¹ Gilison, Jerome M., ‘Soviet Elections as a Measure of Dissent: the Missing One Per Cent’, American Political Science Review, LXII (1968), 814–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² See, for example, Lane, D., Politics and Society in the USSR (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968), pp. 146–57Google Scholar; Jacobs, Everett M., ‘Soviet Local Elections: What They Are, and What They Are Not’, Soviet Studies, XXII (1970), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ See, for example, Swearer, Howard R., ‘The Functions of Soviet Local Elections’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, V (1961), 129–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It might be indicative of changing attitudes that the Nuffield study of the election of February 1974 placed the function of democratic participation in elections above that of choosing a government. Butler, D. and Kavanagh, D., The British General Election of February 1974 (London: Macmillan, 1974), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ It is admittedly difficult to establish criteria that do more than point to interesting similarities and differences between members of different political families. A stimulating exercise of this sort is Gilison, Jerome M., British and Soviet Politics: Legitimacy and Convergence (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972).Google Scholar A more questionable comparison between Indian and Polish party-systems is Kothari, R. and Wiatr, Jerzy J., ‘Systemy Partyjne a Pluralizm Polityczny; Porownania między India a Polska’, Studia Socjologiczno-Polityczne, XXV (Warsaw, 1968), 177–88.Google Scholar The parallel with Tanzania often offends Poles and Polish specialists but should be perfectly understandable to political scientists. See Hyden, Goran and Leys, Colin, ‘Elections and Politics in Single-Party Systems: the Case of Kenya and Tanzania’, British Journal of Political Science, 11 (1972), 389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Hough, J., ‘Political Participation in the Soviet Union’, Soviet Studies, XXVIII (1976), 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rigby, T. H., ‘Hough on Political Participation in the Soviet Union’, Soviet Studies, XXVIII (1976), 257–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Little, D. R., ‘Mass Political Participation in the US and the USSR’, Comparative Political Studies, VIII (1976), 437–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Even as unpromìsing a subject as Husak's Czechoslovakia has produced a study throwing additional light on the Communist political process. See Dinka, F. and Skidmore, M. J., ‘The Functions of Communist One-Party Elections: Czechoslovakia 1971’, Political Science Quarterly, LXXXVIII (1973), 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ See the comprehensive examination by Pelczyńtski, Zbigniew, ‘Poland 1957’ in Butler, D., ed., Elections Abroad (London: Macmillan, 1959).Google Scholar

⁸ Wiatr, J. J., ‘The Hegemonic Party-System in Poland’, in Studies in the Polish Political System (Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1967), pp. 108–23.Google Scholar

⁹ Wiatr, J. J., ‘Elections and Voting Behaviour in Poland’, in Ranney, A., ed., Essays on the Behavioural Study of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), p. 239.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Pelczyński, , ‘Poland 1957’, p. 176.Google ScholarPelczyński, (p. 119)Google Scholar defines two types of Communist election: (1) ‘Civil War’ elections of the early stage when one or more parties independent of the Communists still competed for power, but were defeated by means which included gerrymandering, rigging and terro as happened in the Polish election of 1947, (2) the subsequent elections which ‘legitimize the revolution’ and secure for the regime a stamp of popular approval. This second category is now clearly inadequate and we have therefore had to refine it.

¹¹ Skilling, H. G., ‘Group Conflict and Political Change’ in Johnson, C., ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970), pp. 215–34.Google Scholar

¹² State Electoral Commission communique, Monitor Polski, 3 11 1952.Google Scholar But even in 1952 there were probably some uncontrolled aspects: turn-out varied from 89·8 percent in Radzyń to 98·1 per cent in Szczecinek.

¹³ An example of this was Bierut, 's electoral biography, Kandydaci Ludu Warszawy do Sejmu (Warsaw: Stoleczny Komitet Frontu Narodowego, 1952), p. 14.Google Scholar

¹⁴ There are very few studies of the Polish electoral system. See Jarosz, Zdzislaw, System Wyborczy PRL (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, hereafter referred to as PWN, 1963)Google Scholar; also Patrzalek, A., Instytucje Prawa Wyborczego PRL (Warsaw: 1963).Google Scholar

¹⁵ For an introduction to the functioning of the Sejm see Sakwa, George, The Organization and Work of the Polish Sejm 1952–72 (CREES Discussion Paper, series RC/C No. 12: Birmingham University, 1976), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

¹⁶ VIII Plenum KC PZPR, 6–7 lutego 1971r (Warsaw: Książka i Wiedza, hereafter referred toas KiW, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Sadowski, M., System Partyjny PRL (Warsaw: KiW, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Sobolewski, M., ‘Electors and Representatives; A Contribution to the Theory of Representation’ in Pennock, R. J. and Chapman, J. W., eds., Representation (New York: Atherton Press, 1968), p. 106.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Jaroszyński, M.. ‘Reprezentatywność Rad Narodowych’, Państwo i Prawo, XV (1960), 3–20.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Wielgosz, J., ‘Zagadnienia charakteru i funkcji Frontu Jedności Narodu’, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Prace z Nauk Politycznych, no. 4 (Kraków, 1973).Google Scholar

²¹ The role of the PZPR in Polish politics is too huge a subject to be more than touched on here. It had a massive membership of 2,436,900 in July 1975. About 41 per cent were industrial workers, 13 per cent were connected with agriculture while the bulk of the remainder were professionals of one sort or another. See Rocznik Statystyczny 1976 (Warsaw: GUS, 1976), pp. 23–4.Google Scholar There is no adequate study of the PZPR but for the historical background to Polish Communism see Dziewanowski, M. K., The Communist Party of Poland: An Outline of History, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Consult Lewis, Paul G.. ‘The Politics of the Polish Peasantry: The Sociology of Political Party Organizations in the Polish Countryside’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Birmingham University, 1974).Google Scholar

²³ Rocznik Polityczny i Gospodarczy 1975 (Warsaw: PWE, 1976), p. 180.Google Scholar

²⁴ The Democratic Party has recently been very adequately examined in a Polish study which is a good indication of how much more meaningful, in Western terms, writing about politics is in Poland than in the other Communist states. See Winczorek, Piotr, Miejsce i Rola SD w Strukturze Politycznej PRL (Zagadnienia wybrane) (Warsaw: Epoka, 1975).Google Scholar

²⁵ Among the essential books on post-1956 Polish politics are: Bromke, Adam, Poland's Politics: Idealism v. Realism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Presss, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hiscocks, Richard, Poland: Bridge for the Abyss? (London: Oxford University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Staar, Richard F., Poland: The Sovietization of a Captive People (Baton Rouge: University of Louisiana Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Stehle, Hans-Jakob, Poland: The Independent Satellite (New York: Pall Mall Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Bromke, Adam and Strong, John W., eds., Gierek's Poland (New York: Praeger, 1973).Google Scholar

²⁶ Nowaczyk, J., ‘Front Jedności Narodu’ in Łopatka, A., ed., Organizacja Spotłeczeństwa Socjalistycznego w Polsce (Warsaw: PWN, 1971), pp. 54–9.Google Scholar

²⁷ The somewhat romanticized ‘Sejm memoirs’ of deputy Machejek, Wladyslaw, Poselskie potyczki (Kraków: 1970)Google Scholar provide numerous illustrations of the type of problems which constituents, particularly in the country areas, bring to their deputies and the sort of questions which are raised at political meetings. Although highly stylized, as befits their authorship by the editor of the weekly Zycie Literackie, they are nevertheless valuable at providing an insight into this often neglected aspect.

²⁸ Łopatka, A., ‘Demokracja i kierownicza rola PZPR’, Nowe Drogi, XXIII (1969), p. 94.Google Scholar (Nowe Drogi – ‘New Roads’ – is the PZPR's theoretical monthly.)

²⁹ Informacja o dzialalności Sejmu PRL. (IV kadencja 1965–1969) (Warsaw: Sejm Chancellory Publications, 1969), p. 94.Google Scholar

³⁰ The electoral law of October 1956 permitted up to a maximum of two thirds more candidates than seats to be registered. An amendment of 22 December 1960 reduced this figure to one half and made the registration of more candidates than seats an optional instead of a binding legal requirement. Gebert, S., ‘Prawo wyborcze po nowelizacji z 1960r.’, Państwo i Prawo, XVI (1961), 487–96.Google Scholar

³¹ Triska, J., ed., Constitutions of the Communist Party-States (Stanford: Hoover Institute Publications, 1968), p. 346.Google Scholar

³² Ionescu, Ghita's contention in his Politics of the European Communist States (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), pp. 60–3Google Scholar that the slimming down of the nomenklatura, or of its equivalent in Eastern Europe, denotes a lessening of its importance in maintaining the Communist monopoly of power has been pertinently challenged by Harasymiw, B., ‘Nomenklatura; the Soviet Communist Party's leadership recruitment system’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 11 (1969), 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ PZPR seats varied from 273 in 1952, to 239 in 1957 and 261 in 1976. The Peasant Party had its seats increased from ninety in 1952 to 118 in 1957 and 113 in 1976. The Democratic Party had twenty-five in 1952 and thirty-seven to thirty-nine subsequently. There were thirty-seven non-party deputies in 1952, fifty-five in 1957 and thirty-nine subsequently while Gierek increased their numbers to forty-nine. This category, since 1961, has normally included thirteen Catholic deputies, five of whom belonged to Znak, the largely independent and occasionally critical ginger-group.

³⁴ In Poland, unlike the USSR, leaders are only nominated in one constituency. See Reshetar, J., The Soviet Polity (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1971), p. 157.Google Scholar

³⁵ Jacobs, Everett, ‘The Composition of Local Soviets 1959–69’, Government and Opposition, VII (1972), 503–19, p. 504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ The most dramatic case of such a veto in 1976 was that of Franciszek Szlachcic who had earlier been dropped from the PZPR Politburo and Central Committee.

³⁷ Sakwa, George, ‘The Role of Parliament in a Communist Political System: the Polish Sejm 1952–1972’ (Ph.D. dissertation, London University, 1974), table 11, p. 192.Google Scholar

³⁸ A similar distinction in the types of Soviet deputies has been discerned by Hill, Ronald J., ‘Continuity and Change in USSR Supreme Soviet elections’, British Journal of Political Science, 11 (1972), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Turnover of deputies is remarkably high by Western standards: 82 per cent in 1957, 53 per cent in 1961, 38 percent in 1965, 43 per cent in 1969, 63 per cent in 1972 and 54 per cent in 1976. Thus in 1957, 377 new deputies were elected compared with eighty-two sitting members. In 1976, 246 were new deputies while only eighty-seven survived Gierek's accession to power. See ‘Report of the Rules and Credentials Committee’, Trybuna Ludu, 29 03 1976.Google Scholar (Trybuna Ludu – ‘Tribune of the People’ – is the official PZPR national daily newspaper.)

⁴⁰ See Jarosz, Z., ‘Zglaszanie kandytatów w systemie wyborczym PRL’, Problemy Rad Narodowych, No. 4 (Warsaw, 1965), p. 88Google Scholar and Pelczyński, , ‘Poland 1957’, section IV.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The 1956 electoral law did not rule out the submission of more than one list. ‘The question of the single or the multi-list system is not a legal but a political matter par excellence: a People's Democracy, and thus a state which is accomplishing the demands of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, adopts whatever measures are most suitable for the building of socialism in any given period.’ Gebert, , ‘Prawo wyborcze po nowelizacji z 1960r.’, p. 491.Google Scholar

⁴² Wiatr, Jerzy J., ‘Niektóre zagadnienia opinii publicznej w świetle wyborów 1957 i 1958r’, Studia-Socjologiczno-Polityczne, no. 4 (Warsaw, 1959), p. 102.Google Scholar

⁴³ Gebethner, S., Jarosz, Z. and Popkowski, W., System Organów Państwowych w PRL (Warsaw: KiW, 1968), p. 77.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Gebethner, , System Organów, p. 78.Google Scholar The exact precision of these figures need not be scoffed at. The cumulative totals seem to indicate the right sort of proportions.

⁴⁵ In 1976 Stanistaw Stomma, one of the most noted Znak deputies, and the much-respected non-party ex-Chairman of the FJN, Professor Janusz Groszkowski, were clearly blackballed by the Gierek leadership because of their opposition in the Sejm to parts of the proposed new constitution.

⁴⁶ Rowiński, P., ‘Wybory do Sejmu PRL 1957–69’ (unpublished Master's thesis, Institute of State-Law and Political Institutions, Warsaw, 1970), pp. 55–62.Google Scholar PAX candidates are proposed by its Presidium while its General Executive Committee fulfils a similar function for the CSU. Znak has used a fifteen- to twenty-strong Interregional Committee to represent differing viewpoints. In practice its newspaper Tygodnik Powszechny has usually nominated two candidates, its periodical Wię one and the Intelligentsia Club in Warsaw another.

⁴⁷ The latter are referred to as niemandatowe in Polish usage. Translated literally this word means ‘not carrying elected status’.

⁴⁸ Dmoch, T. and Szadurski, E., Sejm PRL (Warsaw: KiW, 1969), p. 41.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The by-election result produced a 98·92 per cent vote for the National Unity Front on a 87·48 per cent turn-out. In a straight run-off against a single opponent, the previous ‘bottom of the list’ candidate Z. Gertych was elected with 61·86 per cent of the poll. Monitor Polski, 20 03 1957, position 147.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Pelczyński, , ‘Poland 1957’, p. 171.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Bihari, O., Socialist Representative Institutions (Budapest: Akademia Kiado, 1970).Google Scholar

⁵² Wiatr, , ‘Niektóre zagadnienia opinii publicznej’, pp. 162 ff.Google Scholar

⁵³ Jarosz, , System wyborczy PRL, Chap. 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Unlike British anomalies such as Newcastle Central with 25,000 electors to Meriden's 96,380 in February 1974. On this see Bromhead, Peter, ‘Malrepresentation of the People’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXIX (1976), 7–26.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Criddle, Byron, ‘Distorted Representation in France’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXVIII (1975). 154–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Judgements across political families can be misleading but the tendency to compartmentalize can also reinforce artificial distinctions and keep alive out-dated conceptions.

⁵⁶ Trybuna Ludu, 23 03 1976, p. 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ In the 1976 election it was claimed that a fantastic total of 23,206,770 people out of an electorate of 24,061,579 actually checked the registers in the fifteen- to twenty-two-day period before the election. See Trybuna Ludu, 23 03 1976, p. 1.Google Scholar These figures are misleading as a single person usually checks the register on behalf of his whole family and party activists do so on behalf of the remainder. The utility of this exercise has been questioned, particularly as there have been local instances when the percentage checking the register has been higher than the subsequent turnout on polling day. Gebert, S., ‘Problematyki wyborów do Rad Naro-dowych’, Problemy Rad Narodowych, no. 7 (Warsaw, 1966), pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Gilison, , ‘Soviet Elections as a Measure of Dissent’, p. 816.Google Scholar See also Jacobs, , ‘Soviet Local Elections’, p. 70, on this point.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Schapiro, Leonard, The Government and Politics of the Soviet Union (London: Hutchinson, 1967), p. 108.Google Scholar In purely quantitative terms large numbers are involved in the running of Polish elections. In 1969, for example, 144,625 citizens participated in 17,521 District Electoral Commissions.

⁶⁰ Wiatr, , ‘Niektóre zagadnienia’, p. 166.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Costello, Michael, ‘Political prospects’, Survey, XVII (1971), 53–73.Google Scholar

⁶² State Electoral Commission communique, Trybuna Ludu, 21 03 1972.Google Scholar Among other indicators is the fact that the highest vote for a ‘bottom of the list’ candidate now rose to 9·4 per cent in Tarnów.

⁶³ For the background to Polish developments in this period see: Bromke, Adam, ‘A New Political Style’, Problems of Communism, XXI (09–10, 1972), 1–19Google Scholar; Dean, Robert W., ‘Gierek's Three Years: Retrenchment and Reform’, Survey, XX (1974), 59–75Google Scholar; Sakwa, George, ‘Gierek's Poland’, European Review, XXII (Autumn, 1972), 22–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Steele, J., ‘Gierek's Lieutenants suffer blow to their esteem’, Guardian, 22 03 1972.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Margueritte, Bernard in Le Monde, 19–20 03 1972, p. 4.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Taras, Ray, ‘Democratic Centralism and Polish Local Government Reforms’, Public Administration, LIII (1975), 403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the most trenchant Polish commentary see Sokolewicz, Wojciech, ‘Aktualne kierunki zmian w strukturze i działalności organów przedstawicielskich’, Problemy Rad Narodowych, XXV (1973), 53–147.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For example, the press opened its columns to the views of ordinary citizens as well as experts on the question of whether it was better to build a larger number of small flats in the immediate future rather than a smaller number of larger flats. Rather interestingly a public opinion poll carried out on the basis of readers sending in a coupon produced the result that 84 per cent of 2,443 respondents preferred a smaller number of larger and better quality dwellings. See Polityka (Warsaw), 30 10 1971.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Bromke, , Poland's Politics: Idealism v. Realism, Chap. 13.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Lane, David and Kolankiewicz, George, eds., Social Groups in Polish Society (London: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 302–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ See Pirages, D. C., Modernization and Political-Tension Management: A Socialist Society in Perspective: Case-Study of Poland (London: Praeger, 1972).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Skilling, H. G., The Governments of Communist Eastern Europe (New York: Crowell, 1966), pp. 130–4.Google Scholar

⁷² Trybuna Ludu, 14 01 1957Google Scholar; cited in Pelczyński, ‘Poland 1957’, p. 160.Google Scholar

⁷³ Sharlet, Robert S., ‘Concept formation in political science and communist studies: conceptualizing political participation’ in Fleron, F., ed., Communist Studies and the Social Sciences (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969), 244–53.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Little, , ‘Mass Political Participation in the US and USSR’, p. 453.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Skilling, , ‘Group Conflict and Political Change’, pp. 222–9.Google Scholar