The Pelikán case has revealed once again the dictatorial tendencies, both dangerous and absurd, of Miroslav Kalousek.


Last week, industry minister Martin Kuba withdrew his nomination of Robert Pelikán to the council of the Czech Telecommunications Office after the finance minister protested that Pelikán, a 32 year-old competition lawyer, considers Kalousek a thief.

Kalousek said: “If Mr. Pelikán believes that the finance minister is a thief, then he should never have been nominated in the first place.”

I have argued elsewhere that Kalousek has succumbed to the delusion that he is the state. The Pelikán affair is further proof. You will notice that Kalousek refers to himself in the third person, a symptom of his delusional state of mind. Such linguistic self-aggrandisement and the menace it carries would have been lost if Kalousek has simply said: “Pelikán believes I am a thief.”

Don’t we all? And so what? Pelikán was being considered for a position on the ruling body of an independent regulatory authority, not as a possible son-in-law to the finance minister.

Kalousek expressed his wish to become 'guarantor' of the way laws are to be interpreted when battling to prevent the Chamber of Deputies from lifting Vlasta Parkanová's immunity. “I shall issue an interpretive guide to state organs which will say: In the name of the Republic, these paragraphs must be interpreted in the following way.”

If thinking that Kalousek is a crook has become a barrier to public office, then perhaps the offence should be more clearly defined to avoid future disappointment? Perhaps Kalousek should add a new chapter to his interpretive guide, entitled ‘Permissible Thoughts for Czech Regulators’, covering telecoms, competition and energy regulation.

“But surely such a guide already exists?” I hear you whisper. Indeed it does, in the minds of the regulators. Once in a while, a regulator dares to think for himself and is swiftly axed. The case of Milan Brouček, formerly chief economist at the Czech competition office, springs to mind (see my blog The Outing of Mr. Brouček).

The Pelikán case is instructive not so much because a bona fide competition lawyer failed to get appointed as a state regulator. This is usual. After all, the last thing market participants want is such a person regulating them. No, the case is instructive because it reveals once again the dictatorial tendencies, both dangerous and absurd, of Miroslav Kalousek.