The Prague Post Online: Opinion: Talking about Klaus

December 1st, 2008

Endowment Fund Business Listings ONLINE Reservations Classifieds Subscriptions

Prague accomodation

Talking about Klaus

Commentary | Search restaurants | Archives

July 25th, 2007 issue

enlarge

An icon of post-communism

By Simon Pardek

In the United Kingdom, head of state Queen Elizabeth II is an entirely apolitical figure. Instead, her role, at least officially, is to represent the very best of Britain.

One suspects that, politically, Queen Elizabeth is far more likely to be a conservative. But throughout her reign there has never been a hint of politics of any kind.

Queen Elizabeth holds the power of veto over any legislation passed by UK Parliament. However, in her 54 years on the throne, she has never once used it.

In the Czech Republic, the constitution dictates that President Václav Klaus is supposed to be head of state in a similar vein — apolitical; someone who unites and inspires the people.

Klaus once served as prime minister and remains the honorary head of the Civic Democratic Party. Even so, one would expect this politician to be able to adapt to his new role. Sadly, that has rarely if ever been the case.

Post-communist countries have many traits in common. Years of totalitarian rule have devastated the intelligentsia, the civil service — indeed, all levels of society. On one hand, there were dissidents, on the other were the opportunists who very quickly exploited civic apathy and found themselves at the pinnacles of power.

The closer to the Russian epicenter of former Soviet rule one travels, the more these traits are evident. In Belarus, post-communism still means a one-party state. In Ukraine, the old guard and the new guard share power. In Slovakia, the populist Vladimír Mečiar once threatened to destabilize the country — today, he remains the head of a prominent political party. Simply put, the natural personnel turnaround in the political sphere is far more restricted in the post-communist world.

Another trait of post-communist countries is that those in power, rarely, if ever, resign or move on voluntarily. Hence figures like Klaus ascend to their “rightful place” clinging on to the reins of power and prestige at all costs.

In addition, the most important trait in post-communist countries is ideological simple-mindedness. Decades of swaying between extreme ideologies have left their mark on the national psyche, and this remains particularly evident among archetypal post-communists such as Klaus. Rather than moderation, they espouse the extreme opposite of what went before. From communism to free-market fundamentalism.

But why is Klaus so unable to serve as an apolitical head of state? Just like the Marxists of the 1950s, Klaus’ ideology simply renders him unable to separate politics from any and all spheres of his office. The fact that the head of the Czech state feels it necessary to give testimony before the U.S. Congress about why environmentalism is a threat to our freedoms is a perfect example of this. Throughout Klaus’ term, his numerous books and articles have mostly served to prove that post-communists are simply not fit to represent or lead the Czech Republic to a new modern era.

Klaus has become a true icon of post-communism, albeit one whose powers are thankfully restrained by the constitution. If this were not the case, it is likely the country would go the way of Ukraine or Slovakia. But, thankfully, Klaus, in his largely ceremonial role, has been rendered largely irrelevant. He talks, but only nationalists, the uneducated and other less favorable sectors of society listen. To the rest, he is not and has never really been a head of state, but rather a reminder of how easy it is for a country to take a backward step.

— The author is a writer at The New Presence.

Right man at the right time

By Lukáš Dolanský

President Václav Klaus invited Civic Democratic leader Mirek Topolánek to lunch at the presidential castle at the beginning of the year, precisely when the Czech Republic was ending its protracted political crisis.

For Klaus, the New Year’s dinner did not begin particularly well. Topolánek kept the president waiting for 15 minutes. When he finally sat down at the table, Topolánek let it be known that it would not be the president who determined the shape of the new government.

Later, Klaus stood before television cameras and sadly announced that he envisaged a government staffed by “very different” names. Just to make sure that everyone understood, he repeated the sentiment a second time. Topolánek stood right next to him, grinning quietly. He did not change a single person in his proposed government.

This episode shows the role Klaus has played in the half-year-long, post-election political crisis. He placed himself in the role of a man who may well be at the top of the Czech political hierarchy, but at the same time, acts as a mere nonfunctioning extra.

Klaus chose the role of his own free will. He always vowed that he would do nothing to undermine the Czech constitution. Ever since being elected, he has strictly stuck to the role that was expected of him. Klaus stayed faithful to his credo — to be the highest functionary, but no more.

Despite this, Klaus had many chances to show he could take the situation into his own hands if he chose to. He was expected to appoint an apolitical prime minister who could find a way out of the recent crisis.

He did not do so. Rather, he simply maintained his role as observer of political negotiations. Can such behavior be described as unstately? Indeed, can one not argue that Klaus’ distance from the political shenanigans was the very embodiment of stately conduct?

Klaus’ predecessor, Václav Havel, could take extraordinary measures to deal with certain situations, but that era is long gone. Havel was able to rely on special reverence from the Czech populace. His political steps were often criticized by the Civic Democrats, but people from across the political spectrum always stood up for him. Havel could always actively engage in political discussions.

Something very different is expected from the new president. He is expected to observe his constitutional role. In the last election, nothing happened other than voters voting. It was up to politicians to decide how they would create a government.

When Klaus met with the Christian Democrats in the middle of last year, he clearly told them he would only support the kind of agreement that would either lead to a stable government or to early elections.

“I will not accept a government that relies on defectors,” he said.

Three months went by and Klaus ended up doing just that. He had no choice. Klaus clearly understands that the era of the activist president is over.

What the Czech Republic experienced after the last election was unprecedented. Ensuing negotiations proved that a moderator was unnecessary.

The era has passed when a politician occupies the castle who has a patent for all ills and who can always find an exceptional way out.

Politicians must learn to find a way out for themselves. That is why the constitution does not give them a fixed timetable for post-election negotiations aimed at forming a government. Klaus understands this, and in that lies his value as a statesman.

— The author is a reporter for the Czech daily Lidové noviny.

Counterpoint is reprinted in The Prague Post in edited version in cooperation with The New Presence, an English-language Czech quarterly magazine. July 18’s editorial piece “A thirst for power” also originally appeared in The New Presence.

Be the first to add a comment!

Most e-mailed articles
Happy to be sad again Hidden history U.S. visa waiver in effect

Related articles
Putting the sizzle in steak

Most visited in Business Listings

The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have been printed in
The Prague Post, a weekly newspaper published in the Czech Republic.
To subscribe to the print paper, click here.
Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.