Verb: To present in a vague way, so as to mislead or conceal the truth. For example, Sobotka fudged the issue of Babis and his conflicts of interest.


When is a finance minister not a finance minister? When he is the deputy prime minister.

Asked if Andrej Babis of ANO could be both deputy prime minister and finance minister, Bohuslav Sobotka of CSSD fudged the issue like a true lawyer and a politician desperate to become prime minister.

This is what he said: "To ease concerns over conflicts of interest, it would be better if Mr Babis were to hold the post of deputy prime minister only. The finance minister is ultimately responsible for taxes. This could lead to an unpleasant discussion about possible conflicts of interest. As deputy prime minister, he would be able to concentrate on conceptual decisions and systemic measures."

And this is what he meant: "Whichever way you look at it, Babis is drowning in conflicts of interest. We shall just have to fudge the issue and pretend that, as deputy prime minister, the influence Babis would hold over the decisions of the finance minister is no greater than that held by any other minister in the cabinet. I know this is a fudge but it's the kind of fudge that is required of me if I am to become prime minister."

Sobotka will argue that, as deputy prime minister, Babis, along with all other members of the cabinet, could be said to have 'material influence' over the finance minister, but not 'control'.

In competition law, the distinction is essential. As the absolute owner, Babis has 'control' of Agrofert and its numerous subsidiaries, such as the Mafra media group -he can do what he wants with them. But when it comes to Agrofert's customers and suppliers, although Babis might have considerable influence over them, he cannot be said actually to 'control' them.

In politics, this distinction is a fudge, and Sobotka knows it. ANO 2011 has won the right to nominate the finance minister. Whatever cabinet seat Babis occupies, as the de facto owner of ANO 2011, he will effectively control the actions of the finance minister, and may do so in ways that would benefit his private interests, as the owner of the Agrofert group.

As deputy prime minister, he might well concentrate on what Sobotka calls 'conceptual decisions and systemic measures'. But this does not alter the fact that the finance minister would be beholden to Babis, as the person who controls the political movement that nominated him.

Nor does the appointment of Babis as deputy prime minister (or minister for saving us from ourselves or whatever ministerial portfolio Sobotka and Babis cook up between them) alter the fact that the finance minister would still be dependent on the political patronage of Andrej Babis.

This dependence would be acute if the post of finance minister was given to an 'independent expert' with no political power base of his own -which is Babis's intention. What value is the independence and expertise of the finance minister if he can be removed from one day to the next on a whim of Andrej Babis?

And then there are Babis's nominees for the posts of environment minister and chairman of the agriculture committee in parliament, both of whom he employs. We shall need an awful lot of fudge to suppress 'unpleasant discussions' about their potential conflicts of interest.

Can you really imagine Minister Richard Brabec (of Agrofert) or Chairman Jaroslav Faltynek (of Agrofert) telling Babis to stick to his 'conceptual decisions and systemic measures', and to leave them alone to run the ministry and the committee?

Andrej Babis has already acquired absolute control of a large part of the mainstream local media. Can we be confident that his influence over Radio Impuls, Lidove noviny and Mlada fronta dnes will be confined to 'conceptual decisions and systemic measures'? Or will it stray into matters editorial and even as far as editorial control? And if it does stray into editorial control, how can we be sure that that 'unpleasant discussion' will ever happen at all - at least on Babis's broadsheets and airwaves?

I understand why Sobotka is so eager to avoid such discussions about his coalition partner. But this is a fudge, an attempt to conceal the truth.