A brief recap: For more than two years, Czech and U.S. officials have held discussions on placing a U.S. missile-defense base in the Czech Republic — the first overseas site in the U.S. National Missile Defense (NMD) program. In the campaigning preceding the June 2–3 parliamentary election, there was almost no discussion of the issue, as politicians feigned ignorance or ducked questions. In late July, a Pentagon delegation surveyed potential sites here with Czech counterparts and announced afterward that a decision would be made in September on whether the missile site would be located in the Czech Republic, Poland or Hungary. The decision has since been postponed until the end of the year, and Hungary now seems out of the running.

Public opinion polls have raised as many questions as they have answered. A July survey published in Mladá fronta Dnes found that 83 percent of Czechs polled opposed hosting a U.S. missile base. An August survey by the Czech Center for Empirical Research found some 50 percent against the idea.

That's a big difference, revealing possible huge margins of error. Were the samples representative of the general population? Were the questions neutrally phrased? Given the lack of public debate so far, a better question to ask might be: "Do you feel that you have enough information to make a well-informed decision on whether the Czech Republic should host a U.S. missile defense base on its territory?"

What type of information is needed to make an informed decision? Agreeing to host a foreign state's military base raises a hornet's nest of potential problems. There are technical, functional, operational, legal, diplomatic, military, security, political and economic issues to be addressed. For instance, what law governs the base? Who has operational control? How long will the base exist? When may it be dismantled or renegotiated?

Some of the questions that arise are esoteric, and/or legitimate issues of national security that are best delegated to those public officials entrusted to act on our behalf. But most of the important issues in this case demand public debate. We know that the "experts" may be wrong and that blind trust is dangerous. After all, an informed citizenry is essential to democratic governance.

Military and functional questions include: What's the point of this missile site? What threat is it responsive to? How does it address that threat? How effective will it be? NMD aims to shield the United States from long-range missile threats, but, as Czech Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Tomáš Pojar revealed after meeting with Pentagon officials last month, "Definitely a new piece of information was that the site would also be used to protect the area of Europe." What type of missiles would it defend against? Chemical or biological? Cruise or other low-flying or laser-guided missiles? Nuclear?

The site would house interceptor missiles in silos, like the NMD sites in Alaska and California. The Central European site is aimed at intercepting missiles launched from countries to the east, such as North Korea, Iran and Syria. What is the track record of these interceptors? Where would they likely strike the offensive missiles? And what would result from the debris? Then-Foreign Affairs Minister Cyril Svoboda said in August that the site would host some 10 anti-missile interceptors and hundreds of U.S. soldiers. Would this make the host country a potential target?

Basic operational questions include: Who has final authority to launch an interceptor missile? And under what circumstances? What is the communications chain? Will nationals of the host country receive security clearance to perform high-level functions? Will U.S. or Czech law govern disputes at the base? Will U.S. personnel be granted immunity for violations of local law?

Some political questions include: Does the missile-defense site put the involved parties in violation of international arms control or other legal obligations? What are the security benefits and dangers? Does missile defense make us more or less secure? Was the Russian military chief of staff correct when he said Sept. 6 that a U.S. missile defense site in Europe "could initiate a new spiral in the arms race?"

Economic questions include: Who would construct the base? How many jobs are guaranteed for the host country? What types of jobs? What ongoing investment guarantees exist? What costs are involved, and what are the alternative uses of those resources?

Perhaps the most important overriding question is, should the issue be put to Czech voters in a public referendum? Former Prime Minister Jiří Paroubek has repeatedly called for a nationwide referendum prior to any government decision. But current Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek declared Sept. 3, "I am against a referendum on security issues." He also told Prima TV, "The whole thing is a problem of collective security, and it does not go against the interests of NATO and the EU. I'm unequivocally in favor of it." (NATO is expected to address the missile-defense issue at its November summit.)

Topolánek brushes aside a basic function of democracy when he dismisses public input into important national issues. If not a referendum, then other alternatives might effectively strengthen civic participation, like town-hall meetings or press conferences. These traditional fixtures of democratic civic society have been absent of late (except in pre-screened and scripted form), yet are sorely needed.

There is still time for meaningful civic input on this important issue, but it depends on the actions of government and of the people. With the government in a state of limbo since the election, it seems the public must demand answers to the relevant questions and concerns. This summer, an independent group of citizens began an initiative by collecting signatures on petitions and organizing demonstrations, joining a handful of civic organizations in calling for a national referendum. Now, that's democracy in action. As American statesman Frederick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." Likewise, answers are not given if questions are not asked.

Establishing a U.S. missile base here is a decision that will affect all Czechs, so they should all have a voice in what happens. A decision made by ministerial fiat rather than open debate in society is likely to yield the worst long-term outcome.