HN: Presidential post boosts instability, may be unneeded

Prague, Oct 9 (CTK) - It is disputable whether the Czechs really need the post of president, in view of its negative effect on politics and society so far, Petr Honzejk writes in Hospodarske noviny Tuesday, adding that the performance of both Vaclav Havel and Vaclav Klaus boosted political instability.

The institution of president has not proved much contributive in the Czech Republic, both in terms of the president's influence on the political developments and on society, Honzejk says at the close of the second and last possible tenure of Klaus, the incumbent president.

The office of the president, which is useful and irreplaceable in the theoretical system of constitutional safeguards and counterweights, has failed to fulfil its meaning in practice, when exercised by concrete persons with their weaknesses and preferences, Honzejk writes.

As for the presidential powers, both Havel and Klaus used them to the full extent, often even overstepping them, Honzejk writes.

Klaus disputed over his powers linked to the appointment of the Supreme Court top officials. He used gaps in the constitution to refuse to appoint ministers he disliked. He vetoed bills as if he were a third chamber of Czech parliament, Honzejk writes.

Both Havel and Klaus used allied junior parties in the government to push through their own solutions to particular political problems. Both disputed with the respective governments over foreign policy. They acted beyond the way the president is supposed to act. This may impress many, but it also means that they oppressed others, Honzejk writes.

Unfortunately, it is evident that the Czech presidents have creatively used their constitutional powers to outwit the spirit of the constitution, which entrusts the powers to them, with the aim to strengthen their power as much as possible, Honzejk writes.

Both presidents did so, Klaus probably a little bit more. During his second term (2008-2012), the country's constitutional system even got imbalanced. Klaus weakened the executive power pillar (he helped topple one government and now he is thwarting the other's rule by massively vetoing its bills). He also attempted to destabilise the judicial pillar (refused to appoint judges), Honzejk writes.

From other viewpoints, the presidential post's contribution is problematic as well, Honzejk continues, mentioning some controversial cases of granting presidential pardons by both Havel and Klaus. The Presidential Office has even come under suspicion, never proved, that a presidential pardon can bought, Honzejk writes.

In choosing members of the Czech National Bank board and Constitutional Court judges, neither Havel nor Klaus were able to put their personal preferences aside. This would do no harm if it were not for the situation where most crucial laws are challenged at the Constitutional Court. In view of this, the president's preferential choice of judges can be considered his attempt to interfere in politics, Honzejk writes.

Briefly, both Havel and Klaus's influence on the political system and quality of democracy cannot be assessed but negatively. The problem may rest in the presidential office as such. With its external symbols (castle, motto, flag, guards) it reminds of a royal office. Maybe this is why almost anyone in the post would adopt a monarch's conduct, with prevailingly negative effects, Honzejk writes.

In the past, Havel himself admitted that the presidential post is a bit "redundant" in the constitutional system, that it sometimes complicates things as some presidential powers can be interpreted differently. In spite of this, Havel said, the president is not redundant because he significantly contributes to creating atmosphere in society and even formulates and embodies the set of the state's basic values, Honzejk writes.

However, what atmosphere in society have Havel and Klaus helped create? Havel assisted in the development of the "bad mood" of the 1990s, and Klaus contributed to the "bad mood" of the present days. Each of them divided the society rather than united. There is no reason to believe that any new personality in the presidential post would do better, Honzejk writes.

The conclusion is sad. With the exception of Havel's first tenure, the president's exercising of his post has raised political instability, threatened the balance of individual pillars of power and contributed to the Czech Republic's incomprehensible image abroad. By no means has it calmed down the atmosphere in society, Honzejk says.

The question is whether the Czechs really urgently need the post of president, which mainly benefits its holders and their clients, in a situation where presidential powers could be divided among other institutions? Honzejk asks.