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.