In the UK most political letters announcing the writer’s resignation say what they have to say, perhaps with a feigned or even real sentence or two of respect, then stop.

Some go into some vital policy detail, albeit in thinly coded and very general terms. See Geoffrey Howe’s letter to Margaret Thatcher and her reply.

Here’s a more recent but no less elegant elegant Conservative example from Graham Brady to David Cameron.

Some resignation letters say rather too much about the writer’s state of mind.

But in Poland they work on a grander scale.

Take this awesome recent missive from disgruntled but ambitious Andrzej Olechowski to Prime Minister Tusk:

Warsaw, 2 July 2009
Mr Donald Tusk
Chairman of the Civic Platform of the Republic of Poland

Dear Mr Chairman,

 
I wish to inform you that I have decided to hand in my resignation from the Civic Platform of the Republic of Poland.

I believe that we are both involved in politics not for the sake of trivial personal or collective interests but because we have a task to do. The task that I have taken on involves modernising Poland and developing liberal democracy. The current state of this project is worrying me seriously. Despite personal achievements brought off by millions of Poles, we are lagging far behind the modern centre. The Poles are still hostage to poor education, absurd economic laws, a makeshift infrastructure, an ineffective, biased and corrupt state apparatus, and an embarrassing political culture. Still worse, there is no strategic vision of our future. How do we want to keep pace with this world? What should Polish capitalism involve? How much state intervention should there be? What role do we want to play in the world? Politicians are not addressing these questions. In times of a deep economic crisis and elections to the European Parliament, no serious voices can be heard, a thing ! that is equally sad as embarrassing. Poland is not a solid high-speed train that moves along a proven track. Everything can happen to us – both good and bad things. It is not enough to administer Poland. It is necessary to lead it by setting patterns, recognising obstacles and arguing in favour of efforts to take up challenges.

It is necessary to restore the serious tone of political debates. We must shake off this overpowering shallowness and atmosphere of gamesmanship that dominate today’s endeavours. It is necessary to formulate new proposals and to make attempts to persuade people about them. I feel obliged to take up this challenge. The PO should be a natural place for such activity on my part. However, having given this matter careful consideration, I came to a conclusion that is very difficult to me: I cannot face up to this challenge in this party. Why? There are four reasons.

First of all, the PO has lost the character of a party that follows a political platform. When I was creating the PO with you and Maciej Plazynski, I hoped that this party would become a consistent leader in efforts to modernise Poland and the Poles and that it would lead us towards the centre of the modern world. I would like to reiterate that back then we regarded "the freedom of individuals and citizens together with their dignity, creativity and aspirations" as the greatest value. Our task was to "release the energy of the Poles," to help "Poland’s star shine brighter," and to "prevent the state apparatus from being concerned only with its own well-being!" Watching the transformations of the PO’s political platform, I have become increasingly embittered by the infamous alliance with the collectivists from Law and Justice [PiS], submission to the obsession with attempts to hold people accountable for the period of the Polish People’s Republic [communist-era Poland], the "dalliance" with the idea of the Fourth Polish Republic, the rumpus over [the Treaty of] Nice, approval for lower democratic standards, the abandonment of tax reform plans, indifference towards the degradation of the civil service, and so on. These fascinations and about-faces have led to efforts to look after the social advancement of the Poles being pushed aside together with ambitious education programmes and efforts to remove barriers to business and to cut taxes. Efforts to follow a political platform were made subordinate to political gamesmanship and rivalry with the PiS, a thing that completed this devastation. Just like many Poles, I cannot say what party the PO is now. I only know that it is not the PiS on this or that issue.

Secondly, the PO is no longer coherent. When I was helping create our political platform, I promised publicly that it would be formed by "a coherent community focused on the ideas and platform-related goals that bind its members together, not an ill-assorted group or a clever joint-venture formed to gain influence and power." Our party was said to be composed of "proven people who have demonstrated faithfulness to their principles on numerous occasions and proved their competence and responsibility not only in their words but also in their actions." I was not the only one who was stunned by the fact that Mr Marian Krzaklewski, who has come to symbolise resistance against openness and modernisation in Poland, had been invited to join the group of candidates to the European Parliament. And he is only one of many people whose views and political background have plunged the PO into a state of chaos, stripped it of credibility in my eyes, and added a touch of cynicism to this ! group, a thing that no reform-oriented party can afford.

Thirdly, the PO has become a party that represents the ruling establishment. When we were building it, we assured the Poles that it would differ from other parties, which "resemble multi-branch corporations with interests in all areas of social and economic life. They are consolidating their influence and managing the balance of interests at all levels of administration (from housing estate management offices to the Senate) and in all state-funded units – from health care funds, through theatres all the way to municipal cemeteries." Could we now provide a different description of the PO? Could we say that it is "different and better and is championing not its own interests but what represents the essence of a political party, namely efforts to implement its political platform in parliament"? Could we disagree with Mr Rafal Dutkiewicz [Wroclaw mayor], who claims that the PO representatives in "local governments regard the partisan apparatus, not voters, as the decisionmaker"? Primary elections, cooperation with social organizations and groups as well "light structures patterned on the US models" have all sunk into oblivion. The PO joined the infamous group of its predecessors, which politicised the state apparatus, confused private and public interests, and blatantly extended the nomenklatura.

There is no room for me or the task I have taken on in a chaotic and ambiguous party that represents the ruling establishment and is forgetting about its objectives and promises. Within such a party, it is impossible to reach agreement and implement ambitious modernization plans, strategically profound projects and initiatives that encroach upon the interests of important social groups. I will be unable to change such a party and this is the fourth reason [why I am leaving]. Opinions and proposals, no matter if they are voiced publicly or privately, do not help when there are no basic forms of internal debates and democratic procedures that allow conclusions to be drawn from such debates. And this is the case with the PO. Criticism and demands for changes are seen as a sign of personal ambitions, willingness to undermine the authority of the leadership or an intention to step into someone else’s shoes. I find the idea of becoming involved in this process repulsive.

These are the reasons for my decision. I am leaving the party I helped create with a heavy heart. However, I am not leaving the circles of people who brought the PO into existence. These are also my circles. I respect and like these people and treat them as my friends. Democrats and liberals, "independent and enterprising people with moderate and modern views, the intelligentsia and the young; people who understand the modern world, can use it and develop in a creative manner; people who appreciate the importance of a reasonable attachment to traditions and rules." I am not leaving these people. I am leaving a political party in order not to let them down, in order to voice our objections and dreams anew. I believe that I am doing this for the welfare of the Republic of Poland.

Blimey. One does rather get the impression that he is leaving.