Is union of freedom a viable political subject?

In the three most recent opinion polls, the Union of Freedom (US), founded by politicians who have split away from Vaclav Klaus's Civic Democratic Party (ODS), was supported by between 10 percent and 11.5 percent of the polls' respondents, becoming the third most popular party in the country. The party skyrocketed to prominence a mere month after it was founded; it has yet to register officially with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and elect its leaders.

There are several reasons for the US's success. Above all, it was founded by prominent politicians, such as former Internal Affairs Minister Jan Ruml and Finance Minister Ivan Pilip. Such politicians left the ODS in December and January in protest against the party's unwillingness to deal resolutely with a financing scandal that had brought down the Czech government. Although it is clear that politicians such as Ruml and Pilip bear their share of responsibility for the ODS's nontrasparent financing, they--unlike Vaclav Klaus and his followers--demanded that the ODS investigate as vigorously as it can all donations from sponsors that could be questioned. This is clearly what in the eyes of the voters distinguishes most US members from those politicians who now form the ODS leadership.

Most US founders also want to pursue a different political style than that which is associated with the ODS, and Klaus in particular. In fact, a majority of those politicians who have left the ODS for the US, decided to leave the ODS not so much because of the ODS's dubious financing as because the ODS has become a fan club of Vaclav Klaus. At its congress in December, the ODS failed to recognize that Klaus--with his arrogance and a lack of sef-reflection--had become a major burden for the party. Ruml and his followers realized that the storm which rocked the ODS in December was not an anti-Klaus conspiracy (as Klaus has interpreted it) but a sign of a profound crisis of the Czech civic right. They were able to see that the the ODS will not be able to rehabilitate right-of-center ideas if Klaus remains its only program.

Ruml has also realized that too much emphasis on ideology can be counterproductive with Czech voters. During his tenure as prime minister, Klaus often lectured about the virtues of economic and political liberalism but in reality relied on half-baked pragmatic solutions. As a result, his ideological rhetoric did not correspond with is actions. Moreover, most ODS members, just like most Czech voters, have only vague ideas about the meaning ideological labels, such as liberalism. They supported Klaus between 1992 and 1996 mainly because he appeared to be an efficient and competent problem-solver.

Ruml and his followers made clear from the start that they will focus on solving problems in a non-ideological way. They describe the US as a right-of-center party, but limit the definition of the party's ideological position to the most general rightist notions, such as putting more emphasis on free, autonomous individuals rather than a powerful state. They want a state that functions more as a guarantor of the basic rules of a market economy than a redistributor of social wealth. In some areas, the US's political philosophy overlaps with that of the ODS; but in some areas it differs significantly from that of the ODS.

For example, the US puts emphasis on a civil society, a notion tat Klaus has stubbornly resisted. The US is also in favor of a greater decentralization of state power. Its programmatic manifesto puts much emphasis on the rule of law as well as the ethics and transparency of economic behavior.

It is difficult to judge how sincere the US--consisting mostly of former ODS members--is about its new political and economic objectives. Czech voters, however, seem to be impressed. There is clearly a market in the country for a solid right-of-center political party. Last year, amid a seemingly endless series of political and economic scandals, many of those voters who do not want to vote for leftist parties, ended up in a political no-man's land. In the US, they might have found a political subject that they can support, albeit conditionally.

Opinion polls suggest that so far a majority of potential US voters are those who have abandoned the ODS, whose support has dropped from some 20 percent only a few months ago to the current 10 to 12 percent. It seems that some US voters until recently also supported the Christian Democrats, whose ratings have dropped by about three percent, to the current eight percent. However, should the US be able to take over the ODS's former role as the most dominant rightist party, it would also need to start chipping away at the electorate of the Social Democrats, who are currently supported by between 28 and 30 percent of voters. Whether the US can do so will determine the fate of the Czech right in general. Should the US, the ODS, and the Civic Democratic Alliance (ODA) all end up as opposition parties after the elections, their very existence will be put to a test.

Reuters - 16. 2. 1998