Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President, Mr Secretary General, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to have the opportunity to address this distinguished audience and to do so several months before the Czech chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

I am sure that you have heard many interesting speeches in this chamber already. It is, therefore, difficult for me to surprise you with something really different, with something sufficiently provocative or with something intellectually stimulating. All speakers, using their own specific perspectives, try to convince you of their truth. There is no doubt that that exposes a harmony and sometimes a disharmony of views; that is exactly what Europe is about.

European countries share many things, but Europe is based on an undeniable diversity, making it a fragile alliance. We take it for granted that existing differences, authentic habits, dreams, attitudes and interests cannot and should not be suppressed. Individual European countries provide natural frames of reference for our lives. Europe is, nevertheless, more than the sum of its parts and, therefore, deserves our protection. Its existence makes us richer in a material and a spiritual sense. It is our duty to take advantage of all the potential synergic effects.

With an awareness of that point, it must be fascinating to be in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and to feel the enormous responsibility of dealing with issues concerning the entire continent. What is my message to you today? What can be the advantage of someone coming from the Czech Republic, who happens to be its Prime Minister, in these stormy, turbulent and demanding, but exciting times of historical, political, social, and economic transformation? What could be of relevance to you, or at least to some of you?

My approach is based on the following set of assumptions. First, the Czech Republic is located in the heart of Europe. It has always been part of Europe, and after decades of seclusion and isolation, it is once again participating in European efforts. Secondly, we interpret our Europeanism as an obligation to safeguard and preserve our distinctive features because we believe that they are exactly what we can offer to Europe – to all of you. To deserve its name, Europe must apply the principles of exchange and equivalence. We all have to give and to take. If there is nothing to give, there will be nothing to take and we will be part of a debilitating zero sum.

The communist regime in our country is definitely over. Our unfortunate experience has made us specially sensitive to all kinds of deficiencies, disturbances and violations of freedom, even in countries where democratic regimes have prevailed for decades or centuries. Our approach to the European institutions is based more on the ideas of openness, freedom, exchange and voluntary and spontaneous activities rather than on the ideas of constructivism, étatism, interventionism, regulation and controls. We believe more in human action than in human design. We are confident that this simple truth is relevant to most domestic and international affairs.

We believe in Europe because of its genuine attraction to us. We are convinced that Europe is here to stay and that Europe is very real. Nevertheless, some people are confused because they cannot see it or touch it. They suggest, therefore, that we should build institutions. We are not sure that such tangibility should be aimed at.

We do not think that Europe needs to be stronger or bigger to compete with the United States or Japan because we do not believe in the importance of size. We know that the well-known law of increasing returns in proportion to scale is counterbalanced in reality by the effect of other no less important laws. There are limits on organisational and administrative efficiency. Inevitably, there is the dispersal of knowledge among individuals and the impossibility of its aggregation by means of all the available information technology. We do not believe that technical progress needs huge continents organised from single places. On the contrary, we know that it means creativity, motivation and openness, and the elimination of all man-made restrictions, impediments and fences.

Finally, since our velvet revolution in November 1989, we have accumulated some relevant experience of a historically unique process called transformation, which means a systemic change from the political and economic structures of communism to a free society and a market economy.

Let me use that perspective for a brief discussion of two seemingly unrelated but intrinsically and structurally similar issues – the logic and characteristics of transition from communism to a free society, and the logic and characteristics of the evolution of European integration, especially the European Union.

I shall not go into details today, but I shall outline two essential preconditions for the successful carrying out of both those tasks. We need a clear, strong, transparent, appealing vision of what we really want when we talk about our Czech transition. Our vision has been really straightforward. We want a free society based on the system of a pluralistic parliamentary democracy. We want a market economy and, as I always add it must be without disqualifying objectives.

Freedom is based on the permanent contest of competing ideas, not on the dominance of any one of them. The value of freedom itself is crucial, because it is more general and more encompassing than the value of any one specific ideology, ambition or partial interest. Problems arise whenever and wherever another objective is put ahead of it, irrespective of the well-meant intentions and purposes of the individuals who advocate doing so.

These days a typical conflict in our part of the world stems from efforts to attribute a higher value to different visions and objectives. The vision of a good or a moral society presents the most difficult case. People may believe that a free society does not always produce results that we, and they, like. The definition of goodness and morality that they have in mind is, however, rather vague.

What is more important, freedom can be introduced whereas goodness and morality can only be preached about, or disseminated by giving advice or by setting a good example. The guarantee of freedom is one of the crucial tasks of the ongoing systemic change; it is a task for those who organise it. Preaching morality is an individual task for those who feel entitled to carry it out. Such activity deserves our admiration, but it cannot be a defining feature of any society, and therefore it cannot be part of a transformation vision.

That was the domestic transformation. When we talk about the process of European integration our vision need not be less straightforward, and it must be related to our societal vision. We want a free Europe, and European institutions that will enhance the freedom of individuals living in Europe – institutions that will make our lives happier, and will contribute to improving the welfare of all of us.

We do not want institutions that will try to control us, regulate us, co-ordinate, organise or prefabricate us. We do not want institutions that will try to force their own values, ambitions and prejudices on us – institutions that would favour partial interest at the cost of the interests of the whole.

A strict distinction between goals and means represents another crucial part of our vision. European institutions are no more than an instrument, not a goal in themselves, and they must be evaluated with that distinction in mind. They must be strictly instrumental, and should never become substitutes for real goals. That may sound trivial, but it is not.

The vision must be supplemented by a feasible strategy for achieving it. I do not intend to discuss technicalities about the most suitable strategy, and the comparative advantages of gradualism and of shock therapy, of optimal sequencing rules or of various aspects of the often neglected cost-benefit analysis of our debt.

A successful strategy must be based on a symmetrical and balanced interplay of political, social and economic measures. To omit any one of those is to take the fastest way to failure. The strategy to be applied must be technically, administratively and organisationally feasible, and it must be fair. Its costs and benefits must be widely spread, and its impact should not exceed the tolerance limits of various social groups.

The strategy must also gain and keep credibility, and must be adequately explained to the whole of society. When we look back at the recent transformation attempts in post-communist Europe, we see many troubles connected with inconsistent visions, unfeasible strategies and huge gaps between winners and losers. However, the main troubles are connected with the lack of credibility of politicians and their programmes, as well as the lack of social consensus among the citizens of the transforming countries.

If there is a bottleneck in the complexity and complementarity of the transformation tasks, it is political – inability to secure sufficient political support for the necessary transformation measures. One government after another has had to face growing opposition because it is easier to promote a negative quality than a positive one. So far the Czech Republic has been successful in that respect, and I hope that it will continue to be successful.

Now I shall switch to Europe again. The present European issue – the evolution of European institutions and the substance of the European integration process – constitutes a similar trouble. It needs both a vision and a strategy – a strategy that is feasible, fair and credible. To formulate a European vision – the original vision – to prevent a relapse into the disastrous second world war is not easy. That vision is designed to integrate Germany into Europe in a new way; to promote the values of freedom and democracy against a communist ideology; to promote welfare by removing trade barriers and by creating a common market. The original vision, which was more or less accepted by most Europeans, has been quietly replaced by a more comprehensive vision – Europeanism. That is based on more co-ordination from a single place; more uniformity in policy; common policy in many sectors; belief in extensive regulation; a reduction in the authority and responsibility of the national historic states and efforts to create a European identity.

I believe that such a vision still must be explained to many Europeans. Their questions must be answered and their doubts dispelled. The strategies for Europeanism face the same problems as I have already described, for example, the sequencing issue – the gradualism or shock therapy dilemma – and involve aspects of distribution and credibility. They are not technical problems because they affect millions of human beings and their dreams, habits and prejudices. The credibility aspect is, once again, the most important.

I do not believe that a process of European integration should be based on expectations of stronger European feelings than those of national identity on the part of the most Europeans. I do not believe that the process of European integration should be based on a shift from the fragile balance of unity in diversity towards one based more on unity than diversity. I do not believe that that process should be based on ambitions to create a strong, unified European entity, which is able to compete with the United States of America or Japan. I do not believe that that process should be based on temporary fashions in ideology, for example the current approach to industrial policy, trade polices, the Social Charter and environmental aspirations.

The process of European integration should be based on undisputed ideas and approaches – on permanent ideas. It should be based on the natural affinity that most Europeans feel towards Europe, based on a similar culture and history, our genuine common interests, which undoubtedly exist, and on geographical proximity.

Technically speaking we must define public goods at a European level, based on the implicit assumption that all the other things are either private goods or public goods supplied at a national or regional level. We do not believe in the extension of the domain of public goods. We are convinced that most of them can be supplied nationally. Such a debate, which is based on analysis and not emotions, is long overdue. The Czech Republic is ready to take an active part in that.

With all of those issues on our minds, I would like to assure the Assembly that the Czech Republic, now in its early post-transformation stage, will complete its historic systemic change very soon. It will be a democratic, peaceful and stable country. It will be a reliable partner to all of you. We are, at the same, true Europeans. Despite all our questions, doubts, and sometimes, objections, we want to participate actively in the process of European integration. We want to become a full member of the European Union as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention.