Debate on electing the next resident

A recent opinion poll has indicated that more than three quarters of Czechs would prefer a direct election of the country's president to the current system under which the president is elected by the parliament. There are several compelling reasons why in the future the president should be elected directly by the people.

The most important reason is that under certain circumstances the country could be left without a president. The example of Slovakia is often cited in this context. Since the president needs to be elected by three fifths of deputies in both chambers, political parties may simply be unable to find the necessary political consensus. The inability to elect the president has harmed the international reputation of Slovakia significantly.

Although the two strongest Czech parties--the Civic Democrats (ODS) and the Social Democrats (CSSD) currently cooperate in some areas under the so-called opposition agreement, it is not certain that they would be able to agree on who should be the president. It is also not certain that the opposition agreement will not collapse before the next presidential election. On the other hand, if the two parties should be able to extend the terms of the opposition treaty to choosing jointly the next president, the election of the president would become a farce. The parliament would be left out of the process to a large extent, as the next president would simply be chosen chosen by the chairmen of the two strongest parties and than rubber-stamped by the the parties' deputies. In fact, the next president would probably be one of those two chairmen.

The CSSD and the ODS are jointly aiming for changing the electoral system used in general elections with the purpose of creating a two-party system. Should they succeed, the president would have to be elected directly. Otherwise, the candidate of the party that would be stronger during the presidential elections would always become the president.

Should the next president be again elected by the parliament, there is a danger that political parties will in the end be able to agree only on the lowest possible denominator. In case of Vaclav Havel, the common denominator was so "high" that it was impossible not to elect Havel in the end. Yet, even he was elected for his second term only in the second round of voting, with the margin of only one vote.

The direct election of the president (which, by the way, is used in neighboring Austria and Poland) would not necessarily need to result in changing the president's powers. However, it would give the president a different kind of political mandate. The president would be stronger in dealing with political parties and, thus, would be able to stay really "above politics," as required by the Czech political tradition.

In he past, the president has been, to an extent, a hostage of political parties. If he wanted to be elected for the second term, he needed to be very diplomatic in addressing various political issues. Even very general statements, such as that the president is in favor of NATO membership or that he is against a referendum on NATO membership, were bound to make him look like a political opponent of those parties that had different ideas.

After the departure of Havel from the presidential post, it may be very difficult to find a president who can exercise any leadership role---that is, unless the next president is elected directly. That is why the current political debate is an important one. To change the way in which the president is elected may, however, be difficult because politicians such as ODS Chairman Vaclav Klaus have much better chances to be elected as the next president as long as the president is elected by the parliament and, at the same time, as long as the opposition agreement lasts. The direct election of the president would significantly decrease chances of those politicians who are strongly identified with one political party.

Reuters - 6. 10. 1998