October 14, 2021 - 11:00am
The fallout from the Czech general election last week is now clear. The populist government of the incumbent Prime Minister Andrej Babiš will be replaced by a centre-Right coalition led by Petr Fiala.
This is being interpreted as a significant defeat for populism. If Babiš can be ousted by a broad-based alliance of non-populist parties then the same approach could be used to deal with Viktor Orbán in Hungary and, perhaps, Jarosław Kaczyński’s Law and Justice Party in Poland. The EU establishment would certainly like to have those thorns removed from its side.
The reality though is more complicated. Though Babiš was chummy with Orbán, Czech populism was rather different from the Hungarian or Polish varieties. The ANO party that Babiš heads is anti-establishment in tone, but politically of the centre. Indeed, it’s affiliated with the liberal ALDE grouping of European parties.
Furthermore, ANO governed in coalition with the Social Democrats — with tacit support from the Communists. Though ANO lost a handful of seats last week, the real reason why it’s heading into opposition is that both the Social Democrats and the Communists were wiped out altogether — falling below the threshold for parliamentary representation.
Thus there is no Left-wing representation in the Chamber of Deputies at all — unless you count the Czech Pirate Party. However they too did badly in the election, falling to just four seats.
The opposition to the new government will come from the ANO and from a hard Right populist party called Freedom and Direct Democracy. Somewhat unexpectedly, its leader is Tomio Okamura who was born in Tokyo and is of Japanese and Korean descent on his father’s side and Moravian on his mother’s.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIts obvious that eastern European countries have had their bellyful of communist ideology.
And long may it continue, as a challenging counterbalance of views to the EU establishment. The U.K. doesn’t need to be in the EU with these guys around.
A minor correction: the voice of today’s Jobbik party in Hungary is nowhere near the ultra-nationalist, xenophobic and anti-EU rhetoric of Viktor Orbán, thus to say that it is to the right of Orbán is dead wrong. True, its ultra-right past casts a long shadow and will keep the party suspect in the eyes of liberal democrats for a long time to come, but as a signatory to the agreement and Value Declaration of the Six-Party Opposition Coalition, it has taken a pro-democracy, pro-checks-and-balances and pro-EU line, and actually campaigns for the earliest possible introduction of the Euro to Hungary, something strongly opposed by the Orbán government. To depict itself as Centre Right is one of the typical propaganda lies of the Orbán government which, especially after its exit from the European People’s Party in the EP, is constantly seeking allies among the remaining ultra right politicians and neo-fascist parties of Europe.
Ultra-right, xenophobic, ultra-nationalist – they were the descriptions often used in the U.K. about those supporting Brexit. The Democrats use this type of language for Republicans too these days.
So I find it difficult to calibrate the views of people, including the writer, who use these labels.
Spot on! As a Yank,I find these labels baffling–make no sense to American eyes. But Ian’s point is excellent and reminds me of so-called “hate speech,” which seems to mean anything that anyone at any time might find offensive.
I am actually a big proponent of “hate speech.” It used to be called vigorous debate, engaging with, not cancelling or shouting down, people with whom one disagreed. At some point, it was considered a way of sharpening one’s thinking.
But since only one view is now acceptable, there is no reason to engage….
In the land of Vaclav Havel, surely someone fully equipped to lead constructively will eventually rise to effective, centrist leadership.
Interestingly, for many, when a populist loses an election it is a “significant defeat for populism” – in other words, the beginning of the end of this wicked intolerant conception of politics. Funny how they take their dreams for reality.