Why Prague? What brought you here and how does it seem to inveigle you into coming back every year?

President Havel was getting an honorary doctorate at UCLA when I was running the writing program at USC when we met in LA in the early 90s. I was honored to have had a short meeting with him where he extended his hand to me and said, ‘We are colleagues,’ and followed it up by saying he wanted all Czechoslovaks to come back and donate something to the country.

This struck a chord within me and being a writer and educator, I decided I could do something for the country. I have been coming to Czechoslovakia ever since my teenage years; several of my siblings were born here, it is a homeland to my parents, something that was instilled in me from a very young age.

I write and I wrote against the regime. My first book (In the Talking Hours) was banned here. I had a poem in there about Jan Palach and I wrote about the Russian invasion. So President Havel inviting me back to help rebuild the country was all I needed. I gave them my poetry and as an educator I’ve had the opportunity to teach a generation of young Czechs and Slovaks and give back.

My work at Charles University as a distinguished visiting professor keeps me coming back now every summer. I teach young Czech poets the American, Continental and Czech poets, and we do a workshop as well where they work on their own poetry.

What about your poetry? How much does your Czechoslovak heritage inspire you? How does it affect your poetry?

My heritage is Slovak and my parents are from there (he responds in Slovak). It is my first language and interestingly enough it is a Vychodnarski dialect. It’s a special dialect and whoever you speak to tells you it is a dialect that you don’t want to lose because it is so melodious. It is from that region between Hungary and the Ukraine. I didn’t know this but the casual Slovak I grew up with from my parents was more of a peasant Slovak, a dialect of the earth, of hard work, a ruggedness, dignity and expressions of a rustic happiness.

All the voices entering our home were similar to that sort of Slovak when I was growing up. Whether it was Polish, Czech, Russian, Ukrainian or Serb, I grew up hearing a certain melody of the music of languages, the same thing that was true of the music and the literature entering the house.  We were taught to read Czech and Slovak poetry, literature and we were immersed in the culture. I remember one of the first experiences I had was to see Janousek in the original Slovak as a young child.

Slovak has a sense of wonderful tension in it. It is different from Czech, which is more guttural almost because of its Germanic influence. Yet Slovak is a language that produces poetry because it is such a musical mixture of the languages in the region, especially the Vychodnarski dialect. The music of Slovak is much different from the Czech. It is thanks to the indigenous quality and tensions that produced great art from the country.

Let’s talk about your other heritage now, America. What’s your take on America today?

I am honored to be asked to give commencement addresses these days, and this is something I make a point to reiterate. We have to remember as a country, we (America) are very young compared to the old oaks of Europe; we are still in our adolescence. And at times, we do behave badly but when we tread towards maturity we are still that grand experiment that the world initiated. It is still the one country in the world where you can have a temple, a church, a synagogue and a mosque on one street and have constructive debate.

Right now the state of America is such, that when we elected Barack Obama, I strongly believed that we as Americans finally took that destined turn toward maturity. That a country through its voting populace could bring a minority president into power … my whole take on America is extremely positive. But we need to temper that positivity with a cold dose of reality.

The unfortunate part about Obama’s regime is that he has inherited so many of the problems we have. These are problems that are not just economic, but also social, educational, cultural. We need to give him the same amount of time to correct these problems, just about the same amount of time past administrations have had to create them, before we start judging him.

My biggest fear for America though is that the voting populace has ceased to be an educated populace in many ways. They don’t educate themselves as they used to… Sometimes I feel they only want the quick fix. They want to see instant gratification, the instant imaging of truth, an instant response on everything, with no time to be given.  My experience is that this always creates more problems than first existed. My concern therefore is that this particular attitude will exacerbate the situation, splitting the healing process [that] I think Obama has put into place.

For example the idea of a country feeling for Sarah Palin as a candidate disturbs me. She represents that … the need for an instant response.

Isn’t that in a sense the disparity that seems to make America today? That great divide that has come to exemplify the country, the difference between the enlightened and the traditionalists, the tea partiers, the soccer moms and those who look at the bigger picture?

Yes, it started with Nixon where we went through an anti intellectual period, completely unlike the Kennedy years where we had many people who represented advancements, civil rights and liberties in government and in positions to make decisions. It was because the public itself cared about things.

However once that anti-intellectualism began, it didn’t take long to manifest itself in the public sphere. Forty years down the line and a Sarah Palin is a result of that…  It seems to say [that] we, as America don’t want a person in global policy. On the other hand [global policy] is what Obama represents, so when you as a voting public vote for Palin you are dismissing the idea of a global community.

The need of the hour is for America to rejoin the global community. We’ve been insular for too far too long. Now for the first time, with Obama’s election, there is a liking of America again. We have to choose to put ourselves back into the world in the way we used to be involved.

The other thing is this: the word statesman. You remember, we used to have those. Statesmen meant a lot to me when I was growing up. This was a man you could always call on to be the healer, no matter what the problem was.

I think Obama represents that. He has the ability and has shown that. But if you want to put conservative political activity against such an individual it will always come out against that sense of a more global vision, that big picture. This goes back to that divide we were talking about, America first instead of the global vision.

I take my poetry to the world. I am a big proponent of the global vision and I am happy to see a leadership that reflects that in our own government.

How does culture, the arts fit into that take on America?  How much has American culture evolved since you first started writing?

To me, American culture has changed the most in the sense of what the world sees as American culture these days. Unfortunately the culture has inundated many other countries. American culture is assimilative and that’s what made it so unique and wonderful but sometimes though it’s the tabloid culture of America that stands out. We become that too. The day Britney Spears and Lady Ga Ga make the six o’clock news, we have become that tabloid culture. This is what is being exported. We need to export more of what was the best of it, what formed us as a young nation. We need to be known through our jazz, dance, poetry, the ballet, the books, the novels, the plays. All that still exists but it needs to come out more.

Unfortunately we also send out the worst of our real culture as well. Our films speak for themselves, yet the ones that go out to the world are the violent [and] stereotypical, a far drawback from the character driven sagas that made Hollywood what it was. Most of the world today sees us as a culture of violence, a culture not at ease with itself.

A byproduct perhaps of that anti intellectualism that you mentioned earlier ….

Yes a sad reality, an absolute product of that anti-intellectualism. I am a product of that culture – at the best of times and the worst of times. It made me and it made some of the biggest cultural influences the world has seen, but I see hope for it … The leadership has changed and [Obama] represents a cultural hope as well.

What about technology and the new media? We talked about instant gratification, yet technology has only facilitated this. Does it peeve you or does it provide inspiration?

Technology doesn’t threaten me. I remember being in Silicon Valley a few decades ago, and saw one of the earliest prototypes of the Internet and Google and I was amazed by what it could do. Instead it has not been utilized correctly, not to its greatest merits. Instead of harnessing its positive elements we have Facebook, MySpace, MyFace … They inspire narco-narcissism. Narcissism has become a narcotic. There are people out there who have delusions about their self-importance and believe everyone should know every moment of their lives.

These are the distractions that have taken us away from the goods of technology. They have also taken us away from book reading. Book reading provides us with and safeguards our peripheral vision – the vision of the imagination. A tunnel vision has taken over, what [Marshall] McLuhan predicted ages ago. Now lo and behold we have the ‘you know’ generation where they beg you to finish the thought. They have no precision in language, they don’t read, and media relies on a language that is cliché ridden. The language changes, ‘your’ becomes ‘yr’; numbers come into words. This is what technology has facilitated, sadly the de-education of a society in this way.

The other thing that technology does is that it takes away that sense of community, that assimilation of cultures where you could cry together and laugh together. Once we became a post-reading generation people are associated with their computers and we lose that sense of face-to-face dialogue which is so essential for a society. Language means a lot to me, that’s where the poet comes in. Language in a way seeks sanctity in poetry. Technology effects language.

What about the arts in the time of crisis?

The first place that cuts are seen are in the arts, whether it’s in America or across the world. The arts are an appeasement to the senses but austerity on the other hand always involves a reduction in sensory pleasure. Jobs will always be more important than the arts but it does not mean culture necessarily suffers.

Artists have always managed to find ways to thrive. They thrived at the worst of times in the sixties. I was a ‘long-hair’ and we thrived for the truth in the sixties, whether it was civil rights, feminism, liberty, the environment or against war. They cut funding for the arts back then and they’re doing it now.

I am not worried about the future of the artist, but I’m hoping that in the West, the artist does not become the mercenary. Is that a problem? Is it about the money? Is that the danger for artists? This is what we need to be asking ourselves

For example I see books being written today with a film line in. They don’t speak to me on a literary level anymore. On the same hand I see movies instead of being the character driven and story driven epics are far more situational now. Similarly publishing houses are closing down, magazines don’t last long and literary journals have gone from being the bastion of the eclectic to just plain insular.
To me one of the most important reasons to write has been to engage the suffering of humanity. It may sound as a cliché, but it still is idealism that must accompany the artist. It’s the same weather it’s the visual arts, performing arts or writers. If that starts to change then we all should worry.

I have immense faith in the artist. The artist may meander a tad in the West, but I see the artist rising to the occasion across the world, whether it is China, Africa, India or South America.

Hrishabh Sandilya is the Associate Dean of the School of International Relations & Diplomacy at Anglo-American University in Prague.

Klaus was clearly a controversial choice. Unlike Havel, he was a strongly political figure, having been a leading figure in the right-of-center Civic Democratic party since its inception. To his supporters, Klaus was a man who would “protect” the Czech nation; to his critics, Klaus was little more than a misguided populist and an increasingly narcissistic technocrat. The noted Czech psychologist Slavomír Hubálek once observed that “In selecting their leaders, immature societies favor extreme types, extreme in their level of narcissism and egocentrism. They become a sort of totem pole [for the rest].”

Appealing to the most primitive national fears, Klaus soon transformed himself from “apolitical” head-of-state to self-proclaimed “defender of the state.” The only problem was that the state that Klaus was defending was not the same one that Havel and others had been advocating. Klaus was an ultra-conservative in a post-communist country – the traits that he was so passionately conserving included apathy, xenophobia, bigotry, suspicion and ignorance  – the kind that 40 years of communist rule had nurtured among much of the populace. Unwittingly, Klaus simply switched the Soviet Union for the US, the US for the EU, communism for free-marketism and Soviet-style globalism for fierce nationalism. As with his communist predecessors, Klaus’s comments soon became increasingly absurd and detached from any kind of reality – yet polls continued to suggest that the president was a highly popular figure, one who was “defending” the nation against a whole list of external enemies (primarily the EU).

But behind Klaus’s supposed “love of nation” lay the kind of radical self-righteous subjectivism that allowed him to label intellectuals, dissidents, students, citizen‘s groups and journalists – in short, all of his critics – as “clearly leftist, disdainful of standard democratic mechanisms, full of kitschy moralizing, unable to learn from reality, impractical and non-pragmatic.”

Klaus has never once engaged in a real debate, preferring stage-managed speeches and   photo-opportunities to any sort of “free-exchange” of ideas and opinions. Should he ever be caught off-guard, the result is always the same – a denial of the facts, or a labeling of the opposing viewpoint as “dangerous.”

One year from now, a new president will be elected by parliament. Hopefully, it will not be Klaus, but rather someone who understands the true “requirements of the times” and reflects and appeals to the very best that this country has to offer.

 

Spring 2007 Issue

Before 1989, there were far fewer cars in Prague. For the most part, families used cars for recreational purposes on weekends.  Today, one’s means of transport is a matter of prestige and an indication of social status.  Since 1990, car traffic in some areas of Prague has increased fourfold.

New hypermarket shopping centers are also springing up on the outskirts of Prague, built precisely on the Western model.  Yet, many Czechs still reach them via public transport.   However, from the metro stations, these centers are in the middle of vast car parks, which new arrivals must navigate before they can start shopping.  It is no wonder then that those who want to move with the times arrive by car the next time they come.

One of the few positive legacies of socialism in post-communist countries is the popularity and quality of public transport.  This is something that we are rapidly losing, as a result of Western social norms taking over here.

Another harmful development, which has been underestimated, is the construction of new roads that go around the city in a ring.   These ring roads are destroying the environment in direct proportion to their capacity.  This is because – as experience in other countries has shown – the ability to take greater volumes of traffic will not ease congestion in Prague.  Instead, it will simply increase the number of people using cars and the transport system will be back to square one, i.e. rush-hour traffic jams.

We still have a unique opportunity to preserve the organic nature of our cities.  We will waste this chance if we don’t stop and be selective instead of recklessly rushing forward to catch up with the West.

Autumn 2004 Issue

The new Education Act was passed in parliament on 24th September, 2004. Replacing the Education Act of 1984, the new act formally reaffirms the legal status of the Czech schools, addresses the education of foreigners and minorities, and calls for the incorporation of students with disabilities into the general school system. It further stipulates that the maturitní zkouška (equivalent to final high school exams) for secondary school leavers must include three universal examinations in addition to specific profile examinations (i.e. examinations specific to students’ subject matter study).

One of the most contentious features of the new Education Act is currently being implemented—curricular reform. Whilst legislation throughout the 1990s took the necessary steps to abolish the teaching of Marxist ideology and began to redistribute central powers, the new act continues redistribution via curricular reform to a new degree. Each individual school within the Czech Republic must now develop its own curricula. But according to many educational professionals, curricular development is too hefty a burden to relegate onto the shoulders of school headmasters and teachers. They are trained for this purpose and lack the time, teaching aids, and further training necessary to take on this new and unsolicited responsibility.

The act stipulates that each school will create a School Educational Programme [školní vzdělávací program] (ŠVP). The ŠVPs must follow guidelines outlined in corresponding Ministry documents called Framework Educational Programmes [rámcové vzdělávací programy] (RVPs), which broadly address main teaching subjects and lesson time (the min. number of hours for each subject). Specific content is not addressed, but left up to the individual schools. This two-part curricular development reform went into effect in the first and sixth level of primary education in 2007/2008. Secondary schools are scheduled to initiate their programmes in September of next year.

A European Union Import:

The reform’s controversy stems, in part, from its emphasis on values, (i.e. Key Competencies), which are meant to generate a new approach to teaching and learning. The competencies stipulated in the RVPs for Primary (ZV) and Secondary (G) schools are the same: learning, problem-solving, communication, social, personal, civic, and working (entrepreneurial) competencies.

The decision to define and integrate key competencies into Czech curricular reform is not an innovation specific to the Czech Republic, but rather a worldwide phenomenon that began in the late 1990s. In 1997, the notion of key competencies resulted from two programmes (initiated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)): the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Programme for the Definition and Selection of Competences (DeSeCo). DeSeCo’s final report “Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society” was issued in 2003, and it outlined how competency-based education will produce individuals who can participate in a democratic society. The European Union currently promotes the integration of key competencies into the educational systems of its member states in their  “Education and Training 2010” campaign.

The new Education Act places the Czech Republic on a course shared by other OECD and EU countries. Consequently, the MŠMT’s decision to adopt key competency education in the Czech Republic appears to be logical, legitimate and necessary. But as the Ministry’s lack of direction and half-hearted implementation of the reforms has become apparent, one must question if the authors of the reform took into account the problems and characteristics specific to their own nation’s education system. Jana Straková of the Standing Conference of Educational Programs [Stálá Konference Asociací ve Vzdělávání] (SKAV) comments, “I think that the development of all these changes did not come from national needs…we were just following the development in other developed countries.” Curriculum reform has consequently taken priority over adequately addressing controversial issues like multicultural and minority education.

The Debate: What Defines Education in the CR?

It appears that the Ministry adopted the key competencies into the Czech education system to address a form of teaching that Straková describes as traditionalism. Although critical of parts of the curricular reform, Straková states that the Czech education system does need to undergo some sort of transformation. Czech schools are still “very traditional: there are few practical activities and questions not encouraged; students must simply listen and reproduce facts from memory…. the school does not equip children with communication-skills, problem-solving skills, critical-thinking, at all.” The reforms seek to transform schools from a place of instruction into a place of engagement and development.

The RVP for secondary schools states that “the aim of education at grammar schools is to teach them to incorporate information into a meaningful context for everyday practice….” The teachers must now take on a new role, to turn their students into citizens—individuals who are ready and willing to cope and contribute to the demands of a new age characterized by diversification, globalization and technological innovation. The new approach, in the simplest of terms, is characterized as “learning by doing.”

These key competencies present a noble vision for Czech education. It is not unlike Masaryk’s own philosophical and humanistic approach to education. It is, therefore, in the application of these key competencies where the concerns and criticisms lie. On the one hand, a fear exists that the competencies may never leave the pages of the curricular documents, due in part to the absence of a means of evaluation.

Individuals like Straková at STAV fear the reforms will have no effect on transforming the Czech school system into a viable conduit for teaching and learning in modern society. Straková believes that the key competencies are a necessary part of curricular reform, but that “there is a very realistic danger that the curricular reform will only be implemented on a formal level. And that it is more difficult now to prevent this formal implementation as people already have their prejudices.”

The Education Act’s approach to curricular reform does, in fact, have many critics who are concerned that the reform will further the current trend in the depreciation of student knowledge and educational standards in the Czech Republic . In September 2007, 101 university professors, scientists and cultural workers signed a document entitled Every Voice Is Heard [Všem, jejichž hlas je slyšet], which called upon the media to address this issue. In October 2007, Lidové Noviny published an editorial The Communicative Idiot – Our Goal, [Komunikativní blbec - náš cíl] which stated that an educational system established on key competencies will teach children to converse about nothing—for they will have learned nothing to converse about. Essentially, they will become “communicative idiots.”

Critics of the reform are not in opposition to the key competences themselves, but in their potential to monopolize classroom time. The president of ASUD, the Association of History Teachers in the Czech Republic, [Asociace Učitelů Dějepsisu české Republiky} Helena Mandelová affirms “that only when pupils have knowledge can they [have] discussions, make arguments, and so on. Without knowledge it is not possible to build competencies.” Logically, the key competencies will only function effectively in tandem with a knowledge and skill-based education. It is ASUD’s belief that the competencies must become a part, neither separate to nor more important than knowledge and skill-based learning.

The Issue of Implementation:

Both Straková and Mandelová’s concerns find common ground in their criticism of the Ministry’s decision to give the task of curriculum development to individual schools. The Ministry has offered teachers very little guidance towards the integration of the key competencies into the curriculum. Despite the positive assertion that “key competencies are not an isolated phenomena, they are mutually linked and intertwined… and can only be acquired as a result of a comprehensive education process,” the competencies are, in these documents, detailed in isolation and separated from the list of “Educational Areas” (i.e. fields of study). While some might call this a mere technicality, it exemplifies the fact that the reform’s authors may themselves lack the will or know-how to implement the changes.

Where the Ministry has fallen behind in this respect, it is up to organizations like ASUD and those within SKAV to work with teachers to provide them with adequate training and  effectively implement these changes. “What SKAV is trying to do now is show schools how it is possible to implement the reforms, to incorporate key competencies, to define key competencies practically, to design some instruments to help teachers learn how to assess key competencies.” Straková notes that headmasters and teachers are not trained to develop school curricula in general, and especially not curricula with key competencies.

Following the reform, ASUD prepared ten booklets, “Methodological Inspiration: Suggestions on how to complete educational school programs for the subject of History [“Metodické Inspirace: Náměty ke zpracování švp dějepisu“] in order to “offer instructions and ideas based on practical experiences from developing school curricular programs.” The first few pages reproduce the material the Ministry has provided. The absense of ministerial guidance or direction is striking; indeed, the Ministry’s FVP program for the 4 years of history education in a primary school fills no more than four pages. “We think that it is not the work of the teachers to choose [what to teach] from world, European and Czech history…. We think that the main work of teachers is to choose the methods and the teaching aids to motivate the pupils and [inspire] their interest. They are not prepared [to choose] what to teach,” Mandelová states. After ASUD voiced their concerns and criticisms about the reforms, the Ministry cut off funding and publically criticized them.

The Absence of a Civic Dialogue

A significant problem is that there is no mutual dialogue among civic organizations, Ministry officials, educational professionals, parents, and those who influence thinking and ideas (i.e. the media). The absense of any sort of dialogue has created a situation in which many teachers and headmasters are not only unprepared to develop and teach this new curriculum, but they do not understand the reasons behind the reforms.

As Straková states, some teachers don’t understand the reasons behind the reforms “because they were repeatedly told that the educational system in the Czech Republic was excellent, and that it provided students with everything that they needed.”  Moreover, many parents worry that their children will fall behind in their knowledge and skills, especially in comparison to the rest of Europe. “Society does not understand. Parents do not understand,” said Straková, “And our elites are against this reform…so sometimes they [issue] warnings that the school is unorganized and not up to standards, [which makes] the parents afraid that the students will be disadvantaged in business prospects, in future studies and in entrance examinations.”

Jan Kovařovic  of the Independent Interdisciplinary Group for the Transformation of Education (NEMES) states that the MšMT confined discussions regarding the reform to the Ministry and has done little to promote them. “There are too few people who have a sufficient level of knowledge or wisdom to take part. I think this reflects the role of the old regime, in that the discussions of politics is done within the confines of the party,” Kovořovic said. The Ministry must banish this mentality that still thrives, and it must promote a social and political debate about the reforms within society.

As Kovařovic says, “Education must be the first concern…because of the ethos.” The task of every Czech citizen is now to become actively engaged—to think, discuss, and agree on how to effectively implement educational reforms. These things are necessary if Czech society wishes to edify neither learned robots nor communicative idiots, but something human in between.

Lack of Vision

When Kovařovic speaks about educational changes in the Czech Republic, he uses terms like “transformation,” and he speaks about “energetic” individuals and “idealists” who hold “visions” for the future. It is unfortunate that Kovařovic refers only to years in the past.  Kovařovic alludes to what has been absent from the Ministry’s reforms.

Throughout the 1990s, individuals, institutions and civic organizations like NEMES, PAU (Engaged/Involved Teachers Association) and IDEA (Independent and Diverse Educational Alternatives) developed a number of educational policy proposals to bring about a “transformation from within the school system.” But what these organizations lacked, as Kovařovic reflects, was a “harness”—someone or something to channel their zeal and efforts through. While the Ministry could have become this harness, it chose not to.

Consequently, a state now exists in which the civic reformers who were once full of zeal are now doubtful; the teachers who once believed in the excellency of the Czech educational system are now doubtful; the parents who fear that their children will fall behind their European counterparts are now doubtful. Doubt is not the worst of the fears. What is to be feared, however, is ministerial apathy.

Without a civic dialogue, without cooperation from above and below, without the proper training for teachers and headmasters, the Czech Republic’s curricular reforms will threaten to be in Kovařovic’s words, “a still-born child.”

Elena Green is the former editor-in-chief of The New Presence. She is currently attending graduate school in the USA.

Autumn 2008 Issue

Throughout his presidency, Masaryk was a prominent advocate for the Zionist movement and continued an active campaign against anti-Semitism. He was not the only Czech political leader to adopt such an amiable stance towards the Jewish population and the creation of a Jewish state; other leaders such as Jan Masaryk (his son) and former president, Vacláv Havel, adopted a similar policy of openness and amicability towards the country. The political attitudes of these leaders are connotative of the positive relationship that the Czech Republic has established with the state of Israel.

This year, at a conference on the twentieth anniversary of the resumption of diplomatic relations between the Czech Republic and Israel, Interim Prime Minister Jan Fisher affirmed the Czech government’s continued support for the small state. In his speech, Fischer said the Czechs share a “joint cultural legacy” with Israel and that both countries have “influenced each other for centuries.” This statement reflects a general sentiment of goodwill that the Czech people have towards Israel. While there are a multitude of reasons that help us understand the complexity of both the political and cultural relationship between the Czech Republic and Israel, according to some, this shared legacy is nothing more than a socially accepted and perpetuated myth.

Groups, individuals, and even countries all have a tendency to idealize the past and in this sense “remold” their history. In sociological theory, collective identity is said to be fluid; it often emerges from a retelling of history or struggle that results in a memory not equivalent to established historical fact. In her paper, “Transformations between History and Memory,” published in the 2008 special issue of Social Research: An International Quarterly, Aleida Assmann explains that “the term ‘myth’ is used to distinguish between the object of historical knowledge on the one hand and collectively remembered events on the other.” She continues, “The manifestations of political and cultural memory… are grounded on the more durable carriers of external symbols and representations and can be re-embodied and transmitted from one generation to another. The relation between ‘history’ and ‘memory’ has itself a history that has evolved over time, passing through [stages].” Historic memory and collective remembering and forgetting change over time and influence future generations. In this way, socially accepted myths constitute history, and nations are predisposed to use these myths to establish relations with other states.

Jan Fingerland, a distinguished journalist who specializes in Czech-Israel affairs, feels that the Czech state has embraced this tendency: “For example, [Czechs possess] a very idealized perception of the First Republic.” He explained, in the minds of many Czechs, their First Republic was the only “true” democracy in Europe between the years of 1918 and 1938. Regardless of the verity of this belief, as a collective whole, Czechs cling to it. This propensity to “idealize” the past is imperative to understand when studying the Czech relationship to Israel: “No other country has such an emotional connection, ” said Fingerland. While this can be partly explained by their shared cultural past, the idealization of the Czech state, and the Israeli state as well, is another contributing, and compelling, factor. The connection between these two countries is not based on tangibility, but more on a mythologized perception of their common pasts.

As mentioned, Masaryk was extremely vocal in his support of both the Jewish community in Czechoslovakia and the Zionist movement. He even selected the land of Israel (before it actually received its independence) as his first international trip at the end of World War I. He fervently believed in recognizing the political, cultural, and legal liberties of the Jewish people, not only within Czechoslovakia, but in all parts of the world.

“Masaryk set up a moral standard,” said Tomáš Kraus, the executive director of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Prague. Kraus believes that Masaryk’s ethical stance towards equality manifested in his treatment of the Jews. The Federation of Jewish Communities is an organization that united ten individual Jewish communities in the region in order to provide support for them both domestically and abroad. Kraus is one of the most prominent members of the Jewish community in the Czech Republic, and since 1990has worked to re-build the entire foundation of Czech Jewish communities through various programs and initiatives. Kraus is a Professor of Judaic Studies at New York University in Prague, as well as at other academic institutions. He cites Masaryk’s “moral authority” as an important development for the relations between the two countries. Under Masaryk’s leadership, and before Israel became an independent nation, numerous Zionist conferences were held in Czechoslovakia.

However, the historical development of the Czechs’ relationship with Israel was not solely dependent on the actions and beliefs of Masaryk. Prior to World War II, there had been a Jewish population in the Czech lands for over 1,000 years. Czech society did not always welcome this Jewish community and prior to the nineteenth century, Jews were ostracized and forced to live in designated ghettos. With the Toleration Edict of 1781, however, this did change and the Jewish community began a “full integration into society,” explained Kraus; they lived equally amongst the Czechs, attending the same schools, having similar jobs in stature, and bridging the any social gaps that may have existed between the two.

“Jews were integrated into society and never perceived as foreigners, strangers, or outsiders,” echoed Fingerland. In fact, according to Kraus, many Czech citizens viewed the Nazi deportation of the Jews from Czech lands as a direct assault on the entire society. “It was a great loss for the people,” he explained. Kraus believes that all people in Czechoslovakia empathized with the Jews because during the war, no one was exempt from the risk of similar persecution.

Fingerland feels that it was not just the shared threat of harassment that enjoined the two cultures, but also, the perceived paralleled struggle to achieve independence and cultural recognition. According to Fingerland, even after Czechoslovakia was established as a sovereign nation, it still struggled to reach a higher stature within the European political scene. Current Israeli Ambassador, Yaakov Levy, agrees with this sentiment, explaining that the Czechs identify with the Jews and Israeli state because they “appreciate a small country that is willing to stand up [for their independence and beliefs].”

Israel was (and still is) a small country trying to assert both its national and political independence amidst super powers in the Middle East. Czechoslovakia was a small country trying to assert its political clout amidst a continent consumed by Nazi takeovers and communist regimes. When the Zionist movement began gaining momentum and Israel was en route to becoming a nation, the Czechoslovakia collective embraced this perceived political and cultural similarity, which resulted in governmental cooperation.

In 1947 and 1948, Czechoslovakia supplied Israel with machine guns, rifles, and airplanes despite the United Nations mandated embargo on the sale of weapons to both Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Czechoslovakia was also one of the first countries to recognize Israel as a nation in 1948. Both the military and political support from the Czechs played an important role in Israel’s success in securing its independence. Relations between the countries diminished in the 1950s when Joseph Stalin and the communist party started to wield control in Central and Eastern Europe. According to Fingerland, the Communist Party was heavily anti-Semitic which resulted in the complete deterioration of diplomatic ties with Israel in 1967. Despite this “freeze” period of amicable relations, he says Czechoslovak dissident movements looked to Israel as somewhat of a paragon for political victory.

Fingerland explained that there are three expressions that Czechs associate with Israel. They are “the only democracy,” “a small country surrounded by enemies,” and “we must not betray them.” These three phrases – as understood by a collective memory – express a widely held Czech attitude that Israel is very similar to Czechoslovakia because of their history and political positions.

Czechoslovakia lost its independence to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis through the Munich Pact of 1938. Many Czechs resent this part of their history because they neither fought back nor defended themselves, explained Fingerland. In contrast, in 1948 Israel took up arms to gain their independence, despite being surrounded by countries that did not support their establishment. For the past century, Israel has continued to fight back and resist succumbing to their political rivals. Unlike much of Europe and the world for that matter, the Czech state views Israel’s actions as defensive, not combative, continued Fingerland. In this way, Israel is seen as a country that stood up to the “big guy” – something the Czechoslovak state wished it could or would have done in 1938. Today, as Israel still struggles to assert its power, Fingerland says the Czech state feels a duty “to not betray them,” because of the similar situation Czechoslovakia was once in. This illustrates the cultural and political link the Czech Republic has with Israel because of the perceived similarities of a common struggle and past. But how much of this “link” is actually based on real likeness and how much is based on a collective myth?

After the Velvet Revolution in 1990, the newly elected president Vacláv Havel chose Israel as his first international visit and named re-establishing diplomatic ties with Israel as one of his presidential priorities. He succeeded in this task, and since this time relations with Israel have remained amiable, and the Czech government has taken a much more pro-Israeli stance than the majority of European countries. Fingerland described the Czech Republic “as the most pro-Israeli country in Europe.” And yet, there seems to be very little discernible evidence as to why the Czech state would take such a strong favorable position towards the Jewish state. But as Assmann described, collective national memory creates new histories which often “enhance emotions of empathy and identification.”

The precedent set by Masaryk during his presidency, and the historic cultural link between the two countries are believed by many to be the binding connections within this relationship. However, this historical link is an idea that has been mythologized by Czechs and has helped them bolster not only their reasons for positive relations with Israel, but the image of their own past. The Czech Republic and Israel may share some similarities, but their relationship seems to be based more on an idealized sense of loyalty than actual events. Of course, there may be no escaping the tendency to re-shape the past in order to create a more acceptable collective memory. In the end, we must simply be aware that memory has the power to transform history.

Marissa Miller has studied media, culture and political science in both the United States and the Czech Republic. She is currently assisting with Mr. Charles Rudnick’s state senate campaign in Newton, Massachusetts.

Is art critique experiencing a crisis? If so, when and why did it begin?

I would not speak of an art critique crisis. One could say, however, that while art has changed significantly over the years, the way we speak about it has remained strangely stereotypical. This is an interesting realization; it appears that the way we think about art is more uniform than the art form itself. At the same time, in the last two hundred years or so we have repeatedly expressed skepticism towards art. Hegel was one of the first to say that contemporary art has not fulfilled its potential. I do not consider this a crisis of art. Rather, it signifies that we live in an era which views art rather idealistically. As a result, however, we lose the ability to assert ourselves in contemporary art. The individual thus projects this idealism onto the future or more commonly onto the past. This is also related to the perception that during the Middle Ages, Antiquity, or any other earlier period, art could connect entire societies, that it could heal people, that art could provide fulfillment and so on.

You have written about art religion. Has contemporary art become a “relic” for a certain elite?

“Art religion” means that art itself has become an item of religious worship. In comparison with centuries ago when art was a servant intended to express religious content, it has now become the content itself. People believe that they themselves are capable of providing sense, solution, and redemption; that they wield transcendent potential. In other words, the idea of art independence exists today: art is not determined by themes and tasks from other spheres (the Church or the court) but art’s identity is a derivative of art itself. While this notion demonstrates an idealistic vision of art, without it art would be less confident. In my opinion, however, art has become presumptuousness. Artists increasingly favor art forms which are hermetic, inflexible, and difficult to understand, and the wider audience struggles to follow them; this has created the illusion that art is hiding a secret. But if you actually ask what a piece of artwork is supposed to mean, you may be skeptical of the answer.

Is art religion so influential that the general public visits contemporary art museums as it used to visit churches? Or are people actually not interested?

You are right in one respect: if contemporary art is autonomous, mysterious, and hermetic, the wider public is often excluded from it. But on the other hand, some exhibitions are in fact visited by the masses who form long queues in front of museums. This is really a cultural event. If you are familiar with a piece of art which has been reproduced many times, you will want to see it at least once in person; it is the same concept as when you listen to a music artist at home and wish to see him/her in concert. You will want to see a “live” performance at least once. Art is no exception; you also want to see it “live.” Even standing in the queue is part of the experience. Lacking space and being shoved in one direction or another in crowded museums is part of the experience. The feeling is that you’re in a compressed, small place. Art simply provides an occasion for a certain type of experience.

What role does money play in art?

Money currently retains art’s idealistic image. Let us note the current incredibly high market price for art, especially at auctions where records have been broken repeatedly and millions have been paid for singular pieces of art. This has created a form of sublimity. I cannot believe that a painting by Jackson Pollock could cost 140 million euros. I would understand if the Sistine Chapel was bought for the same amount of money. But 140 million euros for simply one painting, painted during one afternoon? I begin to wonder. These extraordinarily high prices have created precisely what the avant-garde artist hoped to achieve: that art would excite people, that their art would signalize a special state of body and mind. But today these special states of body, mind, and transcendence are mainly achieved through high prices. They represent a part or even a final accomplishment of the artwork.

You speak of an aura which surrounds contemporary art. Can a wider critical debate remove the aura from art? Can art survive without an aura?

First of all, one must consider what created this aura. In reality, the aura does not solely originate from the artwork itself, but also from its price and perhaps its name if it is unusual. With regard to modern art, the aura also originates from the “white cube” concept, i.e., when artwork is presented in an unusual environment which isolates it. If you were to remove all these factors which create the aura, artwork would be left to its own devices.

We could do an experiment using Darwinist terminology and explore how large the “ecological niche” would need to be for art to survive. What happens if we remove art from the white cube? Much of what we admire about modern art would most likely not survive; it would be difficult to differentiate art from the everyday items we are surrounded by.

Another consequence is that artwork would still be recognized as art; it would be perceived and valued by many people outside of the environment which creates the aura. Suddenly the division between folk art and fine art would no longer matter. Rather, folk and fine art would most probably interlink. Furthermore, the spasms brought about by grand idealistic notions of art would indeed end. Perhaps we would even wonder how art had become so twisted and unnatural in the last two hundred years. Something like a “repeated unification” of different types of esthetic creation (free art and useful art) would thus follow.

How is advertising connected with contemporary art?

Assuming that modern art is based on an idealistic perception of art (which means that in its attempt for autonomy it is not dependent on demand) it is inconsequential how many people follow it. A modern artist does not define himself on the basis of quantitatively measurable success. On the other hand, advertising is completely different structurally because it is highly targeted. It should have an effect on as many people as possible. As we say, the customer is always right. This is related to advertising too since advertisements must suit the customer. But this is not applicable to art. The recipient is not king. Rather, he/she must submissively obey the artwork and accept his/her position as the onlooker. The recipient must put effort into the visit in order to be permitted to feel the aura, the transcendence, the magnificence of the piece of artwork.

Therefore a completely different hierarchy exists in advertising than in art. If the customer, as king, says that he does not like something, the advertised item does not stand a chance. In order to avoid this, market research is conducted in advance. A product’s advertisement is just as important as a product’s aesthetic. Both are considered. Research verifies in advance what the consumer wishes to buy and experience and how this wish relates to this or that product. Then companies try to convert these wishes as precisely as possible into products and advertisements. Therefore, the general aesthetic of advertising is fundamentally tautological; it offers exactly what the consumer wants to have anyway.

The aesthetic of art, on the other hand, is created completely differently. No artist will conduct an opinion poll about whether he should paint this or that way. He provokes and often even shocks the public precisely because he does not wish to repeat what is expected. It is natural that only some people will accept the new artwork and permit the painting to change them a little.

But isn’t advertising also a form of art and art a form of advertising?

That is naturally only relative to one’s definition of art. Much of what falls under advertising could be considered art today if we reject the notions of magnificence and transcendence, and if we define art as anything which excites us and broadens our understanding of life. In this case, we would also have to admit that advertisements can be just as innovative, just as sophisticated, and just as diverse as traditional works of art. Perhaps the advertising industry is even more sophisticated and diverse.

In my work I dedicate equal pleasure, time, and effort to art as well as to product aestheticism. The latter field does have a lot going for itself; the aesthetic of consumerism can express our current mentality. As a cultural scientist, it would be almost neglectful not to spend time on the subject. There is a topos according to which art is the expression of the era. To a large extent the aesthetic of products and advertising is an expression of our time. When we look at the materials used by trend spotters, we find that they almost never consider contemporary art as a factor in societal development. On the other hand, they do consider advertising, product design, and mass media formats such as sitcoms on TV. Due to two hundred years of celebrated autonomy, art has become practically meaningless in indicating society’s development.

As an autonomous subject, art does not want to rely on anything but itself; it does not insist on being an indicator for something else. Art is surrounded by its own self-made, privileged asylum. Metaphorically, we could say that art has become a king without a kingdom. And while advertising is much cruder and lower than a king, it controls an empire.

What is “non-art?”

Just as it is impossible to say that art must have certain attributes to be art, it is not possible to say that something must have certain attributes not to be art. The same item in a different context may either become non-art from art or art from non-art. So it works both ways, and the decisive factor is the frame, the context.

Do you think that there are specific criteria for art as well as aesthetic quality? What qualities do you think make an artist successful?

All criteria of success are basically related to the context. The aura also comes from how the work of art is presented, how expensive it is, and whether it has a name or not, etc. As such, criteria can also be understood as the criteria of quality. Thus, the fact that something is a good piece of artwork is not necessarily drawn from the existence of the artwork itself. An essentialist vision of art is not sustainable. For art to be regarded as significant, it must also fulfill the criteria of originality. But not even this is decisive on its own. Think of the success of appropriation art; artists became famous precisely because they did not create anything new. The new was not doing anything new.

How does art change during a period of relative prosperity?

Art religion is not so widely spread as it used to be even fifty years ago. This is also related to how art has changed and how the approach to art has changed on account of prosperity. In times of scarcity, art is considered to have healing properties. Now, however, art has become connected with the phenomenon of glamour and star cult. Art has increasingly become a symbol of social status. This is a result of modern art’s autonomy, since it is hermetically fragile, dismissive, and does not treat every recipient as king; consequently, the one who adorns himself with it looks especially cool. Those who accept this dismissive character of modern art and identify with it feel just as sovereign as the artwork they surround themselves with. Modern art has become a means to threaten others, to keep a distance from them, and to create a hierarchy. There is hardly another status symbol which is as compelling and as powerful as modern art.

Wasn’t art always a symbol of power?

Yes, but in another sense. Before, it was possible to assume that those who have art also have a lot of money. It is similar as when someone buys a yacht today. People envy the rich because the rich can afford something they can’t. It is different with art. Hardly anyone is envious when a rich person buys a Jackson Pollock. They would have spent the money on something else. But at the same time, they realize that there must be a reason why someone would pay that much for a Pollock. They don’t understand it. And so they feel inferior, intellectually and academically, to people who buy and identify themselves with modern art. Modern art serves as a status symbol for some and shoves others to the back row. They feel ignorant, as if they are missing a gene or enzyme which would enable them to understand modern art.

Is there still tradition in modern and post-modern art?

In modern art there is a tradition of breaking traditions. Since the beginning of the twentieth century (the great epoch of the avant-garde), every artist has tried to be original, different, and separate from whoever has before him. Autonomy meant rejecting whatever came before. This is a fundamental turning point; prior to the twentieth century, art history was perceived as the history of progress. Every artist tried to surpass his predecessors. The will to surpass changed to the will to destroy in the modern era. To be successful now means to be free of conventions, rules, and standards. This turning point has become the new way. Thus, the development of modern art can be described as a continuous turning point in traditions.

Can art history exist without traditions?

No, not necessarily. Every turning point in traditions also contains some legacy of the tradition. When a painter says that he will use a material which has not yet been used, it is a turning point because the recipient also knows that the material was never worthy of art before. And so new artwork lives on the basis of its relation to past traditions, even when they are negated.

Is it possible to come to a point where everything will be destroyed?

No, I don’t think so. It has been attempted many times, and it is often proclaimed in modern art. A countless number of artists have wanted to paint the last painting. But whether something looks traditional and backward or whether it looks like an unsurpassable pinnacle is only related to context. Artists try to depict their predecessors—who also tried to achieve this end—as conservative. Artists themselves try to influence the way art history is written. Modern art could be described as an experimental field on which each artist tests again and again how far he can go. How many turning points does one have to achieve to become a renowned artist? But on the other hand, risking too many turning points will result in being excluded from the world of art. Distancing oneself too much from what is considered art today, will threaten the individual from being recognized as an artist at all.

How do you envision the future of art?

I imagine that what is considered art today—in the high elite sense—will become marginal. Only a small group of freaks will occupy themselves with it. They will be rich freaks, but their melancholy will have no effect on society at all. They will schedule meet-ups, similar to wine collectors who like to enhance their knowledge but do not expect other people to share their hobby. As art becomes marginalized, the aesthetic power and potential of advertising and product aesthetic could receive greater recognition. In the future, history of the development and production of individual products, as well as the knowledge of different forms of commercial aesthetic will become a part of education. This does, of course, depend on the culture of prosperity continuing.

Can we still use the term folk art today?

The term “folk art” is not really used anymore. Now we use the term popular culture and mass aesthetic, which brings us again to advertising and product design. As I mentioned before, advertising and product design are created on the basis of market research, and they reflect the wishes and visions of many people. Thus they are, in essence, a form of contemporary “folk art.” In the last few years, something enormous has happened mainly on account of the Internet. Consider all of the possibilities that webpages such as YouTube and Flickr opened up. These webpages are sites of contemporary folk art where millions of people display their paintings and artwork and where other users comment, amend, mix, and redo. This is how the complex creative process is made. This is essentially contemporary “folk art.”

Can you name one contemporary artist who you like and tell us why?

I think David Hockney is important to me. He is a real pictor doctus: an educated and skilled artist who has absorbed much from the art history of Western art and transformed it into new forms. He creates highly reflective paintings. Nevertheless, you must know what they refer to in order to value them. Many of his paintings initially appear to be quite accessible, but it is obvious that there is more to them. They are not simple paintings, but twisted, intelligent paintings which lead us from one position to another. You can see the artist’s image chain which reflects his chain of thought.

On top of that, Hockney is not afraid to work on very traditional topics such as landscapes. But it is evident from the way he paints them that his work has been affected by the media of film and photography. Hockney is also very aware of aesthetics; so he does not limit himself to what happens in fine arts, but he also absorbs much of what goes on in advertising. What I value about Hockney can be summarized as follows: I am pleased when I see intelligent paintings. One could say that Hockney’s work exhibits an extraordinarily high IQ.

Karolina Fabelová is the program director of the Soros Centre for Contemporary Arts in Prague.

Czech Republic Statistics: Crisis 2010
GDP: down 4.3 percent
Debt: 40 percent
Unemployment: 8.6 percent

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita:
Czech Republic = 350,000 CZK (about 13,000 EUR)
EU average = EUR 32,000
The GDP of the Czech Republic is only  1.1 percent of the total EU27 GDP
Therefore, poverty index equals 42

Transparency International Corruption Index:
Czech Republic: 52

Last year: 45
Peaked: 37

Ondřej Jonaš is a renowned statistician and economist.

2. The second (and perhaps just as significant) problem has been our failure to appreciate elites in Czech society. But the political elite would be less contentious if it were a well-functioning, competent, skilled, morally apt, and responsible elite. If so, the (relatively) new democratic political elite would be in sync with the other elite groups in economic, cultural, and administrative spheres of society. The relations between the power elites would be obvious and understandable, and communication between elite groups would be a vital source of informal social control. Instead, Czech elites are fragmented. History, which has not been exactly kind to our elites, has influenced this fragmentation to a great deal. If we were to look for the root of our contemporary problems, we would often refer to the “failure of the elites.”

3. If I am to proceed from the general to the concrete, I must mention the question of values. Research shows that our society is rather materialistic. Spiritual values lose out to our narrow perception of living standards and consumerism. This is not only related to the high level of secularization within our society, but also generally to the lack of trust in a better future and for sustainable development. It seems we are resigned to believe that everything is just temporary.

A feeling towards generational transcendence, and by that I mean better lives for our children, does not even motivate the Czech people under the current dissolution of family ties. This has clear effects on politics too: while we can now manage the technocratic, operational aspect of government (supply, services, standard operations), we grossly underestimate the symbolic aspect (faith in the future, ideals). An ordinary American’s eyes mist when he/she listens to a speech given by the American president; our cynical citizens roll their eyes and sneer. It should, however, be noted that research reveals that an increasing number of people are beginning to realize this deficit.

4. As a former judge of the Czech Constitutional Court, the late Vojtěch Cepl pointed out that general disrespect for the rules of the game is also connected with values. We should contextualize this notion as a significant aspect of our value system, as something which is the core of our national identity. The rules of the game should not be considered maintenance measures for the partial restoration of balance, which we lightheartedly permit in our lives. They must be clear, comprehensible, and common sense. Only comprehensible rules of the game can have motivational value.

Where is our connection to politics? What value does the legislative process have when members of parliament are lost in preambles and supplementary propositions? (In Britain, when they try really hard, the parliament manages “up to four” votes per day. And just in case someone is interested, he/she can read the printed version of the day’s sessions on the next day). It is not therefore surprising that people rate parliament and the judiciary poorly in opinion polls.

5. A large problem in Czech society is the dissolution of local communities, of cohesive local social circles. This is evident in the newly built “satellite colonies” which have sprung up around large cities where locals mix with new “city drifters.” The collapse of communities is, of course, a result of Bolshevism, but also of an ill-conceived tax policy (tax determination, tax assignation), underestimated development of civil society, and poor emphasis on corporate social responsibility. Why is it that social cohesion (what’s known in Brussels as cohesion-inclusion empowerment) is incomprehensible for most Czech politicians? It is not just a local question; it is also a communal, national, and state question.

6.  With regard to civil society, are our political parties a part of civil society or not? The answer is yes if they were mass parties, but they’re not; they function more like electoral parties. Let us be serious. It is not amusing when a very small party manipulates primary elections by “hiring” a couple dozen members. Our parties are not full-blooded political institutions which manage relationships from the bottom-up; it’s the other way around, from top to bottom. While “ordinary political careers,” which start at the communal and regional level and lead to the top, are also less and less common in contemporary Western democracies, they are even more of a rarity in Czech society. Instead, what prevails is that a short stint as the minister’s secretary leads to becoming the minister. The circulation of elites (the supply of fresh political talent and the departure of tired, used up talent) is pathetic. Instead we fortify positions: political parties act as agencies for individual politicians. It is not surprising that political parties and their operations are valued by only five percent of the population.

7. It is precisely this situation which leads people to describe our politics as empty and bland. Most people also express their annoyance with politics and believe that the purpose of politics is to acquire power and keep it (which is in fact significant for the ones in power). According to the public, politicians are professionally capable but their moral qualities are lacking: they use politics as a tool to obtain privileges and material benefits.

It is therefore not surprising that the public’s reaction to corruption scandals does not have any damaging impact on the corrupted politicians in question; their behavior only confirms expected (and de facto tolerated because it is unavoidable) conduct. The idea that the situation could be improved if people were more politically active seems utterly absurd to our public. How can we emerge from this dead-end street of Bolshevism with resigned elites and a disinterested general public?

8. The volatile voter whose motivation and understanding is very shallow dominates Czech society, just as in other Western democracies. In a situation where there are no fundamental general public debates about key societal problems, electoral results are woven primarily from passing emotions with the aid of political marketing. Simplistically, it is possible to say that the future decision-making power of this country lies in the hands of people who do not show much interest and do not really care. Unless we do something, future electoral results could be almost random and destabilize the country. When I heard the American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset say at a conference that we (former Soviet bloc countries) do not stand a chance in catching up with the West even after the fall of the Iron Curtain, I thought that perhaps he was alluding to our lack of public political awareness.

9. The main task we are faced with today is to reform the entire public sphere. In the context of the aforementioned points, this is extraordinarily complicated because it means we need to focus our attention on long-term strategies and reach long-term political consensus in key political areas. To even reform the pension system (by running both the old and new system at the same time) would take up to 15 years. A new system is not foreseeable for at least a few decades. In a situation where political adversaries cannot even have a coffee together, nothing is possible without intensive external pressure.

10. The current political situation is mainly about the art of communication. This is not only related to communication within the political elite, but also in society entire. We now come to the key role of the media. An ordinary citizen does not come into contact with politics personally; one does so through the media. In short, the character of the media also determines the character of politics. On the other hand, politics and media need one another and are intertwined. A politician will not push for new legislation unless it has a media face to it. And he will not be able to do so unless he has media skills and sees the media as a partner rather than a opponent. The media’s ability to communicate with politicians no less exemplifies its responsibility as their critical mirror.

Jan Hartl is a sociologist and director of the STEM agency.

Portugal, Italy, Latvia, and Ireland have already been given speculative ratings by Fitch Rating Agency advising investors and lenders of their heightened levels of credit risk, or that default has already occurred. In April 2010, Greece’s long standing BBB+ rating dropped to BBB- with a predicted negative outlook, signaling that the Union’s efforts have done little to soften the economic blow felt round the continent. The six countries experiencing the most difficulties in the wake of the world financial crisis have a combined purchasing power parity of more than 20 percent of the European Union’s total purchasing power. This creates a situation that demands proactive policy solution rather than retroactive actions.

Fortunately, the EU does have mechanisms at its disposal for addressing financial turbulence within the Union. However, weak leadership in the Lisbon Treaty’s newly created offices, ineffective political processes within the EU, a lack of unity between members, along with weakness and inconsistencies within the Treaty itself have retarded the EU’s ability to deal with the unfolding economic situation. It is not, however, too late for the EU’s, and the Lisbon Treaty’s, potential to be realized and exuded.

The Contenders
As mentioned, there are six countries within the Union that are experiencing the most significant financial difficulties. Spain is currently the largest economy in the EU to find itself in economic turmoil. After 15 years of above average growth, Spain fell into a recession in 2008 in spite of its conservative oversight and logical responses to unemployment increases. The protective measures taken, however, failed to insulate their markets from the world economic crisis and their gross domestic product (GDP) real growth rate further declined in 2009 to -3.6 percent. With the 12^th largest economy in the world, according to a study by Banco de Espana and an analysis by the International Monetary Fund, Spain’s economic situation is a direct result of a decline in competitiveness within the country coupled with the highest unemployment rates in the EU (19 percent as of 2009), and not governmental mismanagement.

Italy has also been unsuccessful in their attempts to insulate their markets from the economic turmoil circulating through the EU. Sitting in a slightly more advantageous position than Greece, Italy’s public debt now rests at 115 percent of their total GDP. Plagued with a steadily decreasing population growth rate of -.05 percent, Italy’s poor economic situation is exacerbated by the countries dwindling tax base and the deep divide between the more industrial North and agricultural, welfare dependent South. While previously slow to implementing reform measures, Italy’s effort to collect previously untaxed assets brought the government $135 billion in 2009. Unfortunately, this did little to ease the unrest felt in the international market and as of February 2010 Italy remained at a AA- speculative grade indicating increased levels of credit risk. Despite their future outlook being quoted as stable (Fitch Rating Agency), with long-term issues, such as a dwindling tax base and high public debt, Italy remains a solid contender for future EU bailouts.

In March of this year, Ireland’s Finance Prime Minister Brian Lenihan was quoted saying, “Our worst fears have been surpassed,” as Irish banks announced they would need an additional $42 billion in assistance this year to help write down their bad loans. With much of the capital needed to cover the additional expenses being provided by taxpayer dollars, coupled with wage reductions for all public servants, the working-class Irish are bearing the brunt of the burden. This, along with harsh budget cuts in 2009, had some speculators calling Ireland’s new political approach “draconian” with the extent of their effectiveness questionable at best. The success of other efforts to manage the crisis, such as the creation of the National Asset Management Agency in 2009 charged with the task of acquiring property and development loans from Irish banks, has yet to be evaluated. Once known as the Celtic Tiger, Ireland too may soon be fighting with Greece for EU-funded aid.

In Portugal, support to implement programs that would help finance future crises comes as no surprise. Portugal is often likened to Greece as they too have continuously been forced to allocate funds to pay off their debts, allowing investors drive up the cost of government borrowing. Quoted at a banking conference in March, Finance Minister Fernando Teixeira stated that, “Once the recovery of the financial system is consolidated, we should consider the possibility of progressively putting in place a fund at the European level.” With decreasing real growth rates, high unemployment rates, and a projected negative outlook given by Fitch Rating Agency, Portugal too finds itself in a position where aid will be needed in the foreseeable future.

Finally, experiencing the world’s lowest real growth rate in 2009 (-17.8 percent), it is difficult to believe that only two years ago Latvia’s growth rate was soaring at near 10 percent. In the past two years, however, Latvia’s per capita GDP (which was already only slightly more than half of that of the average EU state) dropped nearly $4,000. Latvia was the first EU member recognized as being in a dire financial situation after a 27.8 percent drop in real GDP growth was coupled with a 9 percent increase in unemployment. However, Latvia has yet to adopt the euro. This makes the debate surrounding assistance to the small country a very different one as non-euro-zone members are able to more easily access EU aid.

The Main Event
Greece is in a class all of its own. Years of under reporting and mismanagement have resulted in a deficit four times greater than that allowed for by the European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Cheap lending and uncontrolled spending has lead to the first EU-IMF bailout of a euro-zone member. Following a period of economic growth between 2003 and 2007, due largely to infrastructure spending for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, Greece entered into a recession in 2009. A result of the world economic crisis, the country tightened credit conditions and increased government expenditures and neglect. Any confidence in Greece that was restored after successfully meeting the criterion in 2007-2008 was quickly lost when the nation again violated the SGP in 2009 and 2010 with their budget deficit reaching 12.7 percent and 13.6 percent, respectively.

While Greece currently maintains that they are not ready to accept the “on-standby” aid package, most reports state that it is unlikely that the government will be able to meet its repayment obligations. In an attempt to rein in the country’s deficit, earlier this year Prime Minister George Papandreaou implemented several aspects of his austerity plan, which included tax increases on fuel, tobacco, and alcohol. Many question if these new taxes will in fact help the Greek economy whose tourism industry accounts for approximately 15 percent of their total GDP. Other aspects of the highly controversial plan included raising the retirement age, imposing across the board wage freezes for public sector workers, and reducing allowances that account for a near 4 percent pay cut for those same individuals.

Protests, strikes, riots, and walk-outs have rocked the nation over the last year with demonstrations being held by workers in various fields including healthcare, transportation, and education. In one demonstration last year, more than 20,000 people gathered in Athens to protest the government’s spending cuts. The protest resulted in vandalism, arrests, violence against police, and the use of tear gas on a crowd of civilians. The most recent display of public aggression came on 5 May as angry demonstrators threw rocks and gasoline bombs at Parliament and other government buildings. One building attacked during the riot was the Marfin Egnatia Bank, where three employees perished in the flames. However, public unrest over the financial situation are not a Greek issues alone, as protests and strikes have been held in several other EU countries as well, such as France, Spain, Portugal, and the Czech Republic.

In April 2010, Greece’s credit rating was lowered to BBB with a negative outlook, making the country a near black hole for foreign investors. However, a shred of light at the end of a very dark tunnel came later in the month when Greece experienced a successful sale of short-term treasury bills. This act of renewed investor confidence came only after the announcement of an EU-IMF rescue package of more than 110 billion euros.  While part of the Greek crisis can be traced back to extenuating circumstances, such as a lack of competitiveness, the many feel that corruption and governmental mismanagement is really to blame. This aspect has created deep divides between EU member states on what is an acceptable means of assistance. Some, like Germany, stand firmly that because the situation was not caused by circumstances beyond their control, Greece needs to face the consequences of their irresponsible actions. In contrast, members such as France maintain that the unity and stability of the EU must be protected at all costs.

Rules of the game
While public opinion over how to handle the economic crisis in the EU has changed significantly over past weeks, one assertion has become clear: Inaction is not an option. For months government officials, experts, and scholars have gone through the newly passed Lisbon Treaty with a fine-toothed comb searching for evidence that may support their take on the situation. Those against aid have frequently cited Article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty as the key component blocking the EU’s ability to provide financial assistance. Under Article 125, the EU and individual member states are explicitly prohibited from “being liable for or assuming the commitments of any other member state.” What has come to be known as the “no-co-responsibility provision,” Article 125 has been the platform of the German objection to aid.

While Article 125 clearly states that the EU, or individual member states, cannot assume the financial commitments of any other member, the situation has hardly come to the EU taking over Greece’s financial commitments. The misinterpretation of this Article has hampered political unity and action as the over-application of its language has lead many EU citizens to believe that any assistance would effectively mean an assumption of Greek financial responsibility. Germany, being the largest contributor to the Union, would have good reason to protest aid if this were the case. However, what was recommended, and eventually offered, makes credit available to the Greek government at reasonable interest rates. This is therefore not an assumption of Greek financial commitments but rather a safeguard of the EU’s own stability, and an opportunity to promote cooperation and unity between members.

The Lisbon Treaty has been tested over last few months, and weaknesses have been exposed. However, there are mechanisms spelled out in several articles that, if properly activated, would have softened the impact of the crisis, not only for Greece but other EU countries as well. Article 121, for example, gives the Council the power to enact broad economic policy guidelines for individual member states and the Union as a whole. Using these guidelines, the Union can determine whether a member state is acting in a manner inconsistent with EU aspirations or in a way that jeopardizes the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union. Unfortunately, the procedures spelled out in Article 121 have been carried out in a “too little too late” manner for countries such as Greece who desperately needed EU pressure to increase transparency and accountability within their government.

Serving as yet another underutilized safeguard to economic deviants, Article 126 details the repercussions of violating the Treaty’s limits. Under this article, the Commission is to monitor member states with excessive government debts in order to identify errors in management or execution.  The Commission would then prepare a report which would be submitted to the Economic and Financial Committee for consideration and recommendation. If the member state continued to violate EU limits and recommendations, the Council may give the member a specified timeframe to reduce their deficit, after which penalties would be imposed. Such disciplinary measures may include requesting that the European Investment Bank (EIB) reconsider their lending policies toward the member state, requiring the member state to submit additional information to the Council before issuing revenue generating bonds and securities, requiring a no interest-bearing deposit be made with the Union (until, in the Council’s view, the excess deficit has been ameliorated), or lastly, and most popular amongst members like Germany, to impose “appropriate” fines.

However, intuitively, it seems that most of these penalties would actually compound problems in an economically distressed nation. For example, asking the EIB to reconsider lending policies toward nations who are already experiencing increased interest and repayment rates could exacerbate their negative circumstances further. Furthermore, asking a member state to make a no interest-bearing deposit is comical considering that the nations in the direst situations, Greece and Portugal, are far below the EU domestic savings average of 20 percent. Sitting at 7 percent and 10 percent, respectively, Greece and Portugal are below troubled Ireland, 17 percent, and Spain, 19 percent. Finally, imposing fines on a fiscally stricken economy seems about as effective as the reparations were for the German economy at the end of WWI.

While Article 143 does not apply to the Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, or Irish crises it has been incorrectly cited enough in the media that a clarification of facts is in order. Article 143 provides legal documentation of the ability of the Union to offer medium-term financial assistance (MTFA) to non-euro-area members only. While MTFA under the Treaty is not available to euro-zone members, they are still able to access International Monetary Fund (IMF) assistance. This segregation undermines the Union as a whole while making recovery even more difficult as often IMF economic policies, which aid recipients are required to adopt, are not in line with EU economic guidelines.  As articulated in the policy brief, Two Crises, Two Responses, issued in March 2010 by the Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory, Bruegel, “Euro-area members remain members of the IMF and therefore have access to conditional assistance. It would be illogical for the EU to ban assistance to its members while allowing them to get assistance from the IMF.”

Last to be named, yet the most relevant to the euro-zone crisis is Article 136. This Article provides specific guidelines on coordinating budgetary discipline and setting out economic policy guidelines. Under this Article, the euro-area countries, acting by qualified majority, may adopt measures that ensure proper functioning of the economic and monetary union. One proposition rapidly gaining popularity, and finding some legal justification under Article 136, is the creation of a European monetary fund that would help finance future crises.

This solution was echoed by Juraj Draxler, associate research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies. “The current crisis is a combination of a financial crisis caused by the use of financial derivatives and of long-run economic problems related to current modes of economic growth. In terms of reacting to short-term economic problems of the members of the euro-zone, I believe the creation of a facility similar to a European Monetary Fund, as suggested recently by my colleague Daniel Gros and since then accepted by many politicians, would be in order as well as the extension of the powers of Eurostat to verify items in the national accounts of the member states.”

Qualified referees
While there are undeniably many fingers to be pointed, little else was done prior to the bailout. Time would have been better spent addressing the institutional problems within the EU created by the Lisbon Treaty, and increasing transparency and accountability at the national and international level. The offices of the President of the European Council and the High Representative of Foreign and Security Policy have fallen under intense criticism as the appointment of what some have deemed under-experienced political obscures left many in the international community questioning the EU’s motivation behind such nominations.

Zuzana Fellegi, spent ten years working within the Commission and similar governmental structures: “It is not a secret that election of both, Mr. Rompuy and Mrs. Ashton, was a result of political compromise. Apparently there has been a preference for lower profile candidates who would satisfy professional and political requirements and, at the same time, would not overshadow single EU leaders.” As the former Prime Minister of Belgium for one year, Herman Van Rompuy, now the President of the European Council, has the responsibility of chairing and encouraging the work of the Council while promoting, and at times creating, cohesion and consensus within the Council. Unlike Ashton who has been criticized for taking too laid back of an approach, Rompuy has been much more assertive in his role as president, though he too has been unable to escape criticism in the international community.

“The Lisbon Treaty is very vague on the actual functions associated with the position and, in fact, does not give it much explicit power. Thus, while there had been suggestions in the past to leave the post to a highly public figure (such as Tony Blair), it was always very clear that most of the heads of European states were not happy with this solution. At the end, they went to the other extreme, and chose a very little-known politician, who clearly does not have the ambition to be a leader,” Draxler explained.

The creation of the High Representative (HR) combined the positions of the former High Representative with that of the EU External Affairs Commissioner. Articles 23 and 41 of the Lisbon Treaty clarify the responsibilities of the HR which include, but are not limited to, chairing the monthly meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council and representing the EU’s common foreign and security policy internationally. However Ashton, whose previous foreign policy experience culminated in her position as the European Commissioner for Trade, seems to be much better suited for a position in a health or social sphere as opposed to foreign and security policy.

Draxler continued, “The creation of these posts is, then, the result of the fumbling between leaving the EU to be run as it is (essentially a well-run, but highly bureaucratic and to the general public incomprehensible affair), and giving the EU some kind of a hierarchical, well-recognizable structure. It was a move without any clear objectives. Both are weak posts filled with weak figures.”

The increasing pressure to balance interests and ideologies among the north, south, east, and west has made the appointment of candidates more of a horse trade than an election, and the Lisbon Treaty’s vague language that created these positions leaves no point of reference to settle disputes. However, as discussed earlier, the euro-zone leaders are responsible for ensuring budgetary discipline and coordination for their members. While meetings between these leaders took place in the preceding months, action was delayed as Germany took a firm stance against aid until finally conceding in April. While the President of the Council and the High Representative could have been much more active in their positions, the lack of progress is really a result of euro-zone leaders, who are ultimately responsible for approving any aid package, struggling to come to a consensus. However, as Fellegi put it, “It is easier to point two fingers instead of sixteen.”

While action was undeniably delayed and insufficient, the agreement made in early April to offer an EU-IMF aid package may give the Union just enough time to eliminate institutional ineffectiveness and procedural inconsistencies. To offer assistance to non-euro-area members but not to euro-using members, while they are able to access other international aid, is counter-intuitive. This, when compounded by the fact that the euro-members, if they had retained their own currency, could pull themselves out of debt by deflating their currency and increasing their competitiveness, makes adopting the euro seem more like a punishment than a privilege. Yet it is the members that have fully integrated into the euro-zone, that possess the fewest outlets for assistance.

Additionally, due to non-implementation, the Union’s limits seem more like what has been referred to as a “gentleman’s pact” rather than a binding agreement between sovereigns. Yet, while the EU, and the euro, may have lost their first battle, they have not lost the economic war that will likely unfold in the ensuing months. As stated in by the Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory, “The EU does not need new sanctions to prevent financial crises, but [instead] must more effectively enforce fiscal surveillance provisions.”

Hopefully the reforms that will be implemented will be a product of lessons learned during these early stages of the post-Lisbon Treaty European Union. While structural and institutional reforms, monetary discipline, transparency, and preemptive action will no doubt be the most important topics of future EU debate, we must not forget the importance of ensuring and preserving such virtues as the honesty, integrity, and accountability of our elected officials. One must not overlook the importance of not only the appearance of, but the actual state of being unified, moving forward together pursuing common interests that will better the lives of the citizens of the European Union, and not just those of a select few.

Sara Irwin has studied political science and international business in both the United States (Lincoln University) and the Czech Republic (Anglo-American University).