Opponents are more likely to recall the confusing ťSSD governing in the pre-Paroubek era, when the party concealed increasing taxes and national debt. The following, fourth ťSSD Cabinet, headed by Paroubek, was focused on winning at the polls with the strategy of "We'll see what comes afterward." The ťSSD political strategy in this period was based on cooperation with the Communists (KSťM) and fighting the opposition. The government's work and policy were subordinate to this strategy — numerous laws were on the edge of being socialist and communist, the government showed a kind face to international companies but not to Czech entrepreneurs, people's lives were becoming more regulated. This strategy worked well. It gave the ťSSD the support of many communist voters. This was all it offered because this old-fashioned concept caused the ťSSD to find itself in political isolation and left with just one ally, the KSťM.

Corruption, high unemployment, an expensive state administration, a growing economy — Paroubek considers all this the flagship of his rule. True, there is economic growth. Does this mean that today's prosperity and the viability of capitalism were grounded in the 1990s and survived eight years of the chaotic ťSSD administration? Probably so. The socialist cabinets didn't improve much.

However, there is one thing Paroubek's government really did achieve. It divided the nation and explained in full the very idea behind socialist rule. One mystery remains: Why did he lose at the polls?

The world has been at war with terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, but while the basic strategy remains the same on both sides of the Atlantic, there are also issues that have turned volatile in Euro-Atlantic relations and could explode at any moment — like that of Guantánamo Bay, Jan Březina writes in Právo June 29.

The European Union has been pointing out the inhumane treatment of Guantánamo prisoners for some time now. It is good that Europe isn't remaining silent regardless of the fact that it's criticizing its closest ally. After all, shouldn't allies be able to tell each other unpleasant things?

Sadly, it is becoming clear that changing President George W. Bush's behavior when it comes to national security issues is a very difficult task. Even if 25 European officials and European Commission Chairman Barroso tried to change things at the June EU–U.S. summit, Guantánamo wasn't even mentioned in its final declaration.

And thus, while Europe is calling on the Americans to rid themselves of the scandals coming out of their war against terrorism, the U.S. side doesn't seem too concerned. A U.S. representative told a UN committee that cruel interrogations and torture at Guantánamo were not systematic.

Are we to remain calm until torture becomes systematic? There is no doubt that we have to be resolute in our fight against terrorism, but we cannot ignore the rules. And this is something Europe should prove capable of convincing its American partner of, Březina writes.