No source, born digital.
Contributions to Contemporary History is one of the central Slovenian scientific historiographic journals, dedicated to publishing articles from the field of contemporary history (the 19th and 20th century).
The journal is published three times per year in Slovenian and in the following foreign languages: English, German, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Italian, Slovak and Czech. The articles are all published with abstracts in English and Slovenian as well as summaries in English.
Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino je ena osrednjih slovenskih znanstvenih zgodovinopisnih revij, ki objavlja teme s področja novejše zgodovine (19. in 20. stoletje).
Revija izide trikrat letno v slovenskem jeziku in v naslednjih tujih jezikih: angleščina, nemščina, srbščina, hrvaščina, bosanščina, italijanščina, slovaščina in češčina. Članki izhajajo z izvlečki v angleščini in slovenščini ter povzetki v angleščini.
Leta 1989, ko se je zrušil komunistični režim, se je na
Češkoslovaškem pogosto ponavljala zahteva, da bi bilo treba pomembno
politično razpravo o usmeritvi države voditi zlasti v parlamentu. Vendar se
je parlament vse leto izmikal bistvenim političnim razpravam. Zakonodajno
telo ni postalo politični oder in forum za pomembne razprave ali prizorišče
merjenja moči nasprotnikov. Članek opisuje poskuse pooblastitve parlamenta
in analizira razloge za njihov neuspeh. Osredotoča se zlasti na nekaj tednov
po padcu berlinskega zidu, ki so na Češkoslovaškem dosegli vrhunec z
izvolitvijo Václava Havla in Aleksandra Dubčka na vrhovni ustavni funkciji
predsednika in predsednika zveznega parlamenta.
Ključne besede: Češkoslovaška 1989, parlamentarizem, zvezni
parlament, komunistična partija Češkoslovaške
During 1989, the year of the collapse of the Communist regime,
a claim was often repeated in Czechoslovakia that substantive political
debate about the direction of the country ought to be held particularly in
the parliament. Yet the key political debates shun away from the parliament
for the entire year. The legislature did not become the stage for politics,
a forum for substantive debates or the arena for competing forces. The
article maps the attempts to empower the parliament and analyses the reasons
for their failure. Particular focus is given to the few weeks after the fall
of the Berlin Wall that culminated in Czechoslovakia with the election of
Václav Havel and Alexander Dubček to the supreme constitutional posts of the
President and Chairman of the Federal Assembly.
Keywords: Czechoslovakia 1989, Parliamentarism, The Federal
Assembly, The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia
During the breakthrough year of 1989 a claim was often repeated in Czechoslovakia
that substantive political debate about the direction of the country ought to be
held particularly in the parliament. Yet the key political debates shun away from
the parliament for the entire year. The legislature did not become the stage for
politics, a forum for substantive debates or the arena for competing forces. This
study maps the attempts to empower the parliament and their failure. Particular
focus is given to the few weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall that culminated in
Czechoslovakia with the rise of Václav Havel and Alexander Dubček to the supreme
constitutional posts of the President and Chairman of the Federal Assembly.Revolution with a Human Face: Politics, Culture, and Community in
Czechoslovakia, 1989-1992 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013).
Jiří Suk, Labyrintem revoluce. Aktéři, zápletky a křižovatky
jedné politické krize (od listopadu 1989 do června 1990) [Through the
Labyrinth of the Revolution. Actors, Plots and Crossroads of A Political Crisis
(from November 1989 to June 1990)] (Praha: Prostor, 2003).
The Berlin Wall fell on 11 November 1989. On 17 November police in Prague intervened against student demonstration in a manner that triggered mass demonstrations in the coming days in Czechoslovakia as well. Most gatherings took place just a few metres from the Czechoslovak federal parliament – the Federal Assembly, which, however did not merit their attention. During the first street protests the massive flow of protesters repeatedly headed towards the parliament. Yet that was not their destination: the crowd passed the building without major interest and continued a few steps further to the headquarters of the Czechoslovak Radio to demand true information about the developments in Prague. The initial ignorance of the federal parliament building by the protesters shows their realistic assessment of the role of the legislature and its crew in the power gear.
To enhance the role of representative assemblies during socialism was one of the
slogans of Mikhail Gorbachevʼs reforms. They had been also translated, quoted and
repeated in Czechoslovakia. The parliament was to enhance its autonomy and become “a
powerful agent of socialist democracy.”Přestavba a nové myšlení pro naši zemi a pro celý svět [Perestroika
and New Thinking for Our Country and the Whole World] (Praha: Svoboda, 1987),
96-97.Vyhrabávačky: Deníkové zápisy a
rozhovory z let 1988 a 1989 [Digs: Diary Notes and Interviews from 1888
and 1989] (Praha, Litomyšl: Paseka, 2009), 137. For additional testimonies about
Erbanʼs activities see Zdislav Šulc, Z jeviště i zákulisí
české politiky a ekonomiky [From the Stage and Backstage of Czech
Politics and Economics] (Brno: Doplněk, 2011), 197.
When testing the limits of how far one could have gone in using the federal
parliament and uncensored rostrum, Lubomír Štrougal went farthest. Another of the
political veterans, having served the top power posts for thirty years, Štrougal
withdrew to seclusion probably in hope that he would be invited back. In the Summer
of 1989 he reminded the Party leadership of their guilt for the failure of the
earlier reform attempts. He skilfully used a language different from that prescribed
by the Party leadership. Instead of reconstruction he spoke of “radical reform” and
criticised the abandonment of economic policies of the Prague Spring.Společná česko-slovenská
digitální parlamentní knihovna [Common Digital Czecho-Slovak
Parliamentary Library], Federal Assembly 1986-1990, Joint Sessions of the House
of People and the House of Nations, Stenographic records, 14th session, 20. 6. 1989, accessed October 30,
2015,http://www.psp.cz/eknih/1986fs/slsn/stenprot/014schuz/s014017.htm.
Cf. Jaromír Sedlák, Muž nad stolem, aneb Byl jsem Štrougalovým
poradcem [A Man Over The Table or I Was Štrougalʼs Adviser] (Praha:
BVD, 2010), 131.
Another attempt was made a few months later by Štrougalʼs successor in the post of
the federal Prime Minister, Ladislav Adamec. As constitutional official the Prime
Minister was answerable to the federal parliament. At the same time, as member of
the Communist Party, he was bound to conformity with the Party leadership. In the
Autumn of 1989 Adamec tried to weaken the dependence on the Party leadership by
transferring the hitherto internal discussion from the Party grounds to the
parliament. Yet the report he had drafted was not approved by his superior Party
bodies. Hence on 11 November 1989 the Prime Minister, bound with discipline, had to
read to the Federal Assembly statements that included some points that were in
contradiction to what he had wanted to say. Nonetheless, he did not give in and
spoke later in the debate together with other MPs. With a slight delay he presented
his own version of the thesis about the need for political reform. Those passages
were, however, later censored by the media upon intervention from the Party
headquarters. Such was the infamous fate of the key attempt to transfer political
debate from Party corridors to the parliament.Paměť české levice [The Memory of the Czech
Left] (Praha: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, 2011), 295.
The attempt by Adamec did not become publicly known and has not entered history: in the days that followed it was outshone by new, more far reaching events. The Civic Forum was established as a wide coalition of those outraged by police brutality against the demonstration in Prague on 17 November 1989. After a few days of mass rallies it became apparent that the retiring power structures were giving up their power quite willingly. Guided by the logic of the existing power system, the attention focused on the development within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. The parliament and other political institutions respected the hierarchy.
Personnel changes in the presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia were bound to signal a major power shift. The Central Committee was a
federal body: two thirds out of the hundred and fifty full members were Czechs. The
assembly of the actual power holders convened on 24 and 25 November.Poslední hurá.
Stenografický záznam z mimořádných zasedání ÚV KSČ 24. a 26. listopadu
1989 [The Final Hooray: Stenographic Record from Extraordinary Sessions
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia on 24 and 26
November 1989] (Praha: Agentura Cesty, 1992).
The disintegration of the old institutional centre opened space for activities at other platforms. The first in line to benefit from this for some time was the federal Prime Minister Ladislav Adamec. He held operational power and entered, on his own, into talks about further developments with the Civic Forum. The demands by the Civic Forum headed towards transformation of the political system: a revision of the Constitution, preparation of elections, changes in state posts. All that called for the involvement of the parliament.
As the events evolved, the significance of the parliament rose notably. Yet there was a glitch: mandates were required in order to move political debates to the parliament. Nevertheless, none of the new members of the temporarily governing group surrounding Prime Minister Adamec had them. Adamec himself was not member of the parliament. Naturally, the Civic Forum did not have any parliamentary representatives. Meeting in the federal government building, only one of the seventeen people who gathered on 28 November as part of the delegations of the federal government and the Civic Forum to plan the future of their country, held parliamentary mandate: Bohuslav Kučera, the Chairman of the Czechoslovak Socialist Party.
Who then actually was represented in the parliament? Who were the people who held, at the moment of political change, the 350 mandates? The national key served as the basis of parliamentary mathematics at the Federal Assembly. At the core of the entire complex structure of the institution was representation of deputies from both parts of the federation in the two Houses of the Federal Assembly. The representation in one of them, the House of Nations, was equal. Moreover, the deputies from the Czech Republic and from Slovakia voted separately on Constitutional changes and other major issues subject to debate on which the Constitution stipulated “a ban on majorisation”. Hence the need for identical consensus by both Czech and Slovak majority. In the other chamber, the House of People, the twice more populous Czech Republic had the corresponding majority of mandates.
Additional crucial parliamentary mathematics was based on power control through the
privileged and disciplined Communist Party. The thoroughness that gave the Party
members priority rights and leading posts was, in the case of the parliament,
brought to perfection. Following the elections in 1986, 69 percent of MPs came from
the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.Československo dnes: Zastupitelské sbory,
vlády, diplomatické styky, školství, zdravotnictví, ekonomika, kraje
ČSSR [Czechoslovakia Today: Representative Assemblies, Government,
Diplomatic Relations, Schools, Healthcare, Economics, and Regions in CSSR]
(Praha: Pressfoto, 1987), 20-56.
A simple look at the data that were undisclosed at the time in the raw form, shows quite clearly the developmental options for the Federal Assembly: the fundamental question was what would the total of 87 percent of MPs representing the Communist A-team (the faction of the Communist MPs) and the associate B-team (non-partisan MPs), the hitherto pillars of power do. What would they do in the uncertain times when their power centre was falling apart?
The first joint session in the revolutionary weeks was called for Thursday 29
November. The main points in the agenda arose from the government talks with the
Civic Forum. The deputy Prime Minister in the Adamec cabinet was to address them. On
their way to the parliament the MPs had to pass by instructions from the
revolutionary street, saying: “Deputies, vote for your voters, not for
yourselves!”Svobodné slovo, November 30, 1989,
1.Naděje a omyly. Vzpomínky na
onu dobu [Hopes and Errors. Memoirs of An Era] (Praha: Academia, 2012),
641-2.
At their joint session, the two Houses of the Federal Assembly quickly met all fundamental demands by the Civic Forum, yet by means most advantageous for the parliamentarians. Within a few hours the discredited veteran Alois Indra disappeared as the leader of the Federal Assembly, as did the passages in the Constitution about the leading role of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and of Marxism-Leninism. A commission for the oversight over the investigation of the intervention on 17 November was set up. All that happened broadcasted live by the Czechoslovak Television and the Czechoslovak Radio.
Yet the parliament also adopted its own resolution on the political situation.
Speakers from different political currents represented in the parliament agreed in
that the political decision-making finally got to the parliament from the Party
bureaus, as well as from the streets and squares. It belonged there and was to
remain there. The resolution adopted by both chambers of the Federal Assembly as
“the representative of the people of Czechoslovakia” subscribed to all “progressive
demands that lead to further development of socialist societal relations, to the
improvement of socialist democracy and living conditions of the people.” It reminded
that a number of reform laws have reached an advanced stage of draft and were to be
adopted within “a few days”, whilst MPs were drafting additional ones. At the same
time they explicitly mentioned the need to adopt new regulations for the press,
association, and the right to petition and defence law. Furthermore, “at the same
time we deem it of prime duty to promptly complete the work on the new
Constitution.” The parliament further emphasised both steps that preceded the
adoption of resolutions and meant satisfaction of the main demands of those on
strike. That meant setting up the parliamentary commission and abolition of the
Constitutional article about the leading role of the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia. Constitutionally speaking – and altogether in contrast with the
vision of the revolutionary forces – the Federal Assembly became the sovereign.
Whilst its declaration did not explicitly emphasise that and only hinted at it by
praising the government for “the dialogue with the representatives of civic
initiatives”, by expressing support to the planned changes in the government and
also with a few formulations attempting to define the government powers: “The
Federal Assembly commits the government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic to
carry out dialogue whilst being aware of responsibility for the socialist future of
our nations and ethnic groups. At the same time it commits it to systematically
continue in following the foreign policy line contained in its manifesto adopted in
November 1989 at the joint session of the Federal Assembly.” Finally, the Federal
Assembly stated: “We assure the people of our republic that we shall continue to do
our utmost to secure content life of the peoples in our socialist republic in line
with the principle: 'All power in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic belongs to the
working people.'”Svobodné slovo, November 30, 1989, 3.
The parliamentary attempt to take over activity as an indispensable institution was,
in the hours that followed after the end of the televised broadcast, commented upon
far less than was the audience experience of it. The breakthrough events were
increasingly broadcast by the state television and radio. The first televised live
broadcasts from Wenceslas Square were aired on 22 November, a week prior to the
broadcast from the Federal Assembly. Ever longer broadcasts and transmissions
followed, all of which were less and less tailored to satisfy the needs of the
leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.Mladá
fronta, November 24, 1989, 5. Cf. Milan Šmíd, “Česká média a jejich
role v procesu politické změny roku 1989” [Czech Media and Their Role in the
Process of Political Change in 1989], accessed May 15, 2013, http://www.louc.cz/pril01/listopad.pdf.
The programme deserves recognition for the speed, quality and representative nature of political debate on television and its broadcasts, that was achieved as early as during the weekend of 25 and 26 November. Apart from the television, other media, radio and daily press tried hard as well. It ought to be noted in order to understand the preserved scope of – largely disenchanted – responses to the first live broadcast from the Federal Assembly in the afternoon of Wednesday 29 November. From the perspective of television viewers, the session of the legislative body was to be yet another part in the series on the revolution. The core roles that otherwise were to be played by the parliament, had been already well served by other fora, as had been also noted by MPs. Compared to the televised platforms, some representatives had been missing altogether whilst others were superfluous. The final impression was thus somewhat skewed and incoherent with the ongoing debates in Prague and Bratislava.
Those characteristics come out most clearly in the case of Anton Blažej who became,
for three weeks, the leading figure of the emancipation effort at the Federal
Assembly. Rector of the Technical University in Bratislava since 1969, Blažej
appeared in front of the cameras on 29 December as spokesman of the Communists in
the parliament. He gave a major political address about the emergent situation. On
behalf of the Communist majority he recognised and welcomed the de facto completed
régime change: “We, the Communist MPs, have to primarily state in public that those
were our own faults and mistakes, as well as the mistakes of the Party, our
erroneous interpretation of socialism, our flawed understanding of the leading role
of the Communist Party ...” He explained to the viewers that the federal parliament
was being transformed along with the wider changes, and was gaining stronger
position. He criticised the previous policy, welcomed constitutional changes and
talks with the Opposition, and stated that the Communists would try to succeed in
the coming elections: “Communist MPs support most actively the democratic elections
and the emergence of the coalition government. If we wish to genuinely unite on the
principles of building modern, democratic, human, and industrially advanced
socialist Czechoslovakia, I think we have every capacity to find a common
ground.”According to Blažej, within the coming hours the Federal Assembly was to
meet all student demands it was able to satisfy, and the youth would then be free to
part and return to their studies.Společná česko-slovenská digitální parlamentní knihovna
[Common Digital Czecho-Slovak Parliamentary Library], Federal Assembly
1986-1990, Joint Sessions of the House of People and the House of Nations,
Stenographic records, 16th session, 29. 11. 1989,
accessed October 30, 2015, http://www.psp.cz/eknih/1986fs/slsn/stenprot/016schuz/s016001.htm.
It would have been a fine address and perhaps even effective, had it not been given
by an unknown man in his sixties and without Miloš Jakeš and other infamous faces of
the old leadership seated to his left. They evidently considered it their duty not
to be missing in their seats at the presidium. Even though they no longer had any
influence on the content of Blažejʼs speech or on anything else what was going on
that day in the Federal Assembly, with their mere visual presence they set the
background to the effort of most speakers. They sat without responding to Blažej or
the others who were escalating the general condemnation of the previous decades and
the criticism of particulars. Yet, according to the rules of procedure, as members
of the presidium they were entitled to priority intervention in the debate. From
among the Czech politicians representing real power, only the Minister of Defence
General Milan Václavík was to speak. He was invited directly by the deputy chairman
of the Czechoslovak Socialist Party Karel Löbl to tell the plenary whether there
were any grounds for concern about military intervention. The Minister, dressed in
uniform as was customary, indignantly rejected the concern.Naděje a omyly. Vzpomínky na
onu dobu [Hopes and Errors. Memoirs of An Era] (Praha: Academia, 2012),
641. Address by Löbl and Václavík: Společná česko-slovenská
digitální parlamentní knihovna [Common Digital Czecho-Slovak
Parliamentary Library], Federal Assembly 1986-1990, Joint Sessions of the House
of People and the House of Nations, Stenographic records, 16th session, 29. 11. 1989, accessed October 30, 2015,
http://www.psp.cz/eknih/1986fs/slsn/stenprot/016schuz/s016004.htm.
On behalf of the Czech part of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, two common MPs spoke up: Jana Pekařová and Hana Návratová. It was their address that, in the coming days, triggered major debate within the Czech context. One might rightly assume that theirs were to be complementary speeches to that given by Blažej. The Czech women-mothers spoke after a man, an academic with his rational arguments. The division was common in similar arrangements and the two MPs introduced themselves to the viewers and listeners accordingly. After the conflict in the Communist faction at noon, it was unlikely to be an authoritatively drafted script for the debate, but somewhat an intuitive balancing and repetition of morning debates in front of the television cameras. According to the testimony by Ms Návratová, MP, the Communist MPs no longer had any firm leadership that day after the noon meeting of the faction, and their presentations came out in an improvised manner.
In case of the Czech female MPs on television the impression was not given that much by their message, but their looks and presentation. In a concentrated form the addresses contained vast amount of patterns and canonical formulations by lower rank officials who reproduced the official propaganda with least investment in thought or language, yet with high personal commitment. That immediately triggered allergic reactions among a part of audience in spite of the fact that the addresses by the two MPs were de facto quite forthcoming. Both were plainly supportive of the Adamec cabinet against possible attacks by the Party apparatus. Yet most audiences had been unable to decode this. Not only were they accustomed to “switch off” when listening to official speeches. The speeches suggesting emancipation of Communist MPs from the leadership by the Party apparatus that were in part pursuing the pre-November institutional attempts and intraparty struggles, were unintelligible to the uninitiated audience. Within the context of the new discourse and situation they came across as inappropriate and out of sync with the debate on the squares.
The Adamec cabinet had an opportunity on the day to test its ability as the new
centre of power to mobilise the majority in both Houses. The test brought relatively
positive results: except for a handful of succinct commentaries, its opponents from
the Communist Party were silent in the plenary. Support to the federal government
and to the Prime Minister personally came out from most speakers. For instance,
Slovak independent MP Gejza Mede appealed: “We, the parliament, have already shown
that we are at the level that we can criticise the government when appropriate and
in the interest of the society, of our voters. Yet has this parliament reached the
level that it can help the government when help is needed?” Společná česko-slovenská digitální
parlamentní knihovna [Common Digital Czecho-Slovak Parliamentary
Library], Federal Assembly 1986-1990, Joint Sessions of the House of People and
the House of Nations, Stenographic records, 16th
session, 29. 11. 1989, accessed October 30, 2015, http://www.psp.cz/eknih/1986fs/slsn/stenprot/016schuz/s016002.htm.Naděje a omyly,
643.
The first debate evidenced fairly advanced split in the Czech and Slovak politics, different role of debates in the two national communities at the Federal Assembly, as well as the different position and perspective of the Communist Parties in Czech and Slovak politics. Though the Communist faction formally presented all Constitutional changes, a number of disparate groups were within the brand, all standing on historical crossroads where they split into a number of groups. Anton Blažej was given space in front of the cameras. As the subsequent debate and events over the coming weeks and months showed, the rector from Bratislava used, in an improvised manner, his perspective and rhetorical skills. Yet de facto he did not represent any significant faction within the disintegrating Party. The moments that were deciding their fate occurred elsewhere, mainly in the central apparatuses in Prague and Bratislava and within the executive.
The other components of the parliament to draw attention by their activity during the first televised debate were the smaller Czech and Slovak political parties. The Czech Socialists, who emerged strong with a team of five well prepared speakers during the debate over the first point on the agenda, were gradually joined by others. Thus during the evening tuning of the parliamentary declaration in the plenary, each particular matter was discussed by a Czech and Slovak Communist MP along with MPs from the Czechoslovak Peopleʼs Party, the Party of Slovak Renewal, and the Freedom Party. The common problem of all these voices lay in the proportion between their quantity and representativeness. Unlike the readers of this text, television viewers were not warned in advance about the weight of individual organisations. Thus the debate might have led them to a false conclusion about the political weight of individual addresses.
The assessment of the four legal political parties differed substantially in the Czech and Slovak society, ranging from quite benign ideas about the prospective role of these parties as the nuclei of pluralistic political life (what was the evident long-term aim of, for instance, their newspapers), to bitter condemnations of the operetta mini-parties led by police agents and frightened corrupted officials whose activity created smokescreen for democratic socialism.
The particular status of these parties within the political system emerged as an
improvisation in an effort to retain, in the newly seized countries in the Soviet
bloc, some ornamental differences related to local customs.
The idea that they would significantly increase their influence in the future was largely based on analogies with Czechoslovakia’s interwar politics. Similarly to other areas, such as the economy or culture, there was a widespread belief in the Czech society that the future development would return to the developmental trends suppressed or eliminated by the Communist rule. Other future was hardly conceivable.
Hence the quite widespread belief that the Socialists and Populars represented,
albeit in a distorted form, traditional mass political currents identified with by a
substantial part of the population, and that some sort of restoration of influence
was about to come. Václav Havel thought along the same lines. In the middle of the
Summer of 1989, he grasped an accidental informal opportunity to send, faced by a
number of witnesses, a flirty message to the central secretary of the Czechoslovak
Socialist Party, Jan Škoda, addressing his former schoolmate and fellow scout with
an old nickname: “Dear Nosák [Nosey], I hope we meet soon at some roundtable. Václav
Havel.”Vyhrabávačky, 51.
The Czechoslovak Socialist party was the first to join the newly formed coalition as soon as in the first hours of the demonstrations against the police intervention on 17 November. When Škoda, directly invited by Havel, came to the founding meeting of the Civic Forum, he was listed among the representatives of the dissident groups and strike committees. In the tumultuous events of the coming days the Czech Socialists were present and accepted everywhere, and, given their mediation skills, they were also liked to be seen in the old government institutions and in the headquarters of the Civic Forum. The chairman of the party, Kučera, ceremoniously used his many posts in the political system to involve the Civic Forum in the game and in the removal of the Communist Party headquarters. The star day came during the parliamentary debate in front of the television cameras on 29 November.
Whatever was said above about the party of Czechoslovak Socialists also held true
with some variations for the Czechoslovak Peopleʼs Party. The first major difference
was the threefold membership base: there were about fifteen thousand socialists and
some forty thousand Populars.Naděje a omyly, 583.Československá strana lidová – její
krize a obroda [Czechoslovak Peopleʼ Party – Its Crisis and
Restoration] (Praha: Vyšehrad, 1990), 130.
None of that could be said of any of the Slovak parties. Their status was a magnitude
weaker, although some symmetry in the political system concealed the reality. The
deputy chairmen of the Federal Assembly included Josef Šimúth, the chairman of the
Party of Slovak Renewal (renamed Democratic Party from 1 December) as well as Ján
Pampúch, deputy chairman of the Freedom Party. Yet each had only four MPs in both
chambers of the Federal Assembly, including their own mandates. The nature of the
groupings that were not exceeding fourteen hundred members across Slovakia in the
Autumn of 1989Politické strany na Slovensku, 1860–1989 [Political
Parties in Slovakia 1860–1989] (Bratislava: Archa, 1992), 293-300.
When exploring the response to the first televised broadcast from the federal
parliament, the sources unveil a few discrete scenes. Joining the winning
revolution, the media aired in devastating condemnations in the coming days. “The
live broadcast from the parliament beats the worst of expectations. I am in no mood
for this farce,” Václav Bartuška, one of the leaders of the student committees in
Prague, noted in his diary. He did not endure watching the broadcast, at the end of
which he was elected by the parliament for the parliamentary commission for the
oversight over the investigation of the police intervention on 17 November. Mladá fronta, the daily of the Socialist Youth Union,
reported with the same air of disdain. To describe the broadcast, it used the most
emotional statements by the most radical segments of the society, the leaders of the
student strike committees at the Prague schools. After a week of reign over public
spaces in the centre of the capital city, they only had condemnation and ironic
comments for the sticking and dashed spectacle from the parliament: “There is no
life to it. It is a typical example of speaking in the supreme institutions. (...)
The winter hibernation that breaths from the parliament is truly striking.”Mladá fronta, November 30, 1989, 1-2.
Those most vocal voices, however, were by far not the only feedback to confront the MPs after the television première of the live broadcast from the Federal Assembly in the days to come. The abolition of the postulate of the rule of the Communist Party transformed the holders of the federal mandates into a choir without which no further step was possible, as all actors were quick to realise. The federal executive was leaving and the preparations for the early elections, which no one doubted anymore, would not do without a number of legislative measures.
When the Federal Assembly reconvened to address these issues two weeks later, it offered an altogether different picture: most of the legislature came back to life. The familiar faces of the old régime left their visible seats and joined the MPs down below. The new spokesmen of the Communists led by Anton Blažej revelled with confidence and latching activity. The altogether worst proposal for the Civic Forum that came out from the televised session on 13 December 1989 was Blažejʼs suggestion that the new President was not to be elected by the Federal Assembly but the people in a referendum. That dramatically lowered Havelʼs chances and raise the hopes of the members of the then establishment (such as Adamec) or the figures of 1968 (Alexander Dubček or someone else). From the perspective of the revolutionaries, the very fact that the parliamentary soil came to life as the key playground without the Civic Forum having control over it, was bad enough news. The student siege of the building and pressure on the MPs in their constituencies, both applied already for a number of weeks, were instruments with limited effect.
Following the resignation of the hitherto officials, Blažej was elected chairman of
the House of Nations on 12 December. He gave a programmatic address about the new
role of the parliament as an active and autonomous institution with its own
specialist base that “will not only be considering government proposals, but will
also be presenting its own initiatives,” whilst “starting to execute a genuine
control over the government” and becoming “the conscience of the work of the
government.” The Federal Assembly would thus earn “respect and gain authority prior
to the elections” which, as Blažej rightly predicted, would be held in about six
months. It was to be used in order “not to lose continuity and to create real
conditions for the functioning of the parliamentary system within the context of
legal democratic state.”Společná česko-slovenská digitální parlamentní knihovna [Common
Digital Czecho-Slovak Parliamentary Library], Federal Assembly 1986-1990, The
House of Nations, Stenographic records, 6th session,
12. 12. 1989, accessed October 30, 2015, http://www.psp.cz/eknih/1986fs/sn/stenprot/006schuz/s006001.htm.
The next two weeks had shown that the development was to follow a different path. The
Civic Forum established itself as the new power hub. A part of the elderly political
establishment of the old régime was withdrawing to privacy and the youths were
offering themselves to serve the new régime. Its fundamental institution became “the
government of national unity” which was the name for the reshuffled federal cabinet
with multiple representation with former dissidents complementing the ranks of
relatively unknown bureaucrats.
Blažejʼs vision that the parliament would oversee the new executive proved to be an
illusion. In a few days everything was the other way round. It was Václav Havel and
his colleagues from the leadership at the Civic Forum to design the progress of the
key moments of the next sessions as a staged production. They discussed in detail
individual roles with relevant actors or sought willing executors among MPs.Občanské fórum, listopad-prosinec 1989, 2. díl – dokumenty [Civic
Forum, November–December 1992, volume 2: Documents] (Praha-Brno: Doplněk, 1998),
261.Občanské
forum, 262-3.
The concept of “national unity” in Czechoslovakia at the break of 1989 and 1990 went without the autonomously acting institutions. Blažej was removed from his post on 28 December having led the Federal Assembly for three weeks. The new leadership of the Communist Party that arose from the extraordinary Congress on 20 and 21 December 1989 agreed with the reshuffle in the leadership of the House of Nations. Blažej was replaced by Jozef Stank, another Slovak with Communist membership. Although, at the time of the election, he identified with the agenda of his predecessor, in practical politics of the coming months he became a willing executor of the will of the new President and of “the government of national understanding.”
The parliament soon returned to the dependence on the executive. Blažejʼs failed attempt for the more independent parliamentary politics was among many failures, albeit the most visible and interesting. Overall statistics lay beneath: none of the 350 holders of the federal mandates as of 17 November 1989 served a year later in any significant post; only a handful were given further federal mandate in the next elections but none have appeared in the governments. Such degree of discontinuity was not a norm but an absolute exception in Czechoslovak political institutions where, for example, Marián Čalfa, the former deputy of Adamec, was the federal Prime Minister until the summer of 1992.
The main reason is called co-optations: the replacement of a part of deputies. It was
created by agreement between the old and new political forces at a roundtable and
was part of conciliatory accord about the occupation of governmental posts, the
office of the President and early elections. The present power apparatuses – the
leadership of the Civic Forum and its Slovak counterpart, the new leadership of the
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the four non-Communist political parties –
agreed that, within the framework of the politics of “national understanding”, they
would bring to the Federal Assembly MPs from the Civic Forum; at the same time, the
individual parties could replace their MPs at their own discretion.Starý pes, nové kousky. Kooptace do Federálního
shromáždění a vytváření polistopadové politické kultury [Old Dog, New
Tricks: Co-optations in the Federal Assembly and the Development of the
post-November Political Culture] (Praha: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny Akademie věd
České republiky, 2013), 94-102.
Študija je osredotočena na vlogo češkoslovaškega zveznega parlamenta v političnem prevratu leta 1989. Na podlagi institucionalne perspektive predstavlja novo analizo prelomnih tednov. Z vidika parlamenta so bile spremembe nenavadno hitre. V nekaj tednih od padca berlinskega zidu do konca leta 1989 je državi uspelo zamenjati izvršilno oblast (zlasti predsedstvo – Václav Havel je nadomestil Gustáva Husáka), pri čemer parlament ni odigral pomembne vloge.
Predhodna vlada in vodje Državljanskega foruma so sklenili dogovor, ki je vključeval tudi naloge, ki bi jih moral izpolnjevati parlament, tako da je bila odločitev formalno ustrezna. Ključna pogajanja se sploh niso približala parlamentarnemu odru.
Medtem so si številni tedanji poslanci, izvoljeni leta 1986, pa tudi parlament kot institucija, razlagali zlom predhodne strukture moči kot priložnost za neodvisnost, zato so se poskušali vključiti v pogajanja, vendar brez uspeha. Slovaški poslanec Anton Blažej, ki se je javno zavzemal, da bi neodvisni parlament postal »vest vlade«, je na čelu zveznega parlamenta preživel samo tri tedne, preden ga je odslovila nova izvršilna oblast z novoizvoljenim predsednikom Havlom.
Istočasno so v parlament začeli vstopati predstavniki nove oblasti in zasedli prazne sedeže poslancev, ki so odstopili ali bili razrešeni. Po skoraj dveh mesecih improviziranja se je parlament spet vključil v politiko. To se ni zgodilo zaradi njegove neodvisnosti ali splošnih volitev. Formalnopraven prihod predstavnikov nove oblasti na vodilne položaje je bil resnično revolucionarno dejanje. Institucionalna perspektiva nam omogoča, da precej jasno prepoznamo tovrstno naravo te politične spremembe.