The editorial ''The Walesa Question'' {June 26} gives a distorted view of the complex picture of Polish politics. It dismisses Lech Walesa as ''yesterday's man,'' ''personally detached'' and ''second-guessing from sidelines.'' It is amazing that such a detached person was the only one influential enough to settle the potentially dangerous railway strike last month. And ''yesterday's man'' could again be tomorrow's hero if industrial unrest once more erupts. Mr. Walesa was recently reelected head of the Solidarity labor union -- a two-thirds majority of the Citizens Committee membership has apparently not rejected his leadership, among whom are other ''political heavyweights.''

It is true that the people must decide how they should be ruled, but Mr. Walesa's calls for early parliamentary elections does not contradict this principle. In fact Poland is now the only country in Eastern Europe that has not staged fully democratic national elections. It is clear that Solidarity is splitting and changing. This is not necessarily a bad thing if it gives birth to a pluralistic political system where conflicting opinions can be voiced and differing solutions offered. This is what makes a real democracy, and Poland's future ultimately depends on it. AIMEE L. BRESLOW Washington A public dispute among prominent Polish Solidarity figures, highlighted in The Post {editorial, June 26 and Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, op-ed, June 29}, should not scare off anyone. It is an exercise of hard-won democracy. With a sigh of relief, the Poles, whose perseverance in the pro-democratic struggle has earned them worldwide recognition, can now free themselves from the sometimes uncomfortable unite-behind-the-leader imperative of the communist martial law period. Serious policy differences do not have to be resolved during secret meetings of the underground movement any more.

Mr. Evans and Mr. Novak suggest that a disagreement between Lech Walesa and his critics "won't help foreign investment," but I am confident that American businessmen and women can distinguish between anarchy and democratization.

Every country that gains, or regains, its independence debates its past, present and future. Every democratic society occasionally lives through spectacular political realignments. Emotional debates, huge rallies, marches, even widespread strikes happen and do not necessarily destabilize democracies in North America and Western Europe. Every nation consists of individuals of various political orientations. Why should Poland be different?

I emigrated from Poland in 1981, and I know the country is full of skilled blue-collar workers and educated, creative professionals looking for sensible employers. This to any prospective foreign investors should be more important than Mr. Walesa's personal ambitions. MARCIN ZMUDZKI Arlington