On one hand the paternalism of Western Europe, on the other the populist thrusts of Visegrád Group: Prague looking for its own balance
Thus, even the Czechs have changed sides. After four years of building up the image of the attractive side of the Visegrad Group, the elections saw the clear victory of the populists, while pro-western parties had to struggle hard to catch a seat in the Parliament. Moreover, the expected presidential elections could further confirm the widespread feeling in Brussels and in several European capitals regarding the distancing of Central European countries from the West.
West: the further you are, the dearer you are
The winner’s personality, Andrej Babiš, brings little certainty to Brussels due to his conflict of interests and the populist character. Unfortunately, for some time now, the term populism has lost its explanatory value and turned into an exorcising formula, otherwise with a very poor effect. If there is any populism in Babiš, then it is quite different from the one in Poland or Hungary. A great number of Czechs want to be comforted by the fact that things will continue to run smoothly. In this context, the slogans of the Ano movement must be read reversely: bringing a change means making sure that things continue to go reasonably well, a proactive government and mostly a government to preserve the present and fight any spur that might endanger the relative welfare. In this regard, Babiš resembles strongly to Silvio Berlusconi, whose greatest promise made to the Italian people was to make the society of the end of the 1980s eternal. After two decades, Berlusconi had to step down, when the great 1929 economic crisis broke that illusion. Babiš keeps hope of not having to face such an unfavorable context.
Although Babiš has no reasons to break ties with the European Union, it is certainly not the political aspect that could put him into a favorable light in the eyes of the Czech people. It is not an easy task to accomplish. Continental Europe has never had a great overture on Czech Intellectuals and politicians, and especially in those in dissent. After the collapse of the Wall, the relations with Germany were too burdened by history to allow any mutual fondness. France was being reminded of the Munich Agreement. Scandinavia was too state-controlled and collectivist for those who had barely emerged from real socialism. Finally, the southern European states were doing great only for tourism and did not offer high-level political references.
Regardless of the most mentioned meal at that time with François Mitterand, one of the first western heads of state to encounter the Czechoslovakian dissidents, the main figures of the new political course have always admired the United States and Great Britain. Václav Klaus said he was inspired by Margaret Thatcher and the iron lady was granted a standing ovation in the federal Czechoslovak Parliament during her visit after the fall of the Iron Curtain. On the other hand Václav Havel was one of the most accommodating and uncritical supporters of the United States; he was ready even to defend with his moral standing the bombings and military expeditions based on fake news. He obtained the highest American honor and a bust in Congress for this ethical laundering, assigned by President Bush Jr., a sort of Trump from a good family. Briefly, even back then the far West was adored much more the nearest one, with which co-existing involves all aspects.
The poor relatives and the scrap heap of Europe
Since the accession to the European Union, Czechs are the most Eurosceptic among all its inhabitants. The long series of Cvvm (The Public Opinion Research Centre) surveys, the Sociology Institute’s polling agency belonging to the Czech Academy of Science gives us a clear picture of the situation. Firstly, in the last thirteen years, the opinions regarding EU are surprisingly stable. Excluding transient variations, less than thirty-five percent of Czechs are satisfied with the EU membership, around thirty percent are dissatisfied and the rest are neutral. At the same time, between 55 and 60 percent of the Czechs would want to continue as a member state, even at the cost of remaining in a group of states with a lower rate of integration.
Unlike the picture presented after the migrant crisis, the reasons for the dissatisfaction are anything but identity shaping; there is only a small minority that thinks that the Union damages the national culture. On the other hand, the practical complaints are prevailing, but also strongly stereotyped, such as those of bureaucracy, the increase of laws and so on. The Czechs see with a critical eye also the elements that in the West are presented as reasons for gratitude. It is about the European funds and the free movement of the highly skilled workforce, which can sometimes cause local dysfunctions. We can take as an example the hospitals, which must close departments due to the lack of doctors who emigrated to countries that offer higher salaries.
Despite all the critics, more than eighty percent of the Czechs consider that the European Union has improved the working, studying and living conditions. This is an information that is missing completely in the debate between the politicians of the founding States, that concentrate everything on gratitude, and the politicians of the Visegrad countries, that behave like some enfant terrible in order to prove their maturity. If the later attitude is clearly destructive, not even the first one leads into the right direction. Gratitude in politics barely matters, as it was well known to Winston Churchill who lost the elections despite having won the war and saved the country from the Nazis. In the West, it is hard to accept the idea that the former communist states can broaden their consideration of the solutions and the approaches proposed by the greater neighbors. Unfortunately, for all, migration and refugees consumed this confrontation of emancipation from a cultural subservience. The challengers, ie the Visegrad countries, lack any viable alternative.
The difference and the disillusionment regarding the closest neighbors is visible not only on migrants. During the last months, the issue of the double food standards has been a top subject and the European Union would better deal with it, given the uncountable victims from the countries involved. In Czech Republic, the matter shapes into an even more grotesque one, considering that it was raised by the former Minister of agriculture, Marian Jurečka, who is also a direct farmer, and by the current Prime Minister, Andrej Babiš, whose Agrofert is known for a doubtful quality of its products. Another reason for alienation is certainly the feeling that the country does not succeed to emancipate itself from the level of poor relative of the Germans and Austrians. The Foreign investors’ profits and exports made a lot of rumor during the last couple of years, although in the sectorial rankings the foreign companies are often in top for the value of their salaries. In addition, the trade unions forget sometimes to include the national owners in their polemics, which are not nowadays poorer than the foreign ones and willing to invest in safe sectors, media or financial ones. In the European Union, there is a strong tendency to concentrate value in a few A category states. It is an inherent process in the globalized capitalism. The Union does not manage to oppose it, although it pays a greater price in both west and south.
The Czech society’s approach to the West has definitely changed. Nowadays, it is expected to do better than to the west of the Bohemian Forest and self-evaluate the measures that need to be taken. The Union must focus on the communion of material interests, rather than on gratitude in order to rebuild the plural unity. The first encounter of this era was the one regarding the migrants. However, even the best maturity ages start sometimes with a stumble.
by Jakub Horňáček