interview right questions, and have excellent researching skills. To put it simply, if a political scientist focuses on the role of the Czech president in the political and constitutional system, they are ignoring whether he promotes economic diplomacy or human rights. Or if he believes in global warming. A good political scientist wants to know if the president´s powers are interpreted consistently in the long term, if he respects the constitution (or crosses the line), how he communicates with his government, and how foreign and defense policy are decided. The rest is rather unimportant for him. On the other hand, if somebody studies the issues of Czech foreign policy, they focus on how presidents rule on certain topics.” We can see many political scientists in the media. But how can we safely distinguish the objective and capable from the incapable ones? “It is not so easy, because though opinions may differ, it does not make them wrong. A political scientist should definitely have a basic knowledge of and a professional approach to analysis. There should also be a certain ethical rule, that if a political scientist works for somebody, they should at least inform the public of the relationship. But the real problem is related to the questions a political scientist is asked. I remember when during a big corruption scandal I was asked if I think that the person in question “accepted a bribe”. I felt like answering, “I have no idea, dear Watson.” This would have been a good question for an investigative journalist, but the question meant for a political scientist should have been completely different. For example: “What does this scandal tell us about politics?”; “How can there be such tight relationships between politicians, businesses, and organized crime?”; or “How can we determine the cause of this, and how can we stop it from happening again?” So, you see the problem as mainly caused by journalists and the media? “It is very easy to criticize the media. If you consider the wide scope of journalism, as well as the background that an editor or moderator has to work with, then it is of course very difficult for them to be able to ask excellent questions on all subjects, including politics, economics, art, science, climatic phenomenon, etc.. On the other hand, only a few years ago it was common that a moderator, and respectively their assistant, would ask me to make some interesting or significant comments. I mostly pointed out three or four issues, and briefly explained the context of them, and why these issues should be interesting. It was of course the moderator´s decision to choose from my suggestions or not, but they usually did. And then the listeners learned something other than the trivial replies so often given to trivial questions. This “trivializing” approach of the media finally leads us to the fact that people will uncritically accept almost anything different they see.” So, these days moderators are not asking for this anymore? “They are asking for much less, or they do not follow recommendations, or they push for a certain reply
IN COOPERATION WITH LEADERS MAGAZINE
because you are supposed to fit a certain scenario in which other material, already worked out, will follow. Let me give you a recent example. It was at the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, after president Yanukovych was brought down. I was invited to a program to comment on the situation. I told the assistant that this topic is not my “cup of tea”, as I am not an expert on Ukraine, so they should find somebody else. However, I suggested that it could be interesting to discuss in general what impact the conflict could have on both sides, the rebels vs. the militia. Experiences from Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Kosovo, could be referred to for similarities. The assistant agreed with this suggested topic, but the question which the studio finally aired was completely trivial, and the effort to get at least something substantial into the reply was prevented. On the other hand, I also often hear political scientists reply to good questions with meaningless banalities.” If we observe political scientists in the media, they often comment on very recent issues. Often these issues occur just a few minutes before the comments are made. Has your view or comment on a situation ever been completely different from the final result? “I strive to speak rather about connections, to show various possible approaches and perceptions, not to formulate definite statements. I think this method is much more interesting for viewers or listeners, as they not only receive information, but they think about it more. However, sometimes an expert or editor can get into trouble. I remember a live broadcasting in 2003 at the time of a NATO summit, where I was asked to comment on US foreign policy. First, I arrived late because of security measures, and somebody else was speaking on this topic. However, since the closed negotiations of Václav Havel and G.W. Bush took longer than expected, there were 4 of us - 2 editors and 2 guests - holding a panel discussion for more than 30 minutes. Under such circumstances there is a kind of solidarity of course, as you know that the editor must ask questions and you have to reply. So, I evaluated the state of preparedness of the Romanian army, the strategic importance of the Baltics, and finally the possibility of sharing fighter planes with Slovakia. The depth of my analysis corresponded with my knowledge of the issues and the level of banalities was very high. On the other hand, not many listeners knew much about the issue. But I have never left the studio so exhausted…”
It is not a secret that in 2003 you were the first woman among political science professors. How many women are there now? “As far as I know, there are two of us. But in related fields, especially international relations and European studies, there are more.” In your opinion, what is a reliable method for distinguishing which side of the political spectrum a certain political party or movement belongs to? “It is not so clearly decided, but the key is of course a party’s stand on the basic socio-economic division of society, simply said – work vs. capital. But it is very important where a party’s “center” is. Many times, attitudes of the right wing parties in northern countries would be perceived as almost dangerous leftism here. Also, since the 60’s we have seen the growing importance of focusing on the questions of “quality of life”, questions of the environment, discrimination, and the importance of human rights. These issues have been introduced mainly by the Greens, while the Pirates are concerned with the right to access information sources. However, I think that the socioeconomic point of view still holds its importance, and the financial crisis after 2008 has made it a rather strong issue globally.” Which political party or movement do you consider most “confusing” from this point of view? “To be honest, it seems to me that almost all parties are “confusing” these days. I miss discussions about deeper values, and while a certain level of pragmatism is always necessary, a party’s main values and ideas should be evident. This is the result of many parties’ small membership bases, other than the parties whose memberships strongly connect to the situation before November 89, namely KSCM and KDU-CSL. The other parties have very few (in some places close to zero) members. The memberships of CSSD and ODS are around 20,000 and that is rather small, and it strengthens the tendency of competition between single power fractions. TOP 09, without Mayors and with the fading symbol of Karel Schwarzenberg, is rather a virtual party, as the municipal elections has showed, and the question is whether they can manage to anchor locally. ANO is structured like a company, which is nothing new in the world (see Berlusconi), but there is always a risk of managing to transform a “company” structure into the structure of a political
Leaders Magazine I/2015 35