Note: This is the extended interview with Karolína Peake. An abbreviated version appeared in print on May 18 and can be found here.
Karolína Peake has just been asked if she sees a scenario that could put an end to the endless scrutiny the Public Affairs (VV) party receives from the media and in political circles.
“Never,” she said, laughing. “Until the VV is dead, it won’t stop.”
She may be right.
The former upstart party once famously sought media attention by having some of its younger female MPs pose for a calendar in various stages of undress. But now, as part of the tripartite government coalition – along with the Civic Democrats (ODS) and TOP 09 – VV rarely leaves the headlines. Its charismatic and controversial co-founder, and informal leader, Vít Bárta has been tied to scandal after scandal including allegations that he bribed VV deputies in exchange for loyalty and that his former security company ABL was hired to spy on political rivals. Bárta and the party’s co-founder Radek John have both resigned from ministry posts in recent months leaving VV leadership split on whether or not to continue as part of the coalition or collapse the government by pulling out.
Peake, 35, who heads the party’s MP club, has become more vocal as John and Bárta have moved to the background. On an unseasonably cool May afternoon, she sat down with The Prague Post in her Mála Strana office to discuss the future of the coalition, the party and her role in both.
The Prague Post: You can topple the government at any time. But at this point, what is in it for the VV to keep the coalition going?
Karolína Peake: I was a big advocate of this way of solving the situation a month ago. I thought we should leave the coalition and it’s starting to look more and more like I was right. We were trying to be constructive, though, and we ended up agreeing to a compromise that was extremely bitter for us. We had to leave the interior ministry which was not connected to any scandal. So what’s in it for us? (Laughs) It’s hard to say. I guess we still remember the big euphoria a year ago when people were happy that there would be a strong coalition capable of making reforms and capable of implementing legislation after many years of unstable and corrupt governments. But the fundamental problem of the coalition is the relationship between the people within the government itself and I’m not sure it’s sustainable. At least not as sustainable as we thought it was. There probably is a slight chance of being able to put it back together, but I think that chance is getting smaller rather than bigger than it was a month ago.
TPP: Were you shot down when you brought up the idea of leaving to VV leadership and your fellow MPs?
KP: We all feel VV can’t win no matter what we do. When we want to leave the coalition and we get tough we have a lot of e-mails from our supporters saying “Go for it.” But in the media we’re portrayed as the unstable party in the coalition. We’re blackmailing, we’re unpredictable, we’re misunderstood. If we don’t leave, then we’re accused of just being satisfied with getting ministry positions and the big salaries that come with them. It’s hard to win.
TPP: Was the whole situation with Radek John a setup, in your eyes? Was the idea all along for the ODS to get him out of the picture completely?
KP: I think the ultimate goal is to get rid of VV completely. But the first goal in this game was to get us out of the Interior, which our coalition partners succeeded in doing, partially. I do believe that [new Interior Minister Jan] Kubice is a good compromise. He doesn’t like politicians. So he might be able to at least maintain some of the changes that were originally introduced by Radek John as part of his anti-corruption plan. I don’t think getting rid of Radek John was necessarily what their grand idea was from the beginning. But I do think they were interested in getting rid of anyone who wanted to make any changes.
TPP: But ODS doesn’t seem to have this same desire to delegitimize your other coalition partner, TOP 09.
KP: Well, ODS knows very well that it’s easier to fight one enemy at a time. So they’re choosing the weaker or smaller enemy first, and that’s us. I think, at first, they under estimated VV. They didn’t think we’d be as successful as we were and cause as much trouble as we did.
TPP: Define “trouble.”
KP: Us being able to assert ourselves enough to get the interior ministry. That was an unexpected victory for us. Petr Nečas himself had a lot of problems explaining that within ODS. I don’t think the biggest problem of the coalition is the three parties not getting along, it’s the fact that ODS has several factions to it which don’t get along and that causes a great deal of problems within the coalition, as well.
TPP:The ODS doesn’t get along, you’re saying?
KP: Within the party there are several interest groups and I’m not even sure which one Mr. Nečas is even chairman of, but it’s not the strongest group within the party. So his position is rather weak.
TPP:So why does the media seem fixated on you guys for not getting along?
KP: (Laughs) You tell me!
TPP: But what makes the VV more interesting?
KP: The ODS and corruption and the Godfathers of ODS and Social Democrats aren’t interesting anymore. They’re old news.
TPP: So you’re the shiny new toy?
KP: We’re the party that came from nowhere, we’ve got several interesting personalities – Vít Bárta, Radek John – we’ve got completely new faces in the political scene. I guess it’s just our turn.
TPP: Do you think VV came bursting on the scene with such bravado that it made it impossible to look away, though? There was the [Women of the VV] calendar, there was Vít Bárta, there was the vocal anti-corruption stance. It was a lot of bravado. Since VV joined the government, don’t you think it could have played its hand a little differently?
KP: Well, the calendar came at a time that I now very much miss – that was done at a time when we found it very hard to get any media coverage! The media were completely ignoring us and taking our clothes off was one of the few things we could have done to actually get anyone to pay attention. Now, of course we don’t have any trouble getting the media to notice us. But you ask if could we have played our cards differently? I’m sure we have a problem with being amateurs when it comes to politics. But I don’t mean that as a negative thing. I mean at the “game” of politics. Sometimes we should have been more careful …. I don’t know, it’s hard to say if there was anything we should have done differently. Our biggest problem, is with some of us not always being experienced in dealing with the media. We end up getting painted as silly and inexperienced and losers.
TPP: Someone in your party recently said VV could be just as effective leaving the government and supporting a minority government. Doesn’t that seem like the weakest position you could take?
KP: It’s definitely a plan B. It’s an option we offered to our coalition partners a year ago, as well as a month ago. And our coalition partners always insisted on our active engagement in the government. They understand it would not only be a weak position for VV but for the government, as well; having to negotiate every piece of legislation that comes up and not having the ability to be able to barter and negotiate with us. We do realize it would be the weakest option and would likely result in further attacks against our MP club in an attempt to peel off a few more of our deputies. That wouldn’t stop. Everyone seems to suggest it’s the most elegant way for us to step out of government and just support whatever legislation there is, it would not be a stable position for the party or for the government. I think it might last for a couple of months but eventually result in either new elections or a grand coalition between ODS and the Social Democrats.
TPP: So what does VV need to stay in the government and keep the coalition going? What are your terms?
KP: We’re working on the terms now. We’re working on what kind of legislation will be part of a no confidence vote. For example we want the public procurement law to be part of that vote. We want to talk about what ministries we’ll occupy because we do only have two ministries, now, and under the coalition agreement we’re supposed to have four. But I think that in order to come to an agreement or to say, “Yes, now we have an agreement,” it can only work if the three parties enter in to a non-aggression pact until the next elections. For example, as chairperson of the MP club, I shouldn’t have to worry that another person from another of the coalition parties will try to break my club. If I can be assured of that and we can just work for two years and show that are the compromises were worthwhile. But we’d need that kind of non-aggression agreement, and we’d need to know that the people we enter into that agreement with are able to keep their promises.
TPP: If the government falls in June and new elections are held, is there a sense of, “That’s it for us,” within VV? Is that one of the reasons why you don’t pull the plug on the whole thing?
KP:We really haven’t spoken about this a whole lot. But I don’t sense any fear of early elections. I think for many of us it would be a relief. (Laughs) But I don’t think of VV as a short term project. I’ve been in it for five years. Even if we don’t get any seats in Parliament next time and we go back to the local politics, it will be harder to build the reputation again, but it’s still possible to maintain and hope that we can grow later. But I certainly don’t feel any desperation that we need to remain in the government otherwise we won’t survive.
TPP: Have you been approached about being justice minister?
KP: No. We haven’t requested this ministry for us, or me personally, no. We have said the interior ministry and Radek John’s position which he had until recently could be the future guarantors of the anti-corruption strategy but we haven’t requested the justice ministry.
TPP: Would you accept a ministry position?
KP: I don’t think anyone would blame me for being hungry for a ministry position. A year ago I refused a position. First I was offered the ministry of regional development and I turned them down. Then when they were worried about not having any women, I could have picked whichever one I wanted (Laughs). I don’t regret not accepting a ministry then. If the offer comes again, I’d certainly have to think about it. Last year’s no is not a permanent no.
TPP: Can the VV’s anti-corruption platform be executed as long as the government remains in its current state? For instance, you had to give in and compromise a bit when you joined the government altering the public procurement component of your platform by giving up your desire to eliminate bearer shares as a legal means of owning a company. And bearer shares are still an issue …
KP: Well, yes, we did give up on bearer shares in the coalition agreement, but we brought them back to the table just recently.
TPP: So did the Social Democrats and they were pretty much shot down.
KP: That’s true, but we brought them back and the coalition partners have agreed to negotiate this topic with the public procurement law. The whole coalition is desperate to show we want to fight corruption and this would be a great symbol. There are a lot of other ways to own companies non-transparently, but it would be a big step for the coalition if this happens. But otherwise I don’t see much compromise on our side. We’ve put forward a 53-point anti-corruption strategy which is still being fulfilled, so far. There are exact dates and terms and points of legislation that need to happen within the next three years and they’re happening. The public procurement law is a perfect example. Unfortunately, negotiating the strategy was very difficult and getting the results will be so much slower than we thought and so much slower than our electorate thought. We understand that it takes time, but our electorate doesn’t always understand that. You asked earlier, “what are we in it for?” This is one of your answers. We’re waiting for the results of some of the seeds that we’ve already planted.
TPP: Changing the subject, everyone seems to be dropping out of the VV chairperson race but you.
KP:(Laughs) Some people are going to start thinking whoever runs away last will win. I hope I don’t win just because I’m the only one left.
TPP: Are you in this because you want to win it, or is there another reason why you’re still in the running?
KP: At first I didn’t accept the nomination. Then I took it as a gesture of solidarity on my side with the party, but I don’t want it to be just a gesture. I want to follow through with my candidacy. I changed my mind before, and I don’t want to be the person who changes her mind again. I don’t want to look like someone who can’t make a decision. Plus, I do think that I can bring a sense of stability or sense of normalcy to the party. And maybe some humor, as well. I don’t take myself so seriously. But, I do know that for me, personally, it’s not a good decision to run.
TPP: It’s not a good decision?
KP: For me personally, no. I think it’s going to be very difficult with all the attacks that come at us. So far all of the bullets have just been whistling by my ears and none of them have hit me. But I’m sure there’s one waiting for me somewhere. I’m not aware of any wrongdoing from my past, but someone somewhere is probably coming up with something. I do have a family and the position I have now is quite difficult already, so becoming more engaged is going to be hard for me and my family.
TPP: How big of a blow was the Kristýna Kočí/Jaroslav Škarka/Bárta bribery scandal in terms of the legitimacy of the VV?
KP: It was a setback, it was a betrayal. It was a betrayal both by colleagues but of people who I’ve been working with for many years. I was never really friends with either of them, but I trusted them. Especially Koči, she was and is a very, very hardworking person. She and I never clicked personally, but that doesn’t matter. People all play their own roles. But to this day I still don’t know why they did what they did. I think Škarka might have been blackmailed and that’s why he did it. But [Kočí] just immaturely was having bigger ambitions than to become an MP and be a member of K9 and president of the MP club by the age of 25. I don’t know what ambitions of hers were not met (laughs). But it was a huge disappointment.
TPP: Vít Bárta was so important and instrumental in the creation of the VV from the very beginning, but does there come a point where that presence can hurt the party?
KP: Vít Bárta is one of the few people I know who truly understands the political jungle of the Czech Republic. He can anticipate the moves of our coalition partners or our opponents better than anyone else in the party. Certainly better than I can, for example. I think he’s indispensable for the party.
TPP: More so than Radek John?
KP: I think he addresses a certain portion of our electorate better than Vít Bárta, but I think they both play extremely important, but extremely different roles. But I think most of the attacks on VV are centered around him and I think it’s because our political partners were a bit taken aback by his qualities and I think they underestimated him.
Comments are closed.