretary Jaruzelski did not clearly outline any tasks for the future. He did say, however, that a matter of “primary” importance was “to meet the material and cultural needs of society.” He believed that this could be achieved by “perfecting” the existing system through “more complete utilization of production assets” and “better management of labor resources.” These limitations stemmed from a phenomenon aptly described by sociologist Mirosława Marody: “people who support reform are against the government, and those who support the government are against reform.” To some extent, the signs of improvement over the course of 1983 did play a role; it seemed that, since the crisis had begun to abate, there was no longer any need to introduce changes. Although the country's economic situation played a fundamental role in legitimizing the system, the government's legal validity did not depend solely on how much meat was on the table.