Havel's Post-Election Agenda
With the general election only about two months away, the political
situation in the Czech Republic would be best described as fluid. Opinion
polls show both major shifts in voter preferences and also a large number
of undecided voters. But while it may be too early to predict the full
election results, it does seem certain that the post-election political
landscape will include those two parties which have been largely ostracised
by the establishment in recent years.
Keeping in mind the tenacity of their opinion poll percentages over the
past few years, it seems clear that the Republican and Communist parties
will be represented in the next parliament. Despite the establishment's
attempts to ignore their elected representatives, the most alienated voters
have neither disappeared nor changed their minds. In June, 15% of the
voters will vote for parties which are almost completely opposed to
post-November developments, and the new parliament is very likely to again
have 20% of its seats allocated to these parties.
The members of the establishment will then haggle amongst themselves as to
how to rearrange that remaining 80% in order to form a stable government.
If the past is a guide, the President will no doubt meet with various party
leaders of whom he approves in order to help negotiate that settlement, but
he will most likely ignore the leaders of those two parties which are
generally thought of as extremist.
This would only be repeating a great mistake, however. The President
should recognise the leaders of all legitimately elected parliamentary
parties, and he should meet with all of them after the June elections. All
those party leaders will represent portions of the electorate, and the
President should not ignore the choice of those people.
Under no circumstances am I saying that Havel should broker a deal to get
these parties into a future governing coalition. Horrors! He should talk
to them simply because large segments of the population support them.
Havel would not be recognising these parties' platforms; he would be
recognising the results of democratic elections.
Opposition to such a move by the President is obviously widespread, but
unconvincing. Some have argued that such meetings would not be very
popular, and might lose Havel support at home - support which might be
important if in future the President is popularly elected. But
since when has Havel chosen the most popular path in life? Sitting down
with fools and fascists in June is certainly no worse than sitting down
with the criminals he sat down with in 1989.
Other critics of this idea have claimed that by sitting down with the
representatives of these parties, Havel would legitimise them. This
argument is far off the mark, because what legitimises these parties and
their leaders is the electorate. The President does not decide which
parties will be in parliament, the voters do. The legitimacy of all freely
elected parties comes from the citizens themselves. By meeting with them,
Havel would only be recognising the voters' choice, not the platforms of
these parties.
Some have said that there is simply nothing Havel can learn from Sladek and
Grebenicek, so meetings with them would be unproductive. That is not the
point, however. Havel would not meet with these two in order to gain
knowledge but to acknowledge the choice of the citizens of the Czech
Republic. The meetings would have symbolic value and say to the people:
this is your choice and the state respects it.
Besides openly showing presidential recognition of the democratic process,
such symbolic post-election meetings would perform another useful function
for Czech politics and society. Republican and Communist voters belong to
the most alienated segments of society. They are frustrated with the
post-November developments for various reasons, but mostly because they do
not feel a part of those developments. Their world has completely changed,
and they express only anger and derision against a system which seems to be
overlooking their concerns. Ignoring their legitimately elected
representatives only heightens their sense of alienation.
By formally meeting with Sladek and Grebenicek, Havel would show to these
alienated people, to that 15-20% of the country, that they are not really
so alienated. By recognising their choice, Havel would give them a sense
that their viewpoint matters in this new system; that they matter in this
new system. With this would increase their feeling of belonging to
mainstream society again, and this is the key, because if these people feel
that the system respects them, they will feel that the system is decent and
worth supporting.
Anyone who is kept outside of a system has nothing to lose from that
system's destruction. By acknowledging and respecting their decision (not
agreeing with it!), the President would pull these people into the system
and make them feel at least slightly tied to it. With this, they would be
more inclined to support policies and parties which are based on working
within the system.
Only Havel could do this, of course. No party could make the first move to
bring the Republicans and Communists closer to civility. They would only
be seen to be collaborating with extremists. Only the President who is or
should be above all interparty conflicts can start the ball rolling to make
the current 80% democracy into a 100% democracy.
Of course, there is always a chance that Sladek and Grebenicek will not
want to meet with Havel, but at least Havel could make the effort to reach
out to them. If they do not respond, then at least Havel can say that he
made the effort to recognise the decision of the voters, but that his offer
was refused by the radical leaders. Let this cause whatever disturbances
it may within the Republican and Communist camps. Just the offer of a
meeting might encourage more moderate wings to form.
For many years now, the establishment has been doing its very best to
ignore these two parties. This approach is obviously not working, because
there are still alienated citizens willing to vote for these parties.
Those alienated citizens are not going to disappear in June.
To recognise the decision of the citizens, the post-election meetings of
the President with party leaders ought to include meetings with all the
rightfully elected parliamentary party leaders. The meetings should start
after the June elections, and mark a clear watershed of maturity in the
development of the young democracy in the Czech Republic.
