From: CAROLINA%CSEARN.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU (Carolina/Eng No 39.1)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.czecho-slovak
Subject: Carolina/Eng No 39.1
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: "Carolina/Eng No 39.1" <CAROLINA%CSEARN.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Status: O

I haven't checked the newsgroup recently, but don't see the most 
recent Carolina up here. I'm posting it, though I haven't been 
following the threads regarding its appropriateness. My opinion would 
be that many people dislike the bitnet mailings clogging their boxes, 
and prefer to read groups at their discretion. I'm one of those, 
though I've been receiving Carolina since its inception. 

There's also Carolina/Eng No 39, posted momentarily.


 CCCCC    AA    RRRRR    OOOO   LL      II  NN   N    AA
CC       AA A   RR   R  OO   O  LL      II  NNN  N   AA A
CC      AA   A  RRRRR   OO   O  LL      II  NN N N  AA   A
CC      AAAAAA  RR  R   OO   O  LL      II  NN  NN  AAAAAA
 CCCCC  AA   A  RR   R   OOOO   LLLLLL  II  NN   N  AA   A

         STUDENT'S E-MAIL NEWS FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA

         School of Social Science of Charles University
         Smetanovo nabr. 6
  110 01 Prague 1
         C.S.F.R.
 e-mail address: CAROLINA@CSEARN.BITNET

            *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

       C A R O L I N A  No 39.1,  Friday, September 4, 1992.


       In today's supplement to Carolina  we present a conversation with
Jan Sokol, who,  as we mentioned in Carolina  number 37, proclaimed that
under certain conditions he would  accept nomination as president of the
CSFR.

       Jan Sokol was  born in 1936, he is a  Roman Catholic (among other
things he participated  in the ecumenical translation of  the Bible). At
the end  of the seventies  he contributed to  the literary monthy  Tvar,
along with Vaclav Havel, Jiri Nemec, Emanuel Mandler and others, many of
whom later appeared in the dissident movement and on the political scene
after  1989.  He  is  a  leading  scholar  of  the  works  of  the Czech
philosopher Jan Patocka. Until 1989 he worked in the area of development
of computer systems. He was among the first signatories of Charta 77. In
1990 he was elected to parliament as a representative of Civic Forum and
became vice-president of the Chamber of Nations. This year he ran on the
Civic Movement ticket, which lost the  election. At present he is editor
of the  journal Pritomnost. As a  politician he was considered  a figure
who  strove  for  a  conciliatory,  contstructive  policy in the liberal
spirit of the Civic Movement.
                              *    *    *
       Mr. Sokol, much  has changed since the elections,  you are one of
the members of the Civic Movement,  who was tossed by the elections back
into civil life after two years  of professional politics. How would you
characterize your present political position today?

       It  is  difficult  to  say  anything  today  about  my  political
position. I  would rather say  something about the  principles which are
today  especially important  for me.  The first  stems from  the way our
politics have, since  the beginning of the century,  moved "from wall to
wall",  from extreme  to extreme.  My  first  concern is  to attempt  to
prevent  us  from  going  from  one  extreme  to  the  other. The second
principle states  that human timidity,  uncertainty, mistrust, suspicion
and the panic and imagined conspiracies and so on that flow from it, are
a great threat  to us. The  third principle is  based on the  experience
that  since 1989  our state  has  been  weakened. The  state should  be,
according  to my  view, minimal,  i.e. it  should be  involved in as few
things as possible -- but in those  things however it must be strong and
indubitable. I'm afraid that today there is a lot lacking for that state
of affairs.  Finally a further  principle that I  am in favor  of is the
effort  to  support  all  forms  of  private  initiative.  That  was why
I supported  even  some  problematical  steps  in  parliament,  such  as
restitution. I  would gladly support every  specific enterprise not only
in the narrow  sense, but also every kind of  civic initiative in social
and cultural life,  etc. I am trying to  do so even today, as  editor of
the journal Pritomnost.
       When  you add  it all  up, those  are principles  which could  be
called liberal.  That's also important  to me because  I do not  like it
when religion mixes with politics -- in whatever direction. I have tried
to carry  that out also in  parliament and elsewhere, or  more precisely
I have tried to remove the presumtion,  that a Christian is by that fact
alone already  politically aligned, that there  exists only one, binding
Christian policy.

       What are the most important results of the elections?

       The main result,  according to my opinion, is  that in both parts
of the  state the parties  that won are  political opposites, they  have
a different political profile and no desire to work together. That could
also have good reasons, but it is simply a fact.

       How would you characterize the present political situation in our
state?

       In  the first  place I   would mention  something like  a normal,
everyday life  which on the whole  functions. The economy is  slowly but
surely beginning  to recover, and  in spite of  various difficulties and
troubles things are somehow in motion. Then there is the question of the
state, of which  I have already said that it  is weakened, and continues
to  weaken. It  seems that  this state  will divide  in two  in the near
future. I  am still not entirely  convinced that it is  necessary and on
the  contrary  I  am  certain  that  it  is  not  rational.  The present
situation,  though, appears  such that  no other  possibility is likely,
that it won't work any other way.


        Can you find anything positive on the division of the state ?

        According  to  my  opinion,  I  cannot  find  anything. The only
legitimate reason  is the Slovak  decision, that the  people in Slovakia
want autonomy. This  would be a legitimate reason,  to which there would
be no objection. In that case,  Slovakia should have as much autonomy as
it asks  for. I think that  from our Czech point  of view the advantages
are  purely psychological,  there is  an atmosphere  containing fear and
calling for a quick decision.


        How can one defend the assertion, used often by both sides, that
the division should be done as soon as possible ?

        Once we  say that the state  is only provisional, then  there is
something  wrong with  it. And  if it  behaves provisionally,  then this
itself is a  reason to make this shorter. All  the rush results from the
feeling, that "it  cannot go on like this  anymore", that something must
happen  and if  "something" happens   all problems  will be  solved. But
nobody explained me why we are in such a hurry. The previous parliament,
in spite  of its complicated  structure, has passed  the bill about  the
economic reform, as well as important  changes in the laws about private
property  and all  the basic  laws  necessary  for the  function of  the
government.  As  soon  as  I  know,  there  was  no  serious bill in the
parliament after  the elections, so we  cannot say how will  the federal
parliament work in the future.


        What  are the  reasons for  your candidacy  for the  presidental
office in the next round of the presidential elections?

        I want  to make clear, what  this is all about.  When the social
democrats  asked  me  if  I  would  accept  the  candidacy,  I  answered
positively but  under two conditions:  first, that the  former president
Havel will  be informed soon  and in a  proper way, and  second that the
other parties in the parliament would  support my candidacy. I know that
many people  have been surprised  with my decision,  this role would  be
very  difficult and  problematical. President  in our  country has  very
little  power and  strongly depends  on the  parliament -  that was  the
reason  why  I  requested  that  major  parties  in the parliament would
support  my candidacy.  I have  no illusions  that I  can put forward my
opinions. But  I think that it  is neccessary - whether  the state would
exist further or  it would split and both parts  would exist together in
some new way - that everything  proceeds according to a mutual agreement
and in  a constitutional way. Because  of this I realized  that I cannot
avoid this task. The state should not split only because there is nobody
who can put  it together. As I have said  before, if major parliamentary
parties will not support my candidacy, I am ready to withdraw. I did not
want to  increase the tension  or put anything  to doubt. I  just cannot
accept the argument  that the state is disassembling  of its own accord.
We want  to build a democratic  state and this has  its rules. We cannot
admit that the state is splitting of  its own accord by laws of entropy.
If  the  splitting  should  be  done,  then  it  must  be  done  in full
conscience, according to the decision of people.

Prague, August 31, 1992.
Authorized interview for CAROLINA: Vaclav Trojan.
Translation: Hugh Agnew and Peter Rajcani.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    This news may be published only with "CAROLINA" designation.

    To subscribe Carolina please send the  e-mail message with  subject
"Carolina/Eng: Subscription" for the english version (and "Carolina/Cs:
Subscription" for the czech version) on our e-mail  address  above.  To
drop  sending  you  replace the word Subscription" by "Unsubscription".
The subscription is free. Comments and remarks are appreciated.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil