Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Carolina (English) No 039B
CCCCC AA RRRRR OOOO LL II NN N AA
CC AA A RR R OO O LL II NNN N AA A
CC AA A RRRRR OO O LL II NN N N AA A
CC AAAAAA RR R OO O LL II NN NN AAAAAA
CCCCC AA A RR R OOOO LLLLLL II NN N AA A
STUDENT'S E-MAIL NEWS FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA
School of Social Science of Charles University
Smetanovo nabr. 6
110 01 Prague 1
C.S.F.R.
e-mail address: CAROLINA@CSEARN.BITNET
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
C A R O L I N A No 39, Friday, September 4, 1992.
In today's supplement to Carolina we present a conversation with
Jan Sokol, who, as we mentioned in Carolina number 37, proclaimed that
under certain conditions he would accept nomination as president of the
CSFR.
Jan Sokol was born in 1936, he is a Roman Catholic (among other
things he participated in the ecumenical translation of the Bible). At
the end of the seventies he contributed to the literary monthy Tvar,
along with Vaclav Havel, Jiri Nemec, Emanuel Mandler and others, many of
whom later appeared in the dissident movement and on the political scene
after 1989. He is a leading scholar of the works of the Czech
philosopher Jan Patocka. Until 1989 he worked in the area of development
of computer systems. He was among the first signatories of Charta 77. In
1990 he was elected to parliament as a representative of Civic Forum and
became vice-president of the Chamber of Nations. This year he ran on the
Civic Movement ticket, which lost the election. At present he is editor
of the journal Pritomnost. As a politician he was considered a figure
who strove for a conciliatory, contstructive policy in the liberal
spirit of the Civic Movement.
* * *
Mr. Sokol, much has changed since the elections, you are one of
the members of the Civic Movement, who was tossed by the elections back
into civil life after two years of professional politics. How would you
characterize your present political position today?
It is difficult to say anything today about my political
position. I would rather say something about the principles which are
today especially important for me. The first stems from the way our
politics have, since the beginning of the century, moved "from wall to
wall", from extreme to extreme. My first concern is to attempt to
prevent us from going from one extreme to the other. The second
principle states that human timidity, uncertainty, mistrust, suspicion
and the panic and imagined conspiracies and so on that flow from it, are
a great threat to us. The third principle is based on the experience
that since 1989 our state has been weakened. The state should be,
according to my view, minimal, i.e. it should be involved in as few
things as possible -- but in those things however it must be strong and
indubitable. I'm afraid that today there is a lot lacking for that state
of affairs. Finally a further principle that I am in favor of is the
effort to support all forms of private initiative. That was why
I supported even some problematical steps in parliament, such as
restitution. I would gladly support every specific enterprise not only
in the narrow sense, but also every kind of civic initiative in social
and cultural life, etc. I am trying to do so even today, as editor of
the journal Pritomnost.
When you add it all up, those are principles which could be
called liberal. That's also important to me because I do not like it
when religion mixes with politics -- in whatever direction. I have tried
to carry that out also in parliament and elsewhere, or more precisely
I have tried to remove the presumtion, that a Christian is by that fact
alone already politically aligned, that there exists only one, binding
Christian policy.
What are the most important results of the elections?
The main result, according to my opinion, is that in both parts
of the state the parties that won are political opposites, they have
a different political profile and no desire to work together. That could
also have good reasons, but it is simply a fact.
How would you characterize the present political situation in our
state?
In the first place I would mention something like a normal,
everyday life which on the whole functions. The economy is slowly but
surely beginning to recover, and in spite of various difficulties and
troubles things are somehow in motion. Then there is the question of the
state, of which I have already said that it is weakened, and continues
to weaken. It seems that this state will divide in two in the near
future. I am still not entirely convinced that it is necessary and on
the contrary I am certain that it is not rational. The present
situation, though, appears such that no other possibility is likely,
that it won't work any other way.
Can you find anything positive on the division of the state ?
According to my opinion, I cannot find anything. The only
legitimate reason is the Slovak decision, that the people in Slovakia
want autonomy. This would be a legitimate reason, to which there would
be no objection. In that case, Slovakia should have as much autonomy as
it asks for. I think that from our Czech point of view the advantages
are purely psychological, there is an atmosphere containing fear and
calling for a quick decision.
How can one defend the assertion, used often by both sides, that
the division should be done as soon as possible ?
Once we say that the state is only provisional, then there is
something wrong with it. And if it behaves provisionally, then this
itself is a reason to make this shorter. All the rush results from the
feeling, that "it cannot go on like this anymore", that something must
happen and if "something" happens all problems will be solved. But
nobody explained me why we are in such a hurry. The previous parliament,
in spite of its complicated structure, has passed the bill about the
economic reform, as well as important changes in the laws about private
property and all the basic laws necessary for the function of the
government. As soon as I know, there was no serious bill in the
parliament after the elections, so we cannot say how will the federal
parliament work in the future.
What are the reasons for your candidacy for the presidental
office in the next round of the presidential elections?
I want to make clear, what this is all about. When the social
democrats asked me if I would accept the candidacy, I answered
positively but under two conditions: first, that the former president
Havel will be informed soon and in a proper way, and second that the
other parties in the parliament would support my candidacy. I know that
many people have been surprised with my decision, this role would be
very difficult and problematical. President in our country has very
little power and strongly depends on the parliament - that was the
reason why I requested that major parties in the parliament would
support my candidacy. I have no illusions that I can put forward my
opinions. But I think that it is neccessary - whether the state would
exist further or it would split and both parts would exist together in
some new way - that everything proceeds according to a mutual agreement
and in a constitutional way. Because of this I realized that I cannot
avoid this task. The state should not split only because there is nobody
who can put it together. As I have said before, if major parliamentary
parties will not support my candidacy, I am ready to withdraw. I did not
want to increase the tension or put anything to doubt. I just cannot
accept the argument that the state is disassembling of its own accord.
We want to build a democratic state and this has its rules. We cannot
admit that the state is splitting of its own accord by laws of entropy.
If the splitting should be done, then it must be done in full
conscience, according to the decision of people.
Prague, August 31, 1992.
Authorized interview for CAROLINA: Vaclav Trojan.
Translation: Hugh Agnew and Peter Rajcani.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This news may be published only with "CAROLINA" designation.
To subscribe Carolina please send the e-mail message with subject
"Carolina/Eng: Subscription" for the english version (and "Carolina/Cs:
Subscription" for the czech version) on our e-mail address above. To
drop sending you replace the word Subscription" by "Unsubscription".
The subscription is free. Comments and remarks are appreciated.
