Petr Pechan*:
Dear guests, ladies and gentlemen:
We have met, in order that together we could look into the mirror of our modern history, that we could enlighten each other, and, strenghtened by the starting process of cooperation, we could then, with straight back and clear head, start preparing the future.
In Europe there is now a major discussion about the democratic deficit. If we really want to go to Europe, let’s most of all start with a clean-up here at home. Our biggest democratic deficit is a historical cheating of voters, and the tunneling of the very politics itself, by the creation of the post-election opposition agreement. If this is acceptable, then next time we can vote by lottery, or use astrology, or admit outright that we do not know how to be democrats.
Our citizens, and not only those with less experience or with lower education, are constantly asking: please advise us, we do not know whom to vote for. Even though there are dozens of political parties and movements here, the situation created by the leading forces in the country is such, that the voter does not have enough information and democratic background, so that he could responsibly, and therefore freely, decide. Because there is no freedom without responsibility. This situation exists not only in relation to internal politics, but also in our relationship to our neighbours, and to EU. That is another dimension of our democratic deficit.
The long persistence of the political leaders in the top functions, pervasive corruption, suppression of smaller parties, and hostility towards open, civil society that is based on knowledge, human rights, and sustainable development, are also signs of democratic deficit that is greatly weakening us.
Real democracy has no place for Prime Ministers that do not know dirty money, or those that would want to destroy the freedom of media. True democracy would quickly change the Speakers of Parliament that deny the status of science to ecology, and that knowingly whip up the spirits of chauvinism. Democrats would send home Ministers of education who publicly declare, that people with University education cannot be trusted, since they only make trouble. These would be followed by Ministers of justice who attack businessmen, because they publicly complain about the corruption environment. The parliamentary oligarchs who fill their pockets instead of fulfilling their election promises, who inappropriately control media, and who formulate bad laws, thus helping to create a generally corrupt state of affairs approaching some third world country, rather than that of advanced Europe, would also have to leave.
It is not acceptable that the extent of corruption is growing, and that this is placing us among developing countries.
It is not acceptable that in science and research we dropped to the level of Romania.
It is not acceptable that on our way to EU we dropped behind Hungary, Slovenia, and Estonia, and in some matters also behind Poland and Slovakia.
It is not acceptable that the debt of each one of us, that the politicians placed on our shoulders, is large and rapidly growing, without us seeing a clear improvement of our lives, infrastructure, and the environment.
It is not acceptable, when many politicians, often in contrast with the programs of their own parties, do not clearly support our accession to EU, and do not support much higher quality and quantity of information, and friendly relations with and about our neighbours, and all the present and future partners in EU, in that true and real life space of ours.
Finally, it is not acceptablethat we do not see clear support for an open, democratic society based on knowledge, on small and medium business, and on sustainable environment. That means the maximum possible political and economic support of education, linking of the spheres of economy and knowledge, support and the removal of obstacles for small and medium businesses , immediate creation and support for sources of start and risk capital, founding and support of information networks, scientific and business incubators, parks, and zones. Why do we not want to learn from Ireland, Finland or Portugal?
If some politicians will continue to compete over who will cause us bigger shame, or who will be a greater chauvinist, and more perverse player with the future of this country, then we will be forced to ask, who really are these people? Who, and for what purpose, taught them, for example, in the Prognostication Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in the 1980`s of the last century? Do we truly need the aged, frozen in postcommunism, with their false political and economic models? Our journalists and the media still owe us the answers to these and further questions. Let us be truly free democrats, and let us begin to ask. Let us ask about the important, basic things. It is not all that important to know, for example, where some of our younger politicians or businessmen obtained loans for nicer flats or family homes. If every capable and honest politician or government official cost us one or even two million crowns per year, we could have ten thousand of them for twenty billion crowns, and that would be enough in this small country. That is less than the costs of some corruption affairs, that were often caused just by a few individuals.
Let’s take a look into the rear-view mirror for a moment, so that we could then finally move onto the better way ahead. Why, for example, the student leaders of the 1980`s and the 1990`s disappeared onto the very edge of all public activities? Why did they claim soon after the so-called velvet revolution that it was stolen from them? Was it a revolution at all? Who stole it, and why? Why were the civil society, the non-governmental organizations, the civic sphere information, that whole basic mixture that is so important for democracy everywhere, so strongly suppressed here? Why did the manifest “Thank you, Leave!” have such a broad support, and why only a few had the courage to continue? How best to limit the corruption, have better courts, become better voters, democrats, Europeans? Why, suddenly, some politicians are calling upon us to fight our neighbours and friends in Europe, against all? Why some are painting our country yellow, full of gall and spite, amidst a black world all around us, while others, behind the scene, are secretly painting it red again? Why, apart from a few honourable exceptions, don`t we hear a strong voice of reason and a true Europeanism, especially from those parties that want our support in the elections? I hope that today, and in the next week in our seminars, we will hear some answers to these and other questions, that we will exchange a number of opinions, and that together we will begin to create a strong, open, and clearly pro-European society, society based on human and natural rights, on equal access, on information, knowledge, education, sustainable development, and on the quality and pleasure of life for all. I hope that today, next week, and then louder and louder it will sound: our civil society is awakening from long, enforced sleep, and it begins to look straight in the eyes of its opponents. And we will send this message: civil society will win in this country.
I wish you a successful and interesting conference.
Josef Broz: Personal memories of the early times, until September 1989. Departure to Paris, with the idea that it is forever. The decision about the departure in the Summer of 1989, because of the loss of trust in the dissidents, their weakness to change the strange, perverted, political-bureaucratic power, the “concrete-encased society ”. Many of the creators of such a society are still here. The feeling of true freedom is missing.
The student movement, in reality, was created only by the events of 17th November 1989. After that, to a large extent, a myth was created, an idealization of events of that November, and the following 2-4 months of euphoria. There exists an excellent book about that time, called “One hundred student revolutions”, published in 1999. These are stories of one hundred students, “little stars”, “pioneers”, members of the Union of socialist youths (SSM), mostly obedient, conforming young people. The SSM had the patronage over the demonstrations of 17th November 1989, otherwise it would not have been permitted at all. The reform communists and the various groups of dissidents immediately tried to legitimize the power that they created together at that time, and they used the students for this process.
In the reaction to the events, within the framework of the Civic Forum, an important manifest was written, called “Let us not celebrate November – the Stolen Revolution”. This text had thirteen points:
1. The expropriation of the properties of the Communist Party
2. The ending of crypto-communism
3. The purge of Government offices and of the public life
4. The punishment of the concrete offenders
5. The recognition of the anti-communist resistance
6. The control of the secret police
7. The new statute of thepolice and the army
8. The thorough change-over to the market economy
9. The third agrarian reform
10. The transformation of the Civic Forum to a political party
11. The refutation of nationalism
12. The open exchange of information
13. The investigation of the events of the 17th November 1989.
These were open demands, presented at the right time, and it is well that the student movement managed to point out these matters. Compared to it, the call of the “Thank you, leave!” movement in the 1999 was a very polite request, it was not an extremist demand. The original student demands should be again published. These manifests are meaningful. Political parties sometimes misuse the means that citizens lend them. The space for public discussions should be much broader, and it should be the basis for Czech democracy. Let`s think, in what democracy we want to live, if it should be only a democracy for the elites. Discussions about Czech democracy in fact did not start yet. The coming elections should bring discussions about, as various manifests from “Stolen Revolution”, “Impulse 99”, “Drevic’appeal”, “Thank you, leave!”, to the “Czech Television-a Public Affair” warned, if and to what extent we already live in democracy. I personally often doubt it very much.
Marek Benda: Before November 1989 student leaders or movements did not exist, there were only happenings, or various petitions were signed, for which punishments were sometimes meted out, sometimes not. The (deminstration on) Narodni trida created the student movement. The brutality of police attacks there was great, and I do not agree that nothing happened there. There was a number of wounded, for the given conditions in the country it was a masacre. The movement was formed on the soil of the Union of socialist youth, but after the strike in DAMU (the College of Theatre and Music) this perished, and it began at DAMU on the 18th of November 1989. Other Schools joined next week on Monday. Vetrovsky, Docekal, Mejstrik, etc., founded at DAMU the Centre of Student Movement. Others joined later, Simon Panek, etc. It was not a generation movement, it immediately enlarged, and then splintered. The strikes at Schools were never a majority matter. Maximum participation was 10-33%. Cohesion was, however, very strong. For example, there was a restriction on drinking any alcohol, that was kept until the election of the President on 29 Dec. 1989. The student parliament functioned until March 1990. The biggest mistake was the model of self-rule of the Universities. We believed that this model is better than the management of the Schools from the centre. After ten years I know that this was a tremendous mistake, that excess of trust in democracy. The student movement had a high measure of anti-communism. The call “The Stolen Revolution” was such, it was, in simple terms, a “pro-Klaus” and “anti-Havel” statement. I will not speak now about the “Thank you, leave!” association, it is too alive, too sensitive now. The goal of the revolution in 1989 was only, and only, freedom. Nobody in the student movement had thought through any further steps. The biggest problem comminism left to us is the total loss of values, destruction of human hearts. The change will last, I am afraid, two generations.
Monika Pajerova: I recommend the book “One Hundred Student Revolutions”, that contains interviews with people from various regions. Nearly all students at that time were members of SSM. There existed two groups: “The Ribbon”, that was illegal, with people such as Marek Benda, and “ The Student Information Centre”, where I was a member, Martin Mejstrik, etc. Between these groups there was confrontation, but also good cooperation. Also in France the student movement had divided after 1968 into several groups and directions. The same in Germany. In Hungary, the party FIDESZ had a good beginning in the student movement, then the fight started over keeping power, the collaboration with the extremist Csurka, etc. Here the parties have just begun to form from the student movement. In this country the main contest is not between the left and the right, but between the post-communists (these exist among ODS, CSSD, as well as among the Koalition party members, and they are not necessarily former party members themselves) and the others. The post-communists have two main characteristics: greed for political and economic power; that is why they have great economic strength. And second, the necessity for enemies: the association “Thank you, Leave!”, “Impulse 99”, “Czech Television-a Public Affair”, etc. They also seek external enemies, such as EU, the Sudeten Germans, ecologists. The national interests must be strongly protected, but these are actually their own interests. Thus, we have populism, nationalism, the calls for “mobilisation”, etc. The result: after twelve years we have a new normalisation. We have roughly 300 individuals and their surroundings, that have political and economic power, and the rest of the citizens. The student movement did not want only freedom, but also democracy, that is open, tolerant, European, and humane. That is what we thought, and what we wanted. Our society is immature, and is represented by narcisists and egocentrics. These leaders, such as Mr. Klaus, then surround themselves with such as Mr. Macek, Cermak, Zahradil, Tlusty, Jakl. And they define themselves against Havel, Vavrousek, Lux. “Pajerization” of the Czech politics is also a great danger, etc. Politics, it is not only words, but also the honesty of the effort. That is often not recognized immediately, but over a time. It is important, what is behind people that are in politics, their environment, what did they do 5-10 years earlier, their long-term integrity.
Pavel Bilek: The Helsinki process was started by political agreements in 1973, and finalized in 1975 by the concluding act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that had three pillars: the agreement on mutual non-agression, the agreement on technical and economic cooperation, and the agreement on human rights. After that, various Helsinki Committees for monitoring and protection of human rights started to appear spontanneously. The first one was founded in the former Soviet Union in 1976. In the CSSR, the Charta 77 was founded in 1977, in response to the Helsinki process. It pointed out, for example, the deep contradictions of the Stalinist Constitution of CSSR from 1960, that was principially against the political plurality, the destruction of human rights in the 1950`s, 60`s, and in further years, etc. At first, only an informal platform was created (CSHV), and after 1989 the Committee was fully legitimized. At that time, some of the people working with the Committee left into politics, others into civilian employment, and some decided to continue their work. The organization was registered with the Ministry of the Interior in 1990, as an independent organization with an international element. Dynamic development ensued from 1993-94. The Czech Helsinki Committee (CHV) is a full Member of the International Centre of Helsinki Committee in Vienna, and has a consultative status with OSCE, Council of Europe, EU, and the Human Rights Watch in the U.S.A.. CHV has about 60-100 members, and it now employs 25-30 lawyers, sociologists, and other professionals. It monitors human rights and legal situation in CR, proposes and comments upon laws, runs social and legal advisory team, and educational courses, and it has a specialized library. It works with professional groups (courts, police, army, media), stigmatized and isolated groups (HIV, homosexuals, prisoners, institutionalized individuals), minorities, women, children. CHV is independent, and it receives its funding only from abroad.
In conclusion, one note about the constitutionality of political agreements, in relationship with the lively discussion over the lunch. The basis of democracy is political pluralism, the necessary competition of political parties in the public space. Does this principle function now in the Czech Republic? Basically yes, but certain political agreements have to some extent limited this necessary space. The principle of plurality must function. Political parties must not squeeze out other legitimate activities and initiatives of the civil society from the public space, so that the system of parliamentary democracy would not become a partiocracy, which is a concept that would already be negative for democracy.
Petr Stepanek: The index of corruption perception, that was created by the organization Transparency International, presents since 1996 values that are comparable from year to year among countries. In this index, over five years, the Czech Republic dropped from 5.4 points to 3.9 points. It is all downhill for five years, and it is a strong statistic. Other well recognized organizations around the world confirm this trend. We were at the level of Hungary and the South Africa, now we are at the level of Panama, Colombia, and Mexico.
The examples of these problems can be well illustrated on Prague Council. The key is the breach of an official oath of the City Officers and politicians ( on a similar breach, for example, is based the process of impeachment of an American President). Another approach is the conflict of interest. In this country, officials are excusing themselves by different readings of the laws, and as a result the conflicts of interest are very frequent. Over thirty Prague representatives among total of fifty five have direct conflicts of interest, where there exists paid participation in the Companies, or their subcontractors, that have contracts with the City. Those, that sit on the Boards of the Companies, are often the very ones that bring forward the motions for City decisions, by which their Companies profit. The City Council, that must act impartially, must not accept gifts, etc., still did not pass an ethical codex. The “tunneling” of the City budget is common. The budget overruns for various City construction projects are between 60-200%. For example, one of the tunnels of the City Ring that is under construction, the “Mrazovka”, projected at four billion crowns, is now at eight billion, and it is still not finished. In Prague, the ODS party is in power without interruption for ten years, and the construction companies are the largest donors of that party. The Officers of the City often immediately become employees of these companies upon leaving the City posts. For example, the Councilman responsible for transportation, Mr. Polak, left for Metrostav, as their spokesman.
The book “Corrupt Cities”, that was co-authored by the former Mayor of La Paz, defines corruption as the sum of monopoly power and the free hand, minus the responsibility. This is precisely what is happening in Prague, and in the Czech society. In Prague, the Council decides about the majority of issues without the City representatives. It does so, as dictated by the law, secretly, and the Council even decided, that it will not store the records from the deliberations. The responsibility is in three or even four stages, the official desides alone and secretly, nobody is responsible to the voters or to the City representatives, everything moves in a circle where nobody is directly responsible. One important recommendation: it is necessary to concentrate on investigations of matters by independent Commissions of responsible citizens. President Lincoln already long time ago made sure in the U.S.A. that every citizen has the right to request investigation of Federal bids. Here nothing like that is possible. The so-called Councils of People`s Control were cancelled, instead of their adaptation to the democratic conditions. The Courts do not deal at all with citizen`s complaints, because they do not meet the condition of personal damage. It is necessary to go after the “big fish”, to concentrate on prevention, the reduction of monopoly of power and the free hand, to increase direct responsibility, to mobilise public (e.g., special phone lines for informants), and to secure full safety of whistleblowers, as it is already done in many countries. Systematic corruption demands systematic approach.
Adriana Krnacova: Index of corruption perception can be explained in two ways. Either the situation is very bad, or else people are beginning to notice the corruption more. It is true that we dropped from the 25th to the 47th place. This June we will have results for 2001.
Transparency International (TI) is not a unit of police, as many tend to think. The fight against corruption has a certain negative connotation, but we fight for something, not only against something. We want to bring about a systemic change. Therefore, we have to know the system, to identify the grey zones, and then to help in their removal, by informing about it. TI was formed in 1993. It was founded by Peter Eigen, a former consultant of the World Bank in Africa. The branch in CR was founded in 1998. It is a civic, independent association, that is financed from abroad. During the last October there was a major TI conference in Prague. 140 countries took part, and a number of interesting ideas and results were presented. Now, a project “Viva ethics” is starting for the businessmen, we are preparing “transparency” projects for the police, justice, media, regions, and NGO integrity. We will soon have a new space, with a library, and new projects with more public participation.
Ivo Maryska *: I do not want to concentrate now on our present activities, you can find about them from various fliers that circulate here. I would rather like to inform you about broader relationships and aspects of our activities. The Club of Young Europeans (KME) is a part of European organization called the Young European Federalists (JEF). This supranational European organization associates over 30 000 students and young people from 35 countries of Europe, that is, not only from EU. KME has now 150 members, in six sections across the country. This conference, its theme, is for us a good opportunity, because the young federalists participate in many transformation processes across Europe. JEF has a fifty year long tradition, and it has participated in transformations in Germany and Italy, in changes in France, in the 80`s in Spain, Portugal, and Greece, and at the end of the 80`s it was helping in democratization changes also in the countries of the former East bloc. For example, already in 1988 it established contacts with Hungarian FIDESZ, and there already existed intensive contacts in Poland. At the beginning of 1990, a section of JEF was founded in Brno with the help of activists from Austria. The civic association that I represent here was formally created in 1995. The common interest of the young federalists is, of course, the integration of Europe, but also seeking one`s own answers and questions about the importance of identity, what it means to be a European, Czech, from Pilsen, from Hana, etc. What concretely, practically, the integration of Europe means, how does it impinge on me, personally? What advantages follow from it for me? How, for example, to use the program “Erasmus”? This is in demand, and KME offers the answers. We function mostly as a platform for discussions, communication, contacts. Contacts throughout Europe, that is very important. The connecting word for us is “federalism”. It is a very complicated, today mostly a historical, term. Today it is used by politicians, when they are trying, in a populist way, to express their “for, or against” the European integration. It is necessary to recognize, that the federalism was at the roots of European integration, and that it contributed a lot to the start of the post-war European development. The European federalists already a long time ago foreshadowed the basic aspects, about which we talk so much today, for example, the the necessity of the European Constitution, resolving the competencies among the individual States and EU, etc. For KME, the federalism is the symbol of the European optimism. We associate people that generally support the trend of European integration, even though they might have different opinions on the individual steps, and especially the people, that are searching how to help this integration. It seems to me, that it is very necessary, that young people join political discussions. In our country there is something wrong going on, when young people think, or accept the opinion from their elders, that politics is for somebody else then them, that it is for somebody “up there”. KME is attempting to overcome this opinion. Politics is for everybody, not only for Parliament and political parties. It is about one`s own engagement, about personal initiative, and the first steps can be made in the framework of non-party activities. KME offers to students such a framework. I stress, that the activities of JEF and KME are not connected to any party, and that is also a big advantage.
I am often abroad, and so I was very surprised how the Czech national interests have suddenly become a pre-election theme. Czech politicians have gladly accepted that unwelcome, and perhaps unexpected, offer from abroad, they gladly used that nationalist theme in their election fight, and it seems that they started, in a very careless manner, to beat their chests in defense of national interests. We are asking if in this way, through a back door, a bit of nationalism came to us. Closing ourselves into the national interests leads to confrontations, and it is not in the spirit of these times, nor in the spirit of the European integration. To this matter is tied one more slogan, that of going into EU with the straight spine. To have a straight spine is not about abstract national interests, it is about a healthy personal self-esteem, about the art of self-criticism, and about getting rid of one`s own prejudices. It is important not to pull ourselves back into the shell of national interests, but rather to open up to the European integration. I hope that KME will be able to assist to our still-ongoing process of transformation, that is already lasting 12-13 years.
In the conclusion, I would like to mention at least one of our current activities, and that is the international seminar on EU and liberalism that we are preparing for September of this year. Our students will be able to discuss with the Austrian and German students and other visitors, if EU and the European integration is curtailing our national interests, or if it is the other way around, if EU is offering us more space for self-realization. Thank you.
Tomas Halik: At the beginning, before the Impulse 99 started, important personalities from abroad were asking me about how Czech intellectuals would be helping Czech democracy and society. So, at that time, four of us have met, and then we sent letters to about a hundred leading intellectuals in CR. Then we asked, what to do next. We did not want a new party (up to 80% of people do not believe politicians), the manifests (Drevic, etc.), were swept off the table. So we created a civic initiative, in order to give an impulse for the serious public debate about the key problems: the entry to EU, legal culture, education, rational governance of the State, etc. The declaration was signed by several thousand people. Intense interest was created. People started to relate to it as to an incipient party. We made then, we know now, a mistake. We started to form expert groups. However, there was no base, no finances, no know-how. Czech society still cannot defend itself against political parties. However, Impulse 99 did a lot of work. Dozens of public meetings and conferences were organized. But the media hardly informed at all about our conferences. The student section also did a lot – they talked to the MP`s and Senators, everywhere, where the opposition agreement parties not only tried to freeze the normal political competition, but also to slowly change to their advantage the Constitution, the election programs, the control of media, etc. We hit upon the wall of media boycott. Certain MP`s called the media, and told them that it is not permitted to talk about Impulse, that it is unbalanced, etc. It was a similar campaign as against the Charta 77 in the past. The parties refused to discuss anything, especially ODS, and the politicians were just insulting us. Only the Coalition party was partially willing to talk. We were not interested in power, only in discussion. So we “pulled down the flag”, and continued to speak out only individually, on one`s own behalf. Then it was again possible to go to the media, to discuss with other initiatives. Our mistakes were, that too much energy was expended on the organization itself, and on its legal framework; we went into it too broadly, all at once, and in parallel in various sectors, instead of step by step. There remained , however, a narrower, informal group of people, that can organize a broader discussion from time to time. For example, about nationalism. It is very dangerous, and nationalism will strenghten extremist parties, instead of ODS, that opened it. Czech society rarely understood the public space as its own. The time has come again of (neo)normalization, the public space was taken over by a two-headed State-Party. That is why I went into it, so that this space gets opened again for the citizens.
Petr Sokol: The Young Conservatives (MK) were founded in 1991, as an independent civic association. At the beginning, there were mostly people from Brno in this association, but also some from the Civic Institute, the legal club Vsehrd, from the newspaper Student Letters, etc. The membership is based mostly on University students. Most people stayed in civil employment, where they are among the tops, they are not mainly politicians. We publish a paper called “The Right Angle”. The relationship to the political parties, especially to ODS, at the beginning there was not much interest from the politicians. But good contacts do exist, also to ODA, US, Lyra. Most MK are not party members, they are without formal relationship. MK wants to be a link for the parties on the right, because of the right’s historical fragmentation, as compared to the left. Further, it wants to defend the Euroatlantic values (NATO), and to address the relationship of the individual and the State. Also the basic human rights, as in Belorussia. The State must be neutral to the civic associations, it must not interfere. Politics must not be tabu on the academic soil, where the future politicians are being born. Politics is nothing dirty, that must not be in the Schools.
There was some harsh criticism here of the whole development after 1989. One must have more responsibility, “hard wood must be drilled slowly and carefully, not burned to ashes”.
Petr Dimun*: First, let me thank the organizers for the invitation. I am supposed to introduce an organization here, that is really not yet formally existing. Therefore, I cannot speak about the history, as my friend Petr Sokol, or about our daily problems, and therefore I will concentrate on the general reasons that are leading us to establish the Young Liberals (ML), and also about the goals, that are still a matter of our long discussions. There are two main reasons for founding ML. First, the emptying of the liberal credo in this country. To the majority of you in this Hall it is not necessary to explain, why none of the parties today represented in both Chambers of the Parliament is not truly liberal, that is a party defending all civil freedoms, on the principle, not from the position of oligarchic elite that obtained its possessions in the time of the revolutionary chaos, and now it only defends the status quo. Unfortunately, neither are the new parties, that are being created, and that want to protect honest businessmen, any guarrantee of the fulfillment of the principles of liberalism. Perhaps this is a premature scepticism, nevertheless, in our opinion, it is well placed.
Second, the absence of a non-party youth organization. Perhaps we will repeat the same mistake that was made by the Young Conservatives, and that is the admirable attempt to create a platform of young, right-leaning people ( I purposefully use this term), whose organization and structure is not dependent on any current political party. In the case of MK it was an attempt, or rather a small addition to the chimaera of one big, strong rightist party in CR. Unfortunately, this attempt was not successful. Due to the natural, strong gravitational force of the civic democrats, and also due to the lack of interest of other parties, MK started very soon to draw close to ODS. Even though they are still an organization that is independent from ODS, it is necessary to admit to ourselves, that it is a purely formal independence. Perhaps, and I say it as a bit of a hyperbole, so that those involved will certainly excuse me, one can now understand their role as an instrument of imperial party politics of ODS.
All that I have said about MK notwithstanding, I must say at least on my own behalf, that I respect many of the people from this organization, and I recognize their qualities. At the same time, MK must be thanked for many useful activities, seminars, and discussions that they organized over the ten years of their existence.
To our goals:
1. To build an organization of young, active people, that is structurally as free as possible. We realize the danger that some youth organizations of Czech political parties succumbed to. It is, most of all, the danger of clientelism, when the structures of the youth organization serve as an elevator to power in the given associated or home party. We will not stand in the way of our members who will try to go for a political career, rather to the opposite, but we will always attempt to maintain certain limits. We have written our Statutes with this on our minds.
2. To attempt the rennaisance of the liberal ideas. Through the classical form of seminars, discussions, and publication activities to again form the awareness about the liberal human being. To correct its image that, after ten years of Klausian babble, melts together with the swollen smiles of Victor Kozeny, and with the bow-tie of Vladimir Zelezny. At the same time, to bring attention to the new calls, that are coming with the societal changes of the new millenium. These are especially the inroads made by undemocratic, sometimes even criminal, structures into the organism of the State, and the misuse of its institutions in limiting the freedoms of its citizens. To warn about the quiet, creeping, and growing limitation of space of personal freedom, applied through the media and the repressive elements of the State, or the growing duties toward the welfare State. At the moment, we are in the nascent stage, in the stage of thinking about what we bring into the foundations of this organization. I am sure, and I am not alone, that it will be a firm foundation, based on conviction and on hard work. Such base, that will secure that our founders or representatives will not speak out, at a similar conference here in five or ten years from now, as defenders of socialism. Thank you for your attention.
Jiri Dientsbier, Jr.: The Young Social Democrats (MSD) closely cooperate with the political party, but they are independent. Membership: people between 15-35 years of age, that profess the values of social democracy. The statement that was made here, that we are just a transmission gear of the social democratic party, is entirely wrong. We are trying to change, to influence things. We are, for example, very critical of the opposition agreement. We organize seminars, interest and sport activities, we push things into the program of CSSD.
Jana Adamcova *: Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends: The development of young christian democrats in the 90`s was not quite simple.It is also shown by the fact of the late formation of the Junior Club of Christian Democrats (JKKD). While all youth organizations were founded in the first years of our new free history, JKKD did so only in 1997. After the Velvet Revolution, the so-called clubs of christian youths were being formed, and these were originally attempting to become some sort of youth organization of KDU-CSL party. However, they soon became communities of believers, rather than political clubs. They became too clearly delimited as a religious organization. When founding JKKD, we realized that a political youth organization cannot be exclusively based on belonging to some denomination, because politics must be for all, not only for believers. Therefore, we decided that JKKD would be a civic association, with a clear mission to assist young people with political or societal ambitions in forming a political vision, to discuss timely social and political questions, and to help in their education. Please do not take this as a criticism of the denominational clubs, but as a necessary clarification of the basic issues touching upon christian democracy.
After the initial discussion over the Statutes of JKKD, the Club was founded in June 1997, as a platform of KDU-CSL, that is, as a free association of persons in the framework of the party. After two years of experience with this, we started to discuss a possible change of Statutes of the organization, and we decided to become a civic association. This suited better both the transparent financing of our activities and the cooperation with foundations and sponsors, and our position as an independent organization in the relationship to our partners both at home and abroad. This decision was, however, not taken well in KDU-CSL, because majority of functionaries took it as some sort of departure from the maternal party. They did not understand the basic pragmatic dimension of this decision. There was a lot of questioning and discussions about the mission of a political youth organization. Perhaps a certain lack of conception was generated by the fact, that the party was, and is still after twelve years, plagued by its own fight for survival and for the parliamentary positions. Perhaps there is some other reason for the lack of interest in a longer time cooperation with young people. The Czech State seems to be in a similar position, as it avoids any support of these youth organizations, as contrasted to other types of non-profit organizations (sports, culture, etc.). The situation at the Universities is a clear example, that we are not taken as the classical civic organizations by the State institutions, when we are refused the possibility to discuss the timely political questions on the academic soil. We will continue to lobby, together with the Young Conservatives and the Young Social Democrats, for the right to discuss politics at the Universities, as it is possible in all democratic countries.
In the conclusion, I would like to say something about one of the big themes of this conference, the relationship between politics and the civil society. I do not understand why in this country an artificial gulf is being created between these things. After all, the political parties are a part of the civil society. The political youth organizations are, in a sense, half way between the politics and civic associations. Thus, we strongly perceive the mistake of such a division of civil society. I am deeply convinced that we have to change this situation. We have to start a proper debate, mutually reinforce each other. Each politician can only welcome, if a variety of civic and other organizations exist that will transmit the opinion of the citizens to him/her on a multiplicity of issues. The politician needs to hear back from those that elected him, but if he intends to isolate himself in the Parliament, then, I am afraid, he has no right to remain in these buildings. It is an elementary part of democracy, the obligation to perceive the various voices of society, to act on them, and not to be critical or even dismissive towards this process.
I would like to express my thanks for giving me the opportunity to address this conference, and especially to thank all of those, who are willing and capable to discuss in a cultured way the problematic area of civil society, and the relationship of non-governmental organizations and the political scene. --------------------------
* - Full text, with minimum editorial changes, according to the mailed contributions.