Petrolheadia wrote:In my opinion, Solidarity should have tried to get more of the seats given to them with their influence on Poles, but given how surprising the victory was to both sides and how the government controlled the army and police, I can easily say that such claims are of the "hindsight is 20/20" variety.
Of course, but as you say, hindsight is 20/20. It is similar to the transitions to civilian regimes in Latin America in the 1980's and the 1990's, with Brazil, Chile, and Argentina providing examples of different degrees of military autonomy and influence following their removal from office. The degree to which the military forces continued to influence politics, or evade persecution, depended largely on the conditions of their removal: Argentina faced serious economic troubles and had lost a largely unpopular war - the Falklands War - and was pretty much forced to surrender power to the civilians, with little to leverage. On the other, opposite side, the junta in Brazil did not have serious problems, and could negotiate from a position of advantage and supremacy, allowing themselves more privileges. In the middle sits Chile.
So, basically, it all depends on how actors view the power position and bargaining chips of the other side. As you correctly stated, the victory was considered to be a surprise, indicating a large amount of bargaining power on the PZPR, thus resulting in the PZPR retaining their influence. Of course, as we well know, they were eventually forced to give up all that power, but that's besides the point.