The signatories include historian Emanuel Mandler, academician Viktor Dobal, conservative politician Ivan Mašek, and journalist and Charter 77 signatory Petruška Šustrová. They warn against what they see as the government's "authoritarian approach;" they fear that Prime Minister Jiří Paroubek seeks to curb the freedom of the press; and they are especially worried that new "authoritative laws and regulations" are being adopted with the support of the Communists. "We believe the Czech Republic is returning to the days before November 1989," the signatories warn.

The dramatic public statements made by various interest groups in the Czech Republic, intending to discredit their political opponents, are quite remarkable --- even if one takes into account that campaigning for the June elections has already begun. The latest open letter from Šustrová, Mandler and co. belongs to a long line of similar protest declarations made over the years by Czech political activists. Remember "Impulse 99"? "Thank you, now leave"? The Česká televize rebellion at Christmas 2000? The "Abolish the Communists" campaign? These declarations tend to hide their party political content behind a pretext of moral outrage.

One would expect that in democratic politics, people who disagree with a particular party's program would criticize the aspects of the program that they dislike. But some still use the tactic of trying to discredit certain parts of the Czech political spectrum --- a strategy that, paradoxically, harks back to the communist past. It seems that old habits die hard; some political activists still prefer to label their opponents as undemocratic, and hence illegitimate, rather than engage them in critical debate.

Under totalitarianism, there were no channels for activists to take part in the political process. Activists then justifiably published declarations accusing the political system of being illegitimate. But is it necessary to take the same approach more than sixteen years after the fall of totalitarianism?

Cass Mudde, a political scientist from Edinburgh University, calls this approach "intellectual populism," and traces its origins to the stance taken by Václav Havel. In Mudde's analysis, intellectual populism is based on a dichotomy of "corrupt politicians" and the "morally pure nation," usually represented by civic activists who see themselves as the nation's conscience. In their open letters, intellectual populists demand that politics should be taken away from politicians and returned to the morally pure nation, which they seek to represent. Their declarations serve as a kind of back door onto the political stage. "We may not be able to win the elections," their reasoning goes, "so we'll publish declarations, pointing out that the political system is corrupt. Thus, we discredit professional politics and open a space for ourselves."

Intellectual populism tries to use existing negative emotions as material for politics. But it doesn't work. The dichotomy of "moral citizens" and "corrupt rulers" was valid under communism, but isn't valid in a democracy. By attempting to discredit the government with moralistic declarations, the intellectual populists are trying to use political tactics from the totalitarian era. No wonder these appeals fall on deaf ears. In a democracy, it's the ballot box that has political power, not passionate moral appeals.

Published on 23rd January, 2006 in Czech Business Weekly HERE