The Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture in Poland is one of the most successful—and reviled—conservative NGOs in Europe. Conducting research, legal analysis, and most recently venturing into the field of education, it has inspired many other organizations, both in Poland and across Europe. Naturally, because of its important work on behalf of Western civilization, it has been repeatedly targeted by left-wing organizations and the mainstream media—especially as its influence has grown. We recently caught up with the president of its board, Jerzy Kwaśniewski, for the following interview.
What is the core purpose of Ordo Iuris—in Poland and in Europe? What is your vision?
We are reintroducing into public discourse a traditional model of politics—based on the rational effort to implement just laws and policies for the common good. Building on the fragile (and rather treacherous) foundations of a liberal constitutional system, we seek to reinvigorate the pre-modern notion of ‘legal culture’—from the Latin cultura, which means cultivation. This legal culture emphasizes the importance of the natural law, which needs to be discovered through rational analysis—and then be allowed to develop organically in society, rather than be imposed by governments.
Since most of us in Ordo Iuris are lawyers, we utilize some of the old liberal dogmas that still manage to provide some ‘shelter’ against the irrational postmodern ideologies of today. Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and of religion, the democratic organization of society, the rule of law: we think all these ideals should be used to oppose the revolutionary waves currently undermining human dignity, promoting death instead of life, and vice instead of virtue.
What about partnerships?
Ordo Iuris concluded years ago that we would not succeed if we acted solely on national ground. So we decided to go beyond Poland and build alliances with like-minded organizations in Europe and the United States. This secured our position at the international level, alongside other organizations that are outspoken in the defense of inalienable rights and that are active in resisting the dangerous effort to codify an abstract ‘human rights’ internationally. This is also why Ordo Iuris decided to obtain consultative status at the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)—and, together with other partners, we recently established the first full-time conservative European representation to the UN in New York.
One of Ordo Iuris’ strengths has always been legal analysis and a high level of jurisprudential thinking, combined with activism and education. Is this enough to successfully stop the cultural revolution in the West? What else is needed?
Bluntly speaking, we need more resources, more people, and … more resources. There is a small group of conservative organizations seeking to oppose the wealthy liberal global players, but this latter group is well financed by governments and powerful philanthropists. All of our work, in contrast, is done without public funding. We operate solely with the support of private donors. This same left-wing global cartel uses every possible tool to secure its dominance in international policymaking. Three months ago, for example, International Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA), and many others petitioned the European Commission to exclude Ordo Iuris from national monitoring committees that evaluate the utilization of EU funding. Their argument was simply that Ordo Iuris was not a ‘proper’ NGO!
So, I would say that our reach and impact on the various international revolutionary processes is limited only by our scarce resources, which are financial and human. If we could not count on the strong network of like-minded NGOs worldwide that provide us with stability—independently from the political cycles—our efforts would not prevail against the massive campaigns that are routinely being waged against us by powerful left-wing activists, think-tanks, and the mainstream media. It’s worth adding that, despite having only been founded ten years ago, Ordo Iuris has already succeeded in improving the legal protections of life and family in Poland, and we have had an important influence on key decision-making processes. (I want to note the similar achievement of several Hungarian NGOs, which have helped form the backbone of Hungary’s now world-famous ‘conservative revival’ model.) Of course, following such successes, Ordo Iuris was condemned in various European Parliament resolutions and mentioned in numerous reports peddled by liberal watchdog groups.
Nevertheless, it is our belief that after years of dominance, the Left is quite ill-prepared to face the rise of effective, professional, and conservative NGOs equipped with proper resources and people. This is our opportunity—and we are working hard to seize it.
At the international and supranational level, there are many entities that push what John Fonte of the Hudson Institute calls “transnational progressivism.” Do we on the Right need our own supranational or transnational organizations to push back against it—or can effective resistance be offered from the national level, as Poland, Hungary, and others have demonstrated?
Healthy local resistance stands little chance against a concerted global push funded by billionaire donors and multinational corporations. What works for the Left will probably work for the Right—albeit with a few key differences. While the Left organizes its ideological and idealist doctrines in a top-down approach, the realist Right is developing its own policies and networks in a bottom-up fashion.
Unlike the Open Society Foundation, for example, we do not advocate planting clones of Ordo Iuris in different parts of the world. Instead, we analyze needs and respond to them locally, through a global network of support which allows for the development of strong and independent local organizations. If a society has already given birth to NGOs that are lobbying for the natural order and natural rights, what we want to do is support them and share our expertise.
As it grows, we hope this network will develop the capacity to exert increasing international influence. Currently we have strong allies at the national level in Europe and America. We are now developing networks in Africa, India, and Israel. The aim is to have the professional global capacity to face the global players on the Left in their own fields and arenas—in the UN, Brussels, and Strasbourg, for example.
Many conservatives have given up on the idea of a ‘Gramscian takeover’ of our institutions. Instead, some have advocated a retreat from the field of battle, abandoning the public square, and forming ‘resistance communities’ of our own. Others have suggested we create and build our own networks, our own institutions, in order to circumvent the ruling class and its apparatus. What do you see as the most effective approach?
Once again, there is no single and proper approach. We are realistic. Conservatives should advocate for solutions that are ambitious but achievable. It was achievable to provide almost full protection for unborn children in Poland; in other countries, it would be a success simply to lower the level of abortions by 40%, as has occurred in Hungary. But on a strategic level, we need to form new generations of independent but conservative thinkers, capable of taking critical approaches to modern ideologies.
We need to take over institutions where it is still possible. Major public cultural institutions in Poland—like some key modern art galleries—are already managed by classical conservatives like Janusz Janowski and Piotr Bernatowicz. So, to choose the ‘Benedict Option’ and retreat from institutions would be to surrender to a weakening enemy.
At the same time, we must foster the growth of new institutions, especially where old ones have been destroyed or have fallen under full control of revolutionary neo-Marxists. Where possible, we need to build infrastructure and institutions—owned by NGOs, lay religious organizations, and private persons—that aim to establish strong foundations for the development of an organic society that is independent from state influence and state subsidies. Unfortunately, very few politicians understand the urgent need to re-establish a conservative institutional infrastructure that will make it possible to influence society—and the state—in this time of leftist political domination.
Admittedly, this is a Central European—or ‘Intermarium’—perspective that stems from a society that is still strongly religious and grounded in the objective nature of the world and our reality. The majority of average people still reject abstract and irrational concepts like gender fluidity, believe in basic inalienable freedoms rooted in human nature, and fundamentally support the protection of unborn life.
On the international level, new cooperative projects are already emerging. Our recently founded university, Collegium Intermarium, is one such example. In time, it will gather international partners who will cooperate with it and help lead the institution in the wholesale re-introduction of classical education in order to form international lawyers, politicians, philosophers, and businessmen. The Alliance for the Common Good, an initiative established by Ordo Iuris and various international partners, is yet another example of such cooperation.
Looking ahead, as conservative—and, thus, realistic—ideas enter the mainstream, more international legal instruments and intergovernmental institutions will be formed. Imagine the day when an international ‘Council on Family Policy’ advises the governments of the world! Or when the Visegrád Council of European Law issues statements on the compliance of EU law with the established treaties—thereby opposing the tendency of EU bureaucrats to widen the scope of their power beyond what was granted to them in the original treaties.
If there is a hope for the EU, it is in taking a few steps back and restoring the priority of nations-states. Democracy can only effectively fulfil its purpose and legitimise governance in a society composed of individuals who consciously decide to belong to the political community. In Europe, the only communities that provide this level of responsibility for the common good are nation-states.
One of the tools used by EU bureaucrats against dissenting voices like those of Poland and Hungary is to accuse them of violating the rule of law. You’ve said their evidence is paltry and their reasoning flawed. How would you explain to the public why the EU’s accusations are empty or frivolous?
Poland’s love of freedom and respect for democracy were strong enough to defeat communist authoritarianism—by building consensus and dialogue under the welcome and watchful eye of the Church. There is today no threat that, 30 years after the restoration of our independence, our democracy—and the ‘natural conditions’ of our nation, which date back to the 16th century—will somehow deteriorate. Rather, we have in front of us a different problem—that of a neo-colonial attitude towards new members of the EU.
The Treaty on the European Union declares the importance of respect for the equality of the member states and their distinctive national identities, and their diverse individual political and constitutional structures. And the EU embraced “united in diversity” as its motto. Nevertheless, the EU has steadily drifted into the role of a centralising ‘superstate,’ one that seems inspired by the murky visions of the revolutionary and totalitarian “Ventotene Manifesto” of Altiero Spinelli—the worst representative of the ‘founding fathers.’
Since the year 2000, EU bureaucrats—relying mainly on the provisions of the subsequently adopted Lisbon Treaty—have been attempting to weaponize the doctrine of the rule of law. The weaponization of unwritten international principles has been advancing, and more and more power has been taken away from individual member states, usurped by unelected officials in Brussels and by members of the European Parliament—who are not subject to any democratic control.
What is the biggest challenge before us? Is it the frontline battle being waged around marriage, the family, religion? Or is it the war for the hearts, minds, and bodies of our children? And what do we do about it?
Every generation has the feeling that they are in a final and decisive battle. For centuries, the same danger of idealism—in various guises— has descended upon us every few decades. It seduces crowds with attractive simplicity, collides with reality, and even results in bloody attempts to overcome the natural law, only to eventually fail. But each and every time, realism and Christianity have provided a secure path to freedom in the re-established community. Our actions today will determine how quickly the current false ideologies collapse—and how many victims they will take before the next revival comes.
Today, we identify marriage, family, personal freedoms, and human life and dignity all as central points in this conflict because they are the remaining bastions of realism. They are the last natural institutions that can provide shelter against the ideologies that are colonizing the institutions and legal systems of an increasingly totalitarian state. To successfully defend these natural institutions, we need a change of hearts and minds. We need to return to a traditional anthropology—one that recognizes the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul, embraces our reality as the true measure and reflection of valid ideas, and posits the existence of objective criteria for the pursuit of truth.
