Talking politics with Mirek Topolánek

By Benjamin Cunningham and Petr Cibulka Jr.

Staff Writers

Following the collapse of early parliamentary elections Sept. 15, Civic Democratic Party (ODS) chief Mirek Topolánek resigned his seat in the Chamber of Deputies. In the days since, he has been the source of much speculation, including rumors he will fill the Czech Republic's seat on the European Commission, though his party has since nominated Alexandr Vondra for the slot.

Topolánek served as prime minister from August 2006 through May this year, including the first half of the Czech Republic's EU presidency. A no-confidence vote orchestrated by rival Social Democratic Party (ČSSD) Chairman Jiří Paroubek led to his government's downfall.

In the months since, he made international headlines when he called the Obama administration's stimulus package the "road to hell," a tabloid published nude photos of him vacationing in Italy, and he was attacked with rocks while campaigning in south Moravia.

Topolánek sat down with The Prague Post Oct. 6 at the ODS offices in Pankrác to talk about these subjects plus the United States' decision on missile defense, the caretaker government of Jan Fischer, the Lisbon Treaty and, of course, his political rivals.

The Prague Post: Why did you resign from Parliament?

Mirek Topolánek: It is a Parliament of disagreement, unable to resolve even the most basic questions. Since early elections cannot occur, I want to stand on the sidelines of the playing field, and create a new playing field. I am a nonplaying captain. I regard Paroubek as a national pest, a man who hurts this country in ways that trample the work of two generations of politicians. Symbolically, I do not want to be associated with him.

I am not in politics to be a deputy. I wanted to be a deputy to be prime minister. I want to prepare the party to win elections next May. I have never had the intention to run away from problems. We need a clearly defined playing field; we don't have one. I am used to the enforcement of contracts, the value of a man's word and a game with rules.     

TPP: How do you change the rules of the game from the outside?

MT: I will start with myself and my own party. If the ODS does not have issues clear, it will contribute to the problem rather than the solution. I want the ODS to put forth a long-term vision. Simply said, I want to make clear who is part of the problem and who is part of the solution.

TPP: You met with José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, last week. What did you talk about? You have said that if the Czech Republic doesn't approve the Lisbon Treaty, it would lose its commissioner. Did he personally make such an ultimatum?

MT: Some European politicians encourage the idea of penalizing the Czech Republic if Lisbon is not ratified. I warned Barroso that this is a huge mistake. It is dangerous for the future of the European Union. I still have the same opinion on the treaty. It is stupid and to our disadvantage. This does not change the fact that I am for ratification to be completed. It is important to be inside and have the opportunity to influence this project.

Ireland being forced into a second referendum deepened the democratic deficit in the EU. Everyone is already tired of these constitutional reforms, but, it is not possible to force a country to ratify the treaty. If one country does not ratify it, it is not valid. Thus, my discussions with the European Commission or the Council about penalizing the Czech Republic leave me cold. Western Europe has let us down twice in the past 70 years. The first time was the Munich Agreement. The second time was the agreements at Yalta and Tehran that set up spheres of influence after World War II. Thanks to that, we lived for 50 years without freedom. I would like to warn the European patriarchs not to make the same mistake a third time.   

TPP: To change subjects, what about the United States' decision not to put the radar base in the Czech Republic?

MT: The decision was not only about the radar; it was a geo-political issue. It was about an American presence in Central Europe, because missile defense undoubtedly will happen. It is needed. Scandalous statements by certain European politicians suggest they have failed to understand anything in the past 50 years: A standard error is a weak will for defense, the policy of appeasement and the tendencies to leave Central Europe to its own fate. These mistakes are repeating themselves. Therefore, I take it as a historic defeat and a missed opportunity. The post-Yalta process is still not finished.

Obama made that decision for three reasons. The first is a flawed policy of negotiations with Russia, North Korea and Iran, and to give America a sort of nice face. Another reason is a different technical solution for defense. The third is undoubtedly the political instability of the Czech Republic.

Significantly, 19 years and 10 months passed between the creation of Czechoslovakia and the Munich Agreement. Now, between Nov. 17, 1989, and Obama's decision, 19 years and 11 months have passed. He made the announcement on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland. While I'm not a fatalist, and historical parallels sometimes lag, one must be sensitive to these things in Central Europe, nevertheless.

TPP: The public seems angry with politics, as evidenced by the egg attacks against your rival Paroubek and the stone attack against you. Does the public have a right to be angry?

MT: Of course they have a right to be upset. Paroubek brought this style of confrontation, based on envy and hatred, into politics. Paroubek would not exist without Topolánek. He functions only based on personal combat and is ideologically empty. I refuse to be associated with this type of politics. My decision to stay or not stay in politics is driven by the idea that I can convince people I am not the same kind of politician as Paroubek. His politics are based on populism and personal attacks. I want to spend my time until our party congress [in November] showing where I stand, and I want to see an army behind me - not just ODS, but the public, too.

TPP: In recent days, there have been reports of you saying that some ODS members of the interim government may leave. Is that true?

MT: That applies only if the government continues on this left-leaning path. I agreed to this quick solution after Paroubek took down my government. It was purely an economic decision. Markets immediately fell, as did the crown, and, when we announced the interim government, it all came back. I swapped an agreement on early elections for concessions on the government's makeup. Now that there will be no elections, I regard this as an error. I am a person who relies on agreements. I never suspected Paroubek could be capable of such destruction. This Cabinet's composition is not good for us if it is expected to rule for the next eight months.  

If we were in a normal country, the government would resign once it were decided there would be no elections. Everyone wonders why we criticize Fischer. But what if [Fischer's interim government] eventually has to do something? What if they have to decide on something? What political mandate does it have for that?

TPP: Will Lisbon be ratified?

MT: That is not a question for me. The Constitution is clear; ratification is up to Parliament, and the president signs. In this sense, ratification for me is complete. Klaus seeks disputable issues in the Constitution and is trying to change a parliamentary system into a semi-presidential system. This leaves me cold and is confusing for people in the Czech Republic, let alone foreign readers of The Prague Post. We are a stable and tolerant country that fundamentally creates its own problems. I think that is why everyone likes us.

The writers can be reached at news@praguepost.com