Blame Politicians for Jeopardising Elections

The ruling of the Constitutional Court [on 1 September suspending the general elections scheduled for 9–10 October] is certainly inconvenient, but it's not so surprising. If a Member of Parliament files a complaint, as Miloš Melčák did, against the way early elections are called, the court will logically need some time to decide – and there can be no elections in the meantime. It would be worse if the elections took place and the court later invalidated them.

So where's the problem? The political parties chose to dissolve the lower house simply and without any consultation although no such action is detailed in the Czech constitution. It's therefore inappropriate for Civic Democrat leader Mirek Topolánek to state the court ruling was bizarre or for Social Democrat leader Jiří Paroubek to allege the court was threatening the country's credibility abroad (which Paroubek himself damaged by toppling Topolánek's government during its EU presidency). The initial mistake was made not by judges, but by politicians themselves.

Czech politicians have been tackling constitutional issues for years without any long-term plan, calling instead on last-minute and one-time solutions to spite their rivals. During the split-up of Czechoslovakia in 1992, it looked for a while like the Czech Republic would come into being on 1 January 1993 without any constitution. In the end, one was quickly compiled, but it took another three years to establish the Senate that should have been launched simultaneously with the new state under the constitution. Worse still, the constitution required the establishment of regional governments, which did not happen until the very end of the 1990s.

All amendments to electoral laws, the constitution and other important laws have so far been made in haste and for the short-term benefit of those then in power. The argument that the dissolution of the lower house is unconstitutional and the constitution must be permanently amended was first voiced in 1998. Eleven years later, nothing has changed.

When Václav Klaus called on political parties to jointly revolt against the Constitutional Court, his statement had no basis. The president's aim is not to resolve a political stalemate, but to settle his accounts with the Czech judiciary that has constantly defied him (ruling, for example, against Klaus in his dispute with a Supreme Court chairwoman). If the present electoral affair points to anything being wrong, it's the fact that the head of state disrespects the country's constitution.

At the moment we don't know when the elections will take place. There are too many possibilities, ranging from this autumn to the summer of 2010, when the term ends for current MPs. It all depends on how fast the Constitutional Court acts. While the situation is uncertain, we should give the judges time and space to decide the matter well.

At the same time we have to sympathise with the political parties, who will lose substantial amounts of money with each day of delay. They have already paid for airtime in the media and for billboards and PR agencies, without even delving into their concerns that voters' political leanings may change with time.

The key thing is to have strong nerves and avoid hasty decisions. After all, we do have both the cabinet and parliament at the moment.