Long-standing relations between Andrej Babis and former Communist counter-intelligence officers such as Libor Siroky and Radmila Kleslova are ‘just a laughing matter’ for Jiri Zlatuska MP.


President Vaclav Klaus congratulating Petr Fiala (left) on his election as Rector of Brno's Masaryk University in 2004. Fiala succeeded Jiri Zlatuska (centre), who had held the post since 1998.


Here is a recent online chat I had with Professor Zlatuska, a member of parliament representing ANO 2011. It appeared under his excellent post on Vaclav Klaus’ pitiful performance on Austrian TV on 12th November 1989. See here


Conferring legitimacy

Candole asks: Thank you for drawing our attention to this performance by Vaclav Klaus 25 years ago on Austrian TV. His wriggling equivocation tells us all we need to know about the nature of his commitment to reform in Czechoslovakia in 1989. Thank goodness that Vaclav Klaus has at last become subject matter for historians. Meanwhile, his contemporary, Andrej Babis, has become the most powerful politician in the land, in part thanks to the legitimacy that you, as a prominent dissident under Communism and academic, have conferred upon him by representing him in the lower house of the Czech parliament. Do you see fundamental differences in character between these two men? And if so, what are they?


Babis as the new Havel

Zlatuska replies (in English): Yes, indeed I do see a difference. And I guess that difference should be visible to any unprejudiced observer. I believe the amount of enthusiasm generated in the interest in governing for the benefit of the public, not some crooked fellow travellers and vested interests combined with corruption, is comparable to the old days when "the wall came tumbling down". I have little doubt about the sincerity of AB’s intentions to level the field as an utmost urgent political priority, which I'm happy to share.


Creative destruction

Candole replies: Perhaps a comparison between the end of the Iron Curtain and the ascendancy to power of a mini-oligarch that has grown rich on state contracts and public subsidies, and skilfully used these riches to fill a political vacuum created by a rotten political establishment, is an exaggeration? Would you be willing to explain in more detail how exactly Andrej Babis is introducing fair political competition after two decades of rule by a bankrupt elite epitomised by Zeman and Klaus? Babis has great DESTRUCTIVE powers, to be sure, but I fail to see how a man who holds the art of politics in such open contempt can rebuild this country's democratic institutions or renew public belief in them. Certainly, his assault on politics is effective, but is it PRODUCTIVE? Let’s you and I have a public debate about this.


Naturally biased

Zlatuska replies: I wrote about generating interest and enthusiasm, and encouraging people to take part in politics. Fairness of competition presupposes there is somebody to compete with in the first place. I don't believe there is any assault on politics, on the contrary. True, some words are overloaded with more meanings, and often used with a meaning given by the context. In any case, I fail to see any destruction. I can see assault on vested interests, which are confused with politics. And yes, I do consider this productive, and indeed desirable.

I don't think it would make sense for me to take part in a public debate on this rather abstract level. You asked for my personal opinion and I replied. In a debate, I would be naturally biased because of my membership in ANO. Anything I would say would be taken as taking sides, not making observations. Find some political analyst for this, not a member of the movement. You are either an analyst, and you should discuss this with somebody who would be on a par with you, that is an analyst as well. Or you are a political player, but I don't think I'm willing to entertain you with political disputation where the outcome would be based maybe by the skew of the audience.


Siroky & Kleslova Ltd

Candole replies: As for vested interests, I would consider the network of former Communist state security operatives and counter-intelligence officers an important vested interest that survives today. Do you believe that Andrej Babis is assaulting this particular vested interest or reviving it? Are you aware of how Andrej Babis raised the capital to acquire Agrofert from Petrimex in 1995? Do you not consider it possible, even likely, that this capital, funnelled through an obscure Swiss entity called Ost Finanz & Investment, was part of the flight of capital managed by the Communist state security services before 1989? Do you not find it conceivable that Andrej Babis is one of the many successful examples of how the Communist state security services re-distributed state property, turning spies into oligarchs?


'Imaginary StB'

Zlatuska replies: O.K, as far as I'm concerned, it's just a laughing matter. I know Heller's “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you,” but I don't think I should use it as a recipe for daily life. Live happily in conspiracy theories of yours, maybe even worship your imaginary perfect plotters from the StB, perhaps build a little altar for them on your own somewhere in your closet, and make a daily sacrifice or two. I'm not interested.


Always prepared

Candole replies: I understand that you are now too busy governing the country to trouble yourself with facts. But perhaps when you have a free moment, you might read this paper on the subject. (This link is to a paper on how the Bulgarian Communist secret services, among other such agencies of repression, moved large amounts of capital into Western businesses and banks in anticipation of the changes that occurred in 1989, and how this money was then brought home and used to acquire state assets now up for sale).


We are not like them

Zlatuska replies: Not only is there nothing from Czechoslovakia, but on pp. 27-28 you can find a paragraph which does not suggest applicability:

"The preceding sections laid out a model of party-state-secret police relations before and after 1989 developed from the Bulgarian case. However, the model should apply to all communist countries in which the exit from communism was incomplete. Which are these countries? I use the share of non-communist legislative seats won in the first free and fair elections as a measure of the completeness of exit from communism. According to this criterion, sixteen formerly communist countries did not have a complete exit from communism: Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Mongolia, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, whereas eleven did (Armenia, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, and Slovenia).This model should therefore apply to these sixteen countries: we should expect to find remarkable continuities in the influence of State Security in these countries both before and after the exit from communism. Most notable among these countries is Russia, which deserves a separate discussion."


Andrej's tigers, Bidzina's penguins

Candole replies: Yes, I too read the document. The author is explaining his methodology here. It is an academic disclaimer, as you well know. He is pointing out, that in those countries that fit his model, we can expect to find 'remarkable continuities'. He is NOT suggesting, as I think YOU are hoping to, that the Czechoslovak Communist state security apparatus did not squirrel capital out of the country to the West in anticipation of changes yet to come. Or do you really want to argue that they did not? Or that the exit from communism was complete in Czechoslovakia in 1992?

Having lived and worked across the region for 25 years, I am struck by the remarkable similarities between Czech politics and those of Romania and Bulgaria, and even Georgia, especially today now that your leader has reinvented himself as a politician. I think Babis has even compared himself to Bidzina Ivanishvili, the Georgian billionaire who swept to power on the back of his own lavishly funded political movement called Georgian Dream. It is a very apt comparison. The biggest difference between them is that Babis keeps tiger cubs, whereas Ivanishvili keeps penguins.

Here ends the chat…Thanks be to Aktualne.cz!