Are constitutional amendments in the offing?

Both the Social Democrats (CSSD) and the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) declared shortly after the June general elections that they would jointly seek to amend the Czech Constitution. The even enshrined this objective in the so-called opposition agreement which they signed in July. In the Senate elections in November the tow parties were able to preserve their constitutional majority in the upper chamber. Since they have between them a constitutional majority in the lower chamber as well, it seems that nothing stands in the way of the planned constitutional changes.

The Senate elections, despite the fact the two parties were able o defend their constitutional majority, represented also a defeat for the ODS and the CSSD. The two parties won together fewer seats in the Senate than a coalition of four small parties that have been critical of the opposition agreement. The CSSD, in particular, suffered a stunning defeat, winning only three Senate seats out of the 27 contested. The poor showing of the two parties is certain to test their resolve to cooperate, as the voters sent a clear signal they are not too happy with the opposition agreement.

The two parties' joint work on amending the Constitution may thus never even start. Although both the ODS and the CSSD have named members of a joint commission that is to work on drafting various constitutional amendments, there are quite a few disagreements between the two parties. They have so far been able to agree, in general terms, only on the need to amend those parts of the Constitution that have not stood the test of time. For example, it should be easier for the President to call early elections. In the spring of 1998 the parliament in the end had to adopt a special constitutional amendment on calling early elections, because the Constitution proved to be too rigid in this area.

The constitutional changes that have been publicly mentioned can be divided into three groups. The first group involves small corrections, such as closing the existing gaps in the Constitution or making the language of the Constitution more precise. For example, should the President resign or become unable to work, some of his powers would be transferred to the prime minister and the others to the chairman of the parliament's lower chamber. However, the power to call elections is currently nontransferable. This "omission" could cause a serious constitutional crisis in certain circumstances.

Some powers of the president could be made more precise. For example, the Constitution currently sets no time limits on forming a new government. The president can ask the government that has resigned or has not passed the vote of confidence to stay on as caretaker government without any time limit. The powers of such government are the same as those of a government before resigning.

Another level of possible changes involves those changes that may seem rather superfluous but could have serious implications, if ill-conceived. For example, some ODS and CSSD politicians have talked about the need to take away from the President some of his exclusive powers, such as granting pardons or appointing members of the Central Bank's board. It is clear that any attempt to limit the president's power to name members of the Central Bank's board could be interpreted as an attempt by the strongest political parties to limit the independence of the Central Bank. In fact, both CSSD CHairman Milos Zeman and ODS Chairman Vaclav Klaus have recently suggested that the bank's independence should be reduced.

Yet another level of possible changes involves those that would amount to large-scale interventions in the Constitution and would provoke a series of other changes. For example, the ODS and the CSSD talk about changing the electoral system that is currently used in electing the lower chamber. Such a change would have far-reaching repercussions. The same is true about the idea to change the way in which the President is elected from an indirect to a direct election. Following the Senate elections, in which only some 20 percent of the eligible voters took part, some politicians have suggested that the powers of the upper chamber need to be significantly strengthened.

It is good that serious debate about improving the Czech Constitution has started. The Constitution was adopted very quickly in 1992 when Czechoslovakia was about to split. However, the fact that possible constitutional changes are at this point fully in the hands of the two strongest parties is disturbing. Clearly, other parties and institutions should be invited to a parliamentary commission that will be formed. Although both the CSSD and the ODS say they will involve other parties at some point, currently the project of amending the Constitution remains solely their affair.

Reuters - 3. 12. 1998