Jakub Zelenka: Prague Castle, a sad symbol of the elections
It is understandable, because Prague Castle has supplied the media with a number of cases for many years. Documents were lost at the Castle. There were checks and unpleasant queues at the Castle. Controversial meetings took place at the Castle. There are hundreds of similar headlines during the years of Miloš Zeman’s government. When it wasn’t a matter of newspaper headlines, the Castle served as an illustration for a number of cases. He was often frowned upon or served as a background for officials at press conferences who arrogantly abused their power and pushed the boundaries of political culture by attacking opponents.
However, throwing the Castle overboard as a symbol for this would be short-sighted. The giant castle complex was here before Miloš Zeman and will apparently be there after him as well. It will probably stand even in times when the name of the current president fades in history textbooks.
Instead of distancing themselves, the candidates should once again restore him to the role of a strong and positively perceived symbol. So that when looking at the panorama of Prague, one does not feel the stench of how politics took place there. This will not work without the candidates accepting the Castle as their own and not cheaply jumping on the negative sentiment that has formed around it.
It is often a strategy to style yourself in the role of the people’s president. But being associated with the Castle is not nonsense. The President is tasked with taking care of symbols, and Prague Castle is undoubtedly that. In addition, the entire decades serve to have the head of state and her maximum comfort. In addition to the office, it also offers representative spaces for important meetings.
The castle has become as toxic a topic this year as pardons and amnesties once were. They fell victim already during the first direct election of the president due to the mass amnesty of Václav Klaus when he said goodbye to the position of president. Part of the public criticized it loudly. This is also why Miloš Zeman promised in a populist way that he would not grant amnesty and pardons only in very rare cases. He described the authority as a feudal relic, and even symbolically gave up his right at the first inauguration.
When asked about a pardon, the candidates began to give the standard answer that they would grant it only in case of serious illness and to the Ministry of Justice. But this very powerful and unique authority is placed only in the hands of the president, and he should bear all the consequences of his decision. The effort to delegate these powers to others is partly alibi because it gives the president responsibility. But a real leader shouldn’t have that.
For the third time, the direct election tests what the candidates are willing to do for their election and how much they are willing to influence the perception of the presidency with their promises. They should not use internal marketing surveys to ride the mood of the public at all costs, because then the role of the president would be reduced to a kind of influencer. However, it is a complicated task. Before taking a step away from a symbol and their role, candidates should think twice. The way back is often difficult.