LN: Both Klaus, Zeman hostile to ideas different from theirs

Prague, March 11 (CTK) - Recent speeches of both Vaclav Klaus and Milos Zeman, who replaced Klaus as Czech president on Friday, were no surprise as they each outlined the speaker's ideas in a way hostile not only to different ideas but also to doubts and criticism, Jan Drazan writes in Lidove noviny yesterday.

He refers to Klaus's last speech in his capacity as president on Thursday evening and to Zeman's first speech at his inauguration ceremony on Friday morning.

The last and the first speeches are symbols that especially attract the attention of the presidents' fans and supporters as well as critics and opponents. They are an important opportunity for the outgoing president to assess the past developments and for the new president to present his plans and outline the country's prospects, Drazan writes.

Such speeches are an opportunity for presidents to show a broad-minded approach, a gesture of reconciliation and an outstretched hand, he continues.

Both Klaus and Zeman's speeches failed in this respect. They clearly showed how much Klaus and Zeman resemble each other. Both are searching for enemies, this was a strong impression arising from their speeches, Drazan writes.

Klaus's speeches have always been more sophisticated than Zeman's, he is skilled in veiling things with an ideological mist and in using values such as freedom as arguments. He often does not point to affairs directly but it is always evident from his words what he is aiming at, Drazan writes.

Klaus's last speech did not differ from his others. It depicted a number of traps and threats the Czechs are faced with, as well as wreckers who want to harm Czechs at home and abroad, Drazan writes.

Klaus has always sought enemies mainly where the words, steps and ideas of others differed from his own espoused values. It is his kind of permanent fighting the evil. He raises the impression of dark forces secretly preparing their dark plans and intrigues, whose only goal is to destroy everything Klaus has promoted and built, to destroy Klaus's world and thus also Klaus himself, Drazan writes.

Similarly, Zeman's inauguration speech did not markedly differ from his previous series of speeches, Drazan continues, alluding to Zeman's position as Social Democrat (CSSD) chairman in 1993-2001, Chamber of Deputies head in 1996-1998 and prime minister in 1998-2002.

Compared with Klaus, Zeman has always presented himself in a close-to-people way. He formulates ideas simply and as if straightforwardly. In his case, however, this amounts to populism rather than truthfulness. He knows well what the crowd wants to hear and what it will applaud, Drazan writes.

Klaus and Zeman differ in defining their respective groups of enemies. Unlike Zeman, Klaus does not view the combatting of "Godfathers" and neo-Nazis as a priority. Zeman, on his part, does not feel worried by the expanding European structures or the power-thirsty Constitutional Court judges, Drazan says.

The two have only one enemy in common - the media. Klaus does not label the media directly, while Zeman does so quite unscrupulously, Drazan writes.

Everything can be blamed on the media, including one's own flops and failures, he says.

After the 1989 collapse of the communist regime, Klaus and Zeman assisted in the country's crucial transformation that also secured a chance for Czechs to choose freely from among various opinions, Drazan continues.

In their latest speeches, President Vaclav Klaus and President Milos Zeman offered their "visions," their views of the world in which there is no place for doubts, for different opinions or criticism. Neither of them managed to step out from his own shadow. They did not surprise, though they could and should have. Last week's speeches were an optimal chance for both. An end. A beginning. Milestones, Drazan writes.

It is far from easy to step out from one's own shadow. This requires a combination of courage, broad-mindedness and self-reflection, Drazan writes.

"Stepping out from one's own shadow does not mean denying oneself. The opposite is true. It means showing that I, my work and my era were/will be better than what they are widely believed/expected to be," Drazan concludes.