Whoever wrote the ANO 2011 election manifesto had one thing on his mind above all else: FOOD.



19th Century Czech nationalist playing-cards designed by Emanuel Neumann, c.1895. Here, the 'ears of corn' suit symbolise the fertility of agriculture and the Czech lands.


ANO 2011 is obsessed with food. Among other policy commitments, the political vehicle of billionaire Andrej Babis, absolute owner of the food processing and agrochemicals group, Agrofert, undertakes to secure safe, high quality food products at affordable prices; to prevent low-quality food imports; support local food producers; reach 100 per cent self-sufficiency in basic foodstuffs; to use EU subsidies to support the sale of food and agricultural products direct to consumers; and to introduce legislation to protect farmers and food producers against abuse by retail chains.

These are all good things, all apart from the goal of total self-sufficiency in basic foodstuffs, which is overdoing it a bit. Does it really matter if the Czech Republic needs to import 30 per cent of the potatoes it consumes each year?

Setting aside self-sufficiency in potatoes, who, given the choice, would choose cheap, low-quality imported food sold in Penny Market, rather than affordable, high-quality food direct from the local farmers themselves? The answer, of course, is no one, given the choice, and yet I wonder how many of us can actually afford to buy all our fresh food in the farmers’ markets now springing up over larger towns and cities?

The real problem here is not the goals that ANO 2011 is promoting but the fact that it is Agrofert, which enjoys market dominance in its areas of operation, that has set them. Consider the somewhat controversial instruments used to achieve these goals: EU subsidies and protection from competition.

Both instruments can be desirable in the right hands. The judicious use of public subsidy is a good thing, as is the protection from competition, provided the competition from which we are being protected is unfair. But who decides if the competition is actually unfair, and who decides if the finite public subsidy should go to a potato farm in Vysocina, a carp fishery in Trebon or a vineyard in Valtice?

And this brings us back to ANO 2011, or rather to its 100 per cent self-sufficient chairman, Andrej Babis. EU subsidies and protection from competition are both instruments that Andrej Babis knows well. They are two of the essential ingredients in his business success.

Do we really want Andrej Babis and his employees-turned-lawmakers deciding on these matters in parliament, let alone in government? Imagine if Andrej Babis, Jaroslav Faltynek, Radka Maxova or Richard Brabec, who are all on the Agrofert payroll, were to be elected chairman of the agriculture committee in parliament. Presumably, they would be obliged to excuse themselves from debating and voting on any issue that touches upon the business interests of their employer.

These conflicts of interest might be manageable in a parliamentary context, but imagine if ANO 2011 secures the leadership, or even a senior ministerial post, in the agriculture ministry, which oversees the disbursement of agricultural and food subsidies. Or in the ministry of industry & trade, which is drafting legislation designed to protect suppliers from the unfair competition of large retailers. How can a minister or his deputy avoid conflicts of interest in this case? The short answer is he cannot - not without resigning.

Some will argue that, in the case of Babis, his conflicts are at least visible and can therefore be more easily managed –unlike all those ODS, TOP 09 and CSSD politicians whose business interests are hidden behind nauseating, crafty little lawyers.

This is a very good point. Conflicts of interest are a fact of life. The most we can reasonably hope for is that they are managed, not extinguished altogether. So the question then becomes: how to manage the conflicts of interest that would engulf the self-sufficient owner of the Agrofert group if he were to become finance minister, or agriculture minister, or trade & industry minister, or even prime minister?

This, it seems to me, is an important question, more important even than the one we are now all considering: whether it is acceptable (not whether it is lawful –it clearly is) for a former StB collaborator to be the finance minister 25 years after the collapse of communism.