It must be said that some points of the above Ten Commandments are valid, but if they are all taken together, they constitute a highly destructive mixture: it is impossible to base any sensible policies on these beliefs. The commentaries of [the most widely read Czech daily newspaper] Mladá fronta Dnes have perpetuated these beliefs: these commentaries are a perfect example of thoughtless propaganda in a free society. And the Czech public, frustrated by the consequences of the policies which it has chosen and supported, like a drug addict, attempt to cure their frustration by another dose of the same cliches, which are just as stupid as the cliches spread by Václav Klaus - the only difference now being that these new cliches attempt to moralise.

The crisis of Czech politics is the result of the disintegration of the state, which was brought about by Czech right wing politicians. It is also the result of the malfunctioning of Czech political parties. Political corruption makes it impossible for them to conduct consistent and reasonable policies because any attempt at creating a transparent economy makes it impossible for the cowboy businessmen, brought into being by Klaus's policies, to conduct their business without hindrance."

Václav Žák

Ideological blinkers

Andrew Stroehlein reports that one Czech school after the fall of communism abolished the regular fire drills - surely it was communist nonsense because it had been introduced in the era of communist totalitarianism. No truly right wing, liberal school in the West runs fire drills! (Similarly, soon after the fall of communism, the Czechoslovak authorities abolished the emergency measures which were due to kick in during large unforeseen natural catastrophes. This is why the floods in the summer of 1997 were so lethal.)

"Communists used intellectual argumentation to their own ends - hence all intellectual argumentation is suspect"

Worrying about Čulík

I do not wish to review Čulík's book, for I am not sufficiently industrious or clever to do that. I only want to make a few remarks on some of the tendencies which worry me.

Čulík as well as the other authors included in the volume set out their arguments very well. Their capability to argue is based on a maximum of information they have understood, as well as on various teachings, philosophical opinions and economic analyses they have fully grasped. They display high levels of professionalism. An individual acquires such capabilities only if he or she undergoes special schooling.

In the communist era it was difficult to argue with the well-qualified propagandists who used the Marxist Leninist method of argumentation. Their opponents and their personal experience were seemingly on their own, while the communist propagandists had acquired their professional persuasiveness from research institutes and universities. You could only argue by pointing to your own personal empirical experience which the Marxists despised, since they had acquired higher knowledge of absolute truth from their university lectures.

I cannot argue with Čulík, either. I cannot distinguish whether he speaks only on his own behalf or on behalf of a social strata to which he belongs by his profession.

But you can professionally - and persuasively - argue in favour of anything and if such a debater is not countered by a similarly trained opponent, ordinary people can put their empirical experience in their pipes and smoke it. Western universities and the western intellectual establishment have been cloning an identical type of intellectual for dozens of years now, and so a community of such "debaters" has come into being. They now demand to be heard.

History has however shown us repeatedly that sweet fruit has been the result of the work of good, taciturn farmers and businessmen, while the work of "debaters" has always turned into bitter tragicomedy.

The book of selections from Britské listy only pretends to be open. It is true that occasionally a right-wing voice is heard, but it is invariably drowned by the noise of argumentation from the left. Maybe this is the result of Čulík's biased selection process, maybe it is the result of a strange composition of Čulík's readership.

The notion, that in the West, the ongoing democratic debate gradually sifts through the viable and the non-viable arguments and a political consensus arises which then turns into civilisational rules, seems to me dangerous. Čulík argues that after the formation of such civilisational consensus, society than no longer debates these issues because it regards differing views as rubbish.

This is exactly how the Czech "intellectuals", greatly assisted by President Beneš and the communists ostracised the Czech Agrarian Party after 1945 - yet the Agrarians were extremely sensible. How much we need them now...

On the one hand, Čulík's book heralds the arrival of the era of individualism, on the other hand it wants to codify public debate and to subordinate it to conventions, even though these may be sophisticated and modern.

Čulík pretends to talk about the most advanced Western journalism, which he presents as a model, for the Czechs. If this were to be the case, it would mean that the best journalists in the world would do nothing else but attack their governments, turn politicians into criminals and their own colleagues into the heroes of the times (especially if these colleagues were good pals of theirs, like Čulík's pal Ivan Kytka).

Aggresiveness is for Čulík the highest value in journalism, no matter to which politician it is applied. It would seem that if a politician wins the election, he or she must assume the burden of collective guilt, which also emburdens those who voted for him. According to Čulík, both the voters and the winning politicians deserve to be defamed.

As an empiricist, I am really stunned how strongly Čulík hates entertainment. In his view, entertainment is always unambiguously superficial and escapist, while it is the real duty of the media to rouse people, point to politicians' mistakes and shortcomings, to criticise abuses of power etc.

But the world has had deplorable experiences with public figures who despised entertainment . It is of course possible to admit that ferocious campaigns, sarcastic pronouncements full of hatred and public executions are also, in a way, amusing and attractive. After all, they greatly entertained Lenin and Lenin's successor Stalin entertained the public by stunning show trial performances. Maybe Čulík would accept this type of entertainment: after all, rousing the public is cleverly connected with criticising abuses in it.

These are my doubts about Čulík's book. However, I again hasten to add that Čulík's book is intelligent and allows us to acquaint ourselves with the thinking of an advanced civilisation. But it should be less biased.

A few remarks by JC on the margin of Mr. Šlajchrt's review