Abstract
During the Czechoslovak normalization era (roughly from the 1970s to the 1980s), the Czech lawyer Vladimír Čermák, who later became a Justice of the newly established Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic after the breakdown of the Communist regime, authored a monumental piece called The Question of Democracy. Although this ambitious work has no equal in the Czech context, no attention has been paid to it in the English-speaking world. The present article aims to fill this gap by analyzing the most original aspects of Čermák’s political thought. First, I present Greek tragedy, Plato, and Augustine as the main influences on his thought, which was further shaped by Čermák’s experience with the First Czechoslovak Republic and the Communist era. Second, I show that the most important category permeating all of his intellectual project is the principle of polarity, combined with the concept of polémos as derived from Greek tragedy. Third, I focus on the consensually anchored value order of society, which is created through an interplay between positive and negative forces. Čermák’s idea that all law must be measured against the value order has deeply influenced the value-based jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Finally, I position Čermák’s thought in the context of contemporary political theory, arguing that the contrast with the work of the radical political theorist Chantal Mouffe is particularly illuminating. Even though Čermák and Mouffe share a similar attitude to democracy—in that the primacy of strife renders universal rational consensus impossible—I maintain that Čermák’s theory, due to its emphasis on the categories of good and evil, can be more usefully described as “secular Augustinianism”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The five parts are, respectively, titled “Democracy and Totalitarianism”, “Man”, “State and Society”, “Values, Norms and Institutions”, and “The Functions of Democracy”. The first edition of the pentalogy was published in the 1990s (the first volume came out in 1992, the second in 1993, the third and fourth in 1997, and the last in 1999); the second edition came out towards the end of the 2010s (Čermák 2017a, 2017b). In this article, I will refer to the second edition, which includes a long interview with Čermák in which he explains the main ideas of his work. This interview was first released as part of the interview with Fiala and Mikš (2000, pp. 57–99), but again I will cite the 2017 text. I use (and occasionally modify) Mark Gillis’ translations from his unpublished manuscript when citing this interview.
Among the Court’s other members, at least three of the justices were Čermák’s protégés (I. Brožová, M. Holeček, and E. Zarembová). Brožová subsequently served for a long time as the President of the Supreme Court (2002–2015). When, in 2006, the incumbent Czech President Václav Klaus attempted to remove her from her position, Čermák’s ideas on the role of courts in democratic political systems helped Brožová formulate a petition to the Constitutional Court. Brožová won her case, which elicited debates about “courtocracy” or “juristocracy” in the Czech context.
Some of them (e.g., Pl. ÚS 14/94, IV. ÚS 98/97, Pl. ÚS 42/00, Pl. ÚS 33/01) have been translated into English; please check the relevant section at the Court´s website, https://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/22.
There is further interest in Čermák’s work insomuch as it influenced the thought of the Czech PM Petr Fiala. Though Fiala was never his disciple, some of his works were undoubtedly influenced by Čermák (e.g., Fiala 1995), and he has always expressed high esteem for Čermák’s achievements.
According to Čermák, on the surface it would seem that the opposite of the rule of the people is the rule of a single individual or group, i.e., autocracy. However, at a more fundamental level, the real alternative to an open democratic society is totalitarianism, insomuch as it attempts to control the entire society to the fullest extent. Because of this, only the contrast between democracy and totalitarianism is pivotal in his thought.
Čermák considered Popper’s interpretation to be misguided because it neglected Plato’s depiction as well as condemnation of totalitarian tendencies in ancient tyrannies. Moreover, Plato’s realist view of human nature runs contrary to Popper’s portrayal of Plato as the first totalitarian.
As regards the reviewer’s question who or what decides which force is constructive and which one destructive, I would respond that, ultimately, Čermák says that we can identify creative and destructive forces only by detecting their (positive or negative) consequences. In their conflicts, we can see that “good sustains and maintains, evil harms and destroys” (2017b, p. 548). Even if he rejects any dogmatic (predeterminate) solution to this question, his theory does provide the conceptual apparatus for tackling it. Though the right solution in the particular historical circumstances is often not manifest, it is necessary for the creative forces to “correctly identify social phenomena” since good must always respond to evil (2017b, pp. 549–550). Čermák admitted that after the collapse of the Communism, this task was more difficult than before.
Accordingly, Čermák emphasized that we recognize the true elite by their ability to sacrifice in actions that drive the society forward. He gave considerable attention to the (associated) relationship between the elite and the masses. Historically and socially, these are interpenetrated inasmuch as “each act of the elite has historical and social meaning only in the case that the masses perceive it and give it their stamp of approval” (2017b, p. 550; cf. 2017a, pp. 623–663).
It must be noted that Čermák was not familiar with John Rawls and the turn to normative political theory after the publication of his A Theory of Justice (1971).
Certainly, Mouffe’s interpretation, which I follow here, can be contested (and has been contested by many deliberative democrats). Even if their criticism of Mouffe were justified, this would not undercut the main point: that is, the similarity of Čermák’s and Mouffe’s approaches to politics. To put it briefly, he is not interested in constructing an ideal model of the deliberative procedures needed to reach a consensus on the common good, but is absorbed in the theorization of the polemical nature of social/political consensus.
Čermák thus assigns a more significant role of the social realm than Mouffe, whose work is sometimes criticized for an unjustified hierarchization of the political over the social (McNay 2013, p. 89). Čermák links these two spheres more closely than Mouffe.
As history attests, elites often usurped power and led their countries towards totalitarian government. The masses are drawn into the social process by the elites; they “represent a reservoir of force, which is drawn upon both by the creative and the destructive elites” (2017b, p. 550).
References
Arendt, Hannah. 1951. The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Schocken Books.
Balík, Stanislav, and Jan Holzer. 2010. The concept of totalitarianism – Czech reflections and inspirations. Divinatio 31(1): 125–144.
Ball, Terence. 2004. History and the interpretation of texts. In Handbook of political theory, eds. Gerald Gaus and Chandran Kukathas, 18–30. London: Sage.
Blau, Adrian. 2017. Interpreting texts. In Methods in analytical political theory, ed. Adrian Blau, 243–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baroš, Jiří. 2009. Vladimír Čermák jako filozof a soudce. In Vladimír Čermák. Člověk – Filozof – Soudce, ed. Jiří Baroš, 19–103. Brno: MU.
Baroš, Jiří. 2011. Právník: osudy ústavního soudce Vladimíra Čermáka. In Člověk na Moravě ve 2. polovině 20. století, eds. Lukáš Fasora, Jiří Hanuš, Jiří Malíř, and Denisa Nečasová, 52–63. Brno: CDK.
Čermák, Vladimír. 1991. Křest’anství a demokracie. Proglas 2(2): 79–99.
Čermák, Vladimír. 2009a. Antigoné – opravdu jen “připomínkou beze vší síly”? In Vladimír Čermák. Člověk – Filozof – Soudce, ed. Jiří Baroš, 237–246. Brno: MU [1991].
Čermák, Vladimír. 2009b. Euripidovy Bakchantky. In Vladimír Čermák. Člověk – Filozof – Soudce, ed. Jiří Baroš, 211–222. Brno: MU [1989/1990].
Čermák, Vladimír. 2009c. K některým otázkám Kelsenovy ryzí nauky právní. In Vladimír Čermák. Člověk – Filozof – Soudce, ed. Jiří Baroš, 247–254. Brno: MU [1991].
Čermák, Vladimír. 2017a. Otázka demokracie. Svazek 1. Brno: CDK.
Čermák, Vladimír. 2017b. Otázka demokracie. Svazek 2. Brno: CDK.
Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.
Dryzek, John, and Simon Niemeyer. 2006. Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 634–649.
Estlund, David. 2020. Utopophobia. Princeton: Princeton Uivesity Press.
Fiala, Petr. 1995. Katolicismus a politika. Brno: CDK.
Fiala, Petr, and František Mikš. 1993. O demokracii. Rozhovor s doc. dr. Vladimírem Čermákem. Proglas 4(4): 10–15.
Fiala, Petr, and František Mikš. 2000. Rozhovory s Vladimírem Čermákem. Brno: CDK.
Fiala, Petr. 2017. Předmluva. In Otázka demokracie I, 7–10. Brno: CDK.
Friedrich, Carl. J., and Zbigniew Brzezinski. 1956. Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Galston, William. 2010. Realism in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory 9(4): 385–411.
Gillis, Mark. 1995. Facing up to the past: The Czech constitutional court’s decision on the confiscation of Sudeten German property. The Parker School Journal of East European Law 2: 709–759.
Gleason, Abbott. 1995. Totalitarianism. The inner history of the cold war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Just, Vladimír. 2010. Divadlo v totalitním systému. Praha: Academia.
Hamlin, Alan. 2017. Positive political theory. In Methods in analytical political theory, ed. Adrian Blau, 192–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honnig, Bonnie. 1993. Political theory and the displacement of politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kopeček, Michal, and Piotr Wciślik, eds. 2015. Thinking through transition, Budapest: CEU Press.
Kosař, David, et al.. 2019. The twin challenges to separation of powers in Central Europe: Technocratic governance and populism. European Constitutional Law Review 15(2): 427–461.
Kovalčuk, Josef. 2005. Bylo jich pět a půl. 30 let HaDivadla. Brno: Větrné Mlýny.
Kovalčuk, Josef. 2009. Vladimír Čermák a divadlo aneb Jak se stát divadelním autorem. In Vladimír Čermák. Člověk – Filozof – Soudce, ed. Jiří Baroš, 167–170. Brno: MU.
Lippman, Walter. 2017. The good society. Routledge: London [1937].
Masaryk, T. G. 1925. Světová revoluce. Praha: Čin a Orbis.
McNay, Lois. 2013. The misguided search for the political. Cambridge: Polity.
Mencl, Matouš, and Pavel Dufek. 2021. Ideální konsenzus, reálná diverzita a výzva veřejného ospravedlnění: k limitům idealizace v liberální politické teorii. Acta Politologica 13(2): 49–70.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1993. The return of the political. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the political. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics. London: Verso.
Oslzlý, Petr. 1999. Divadlo Husa na provázku 1968(7)-1998. Brno: CED.
Oslzlý, Petr. 2019. Divadlo za demokracii. Theatre for Democracy. Brno: JAMU.
Přibáň, Jiří. 2002. Judicial power vs. democratic representation: The culture of constitutionalism and human rights in the Czech legal system. In Constitutional justice: East and West, ed. Wojciech Sadurski, 373–394. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.
Procházka, Radoslav. 2002. Mission accomplished. On founding constitutional adjudication in Central Europe. Budapest: CEU Press.
Rescher, Nicholas. 1993. Pluralism: Against the demand for consensus. Oxford: Clarendon.
Rescher, Nicholas. 2007. Philosophical dialectics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Robertson, David. 2010. The judge as political theorist. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2007. The concept of the political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [1932].
Strauss, Leo. 1953. Natural right and history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, Leo. 1968. Liberalism ancient and modern. New York: Basic Books.
Talisse, Robert. 2003. Can democracy be a way of life? Deweyan democracy and the problem of pluralism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 39(1): 1–21.
Talmon, Jacob. 1952. The origins of totalitarian democracy I, II. London: Seeker & Warburg.
Trencsényi, Balázs, et al.. 2018. A history of modern political thought in East Central Europe. Vol. II of Negotiating modernity in the “short twentieth century” and beyond, part II: 1968–2018. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Voegelin, Eric. 1952. The new science of politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whitman, Walt. 2010. Democratic vistas. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press [1871].
Williams, Bernard. 2005. In the beginning was the deed, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Funding
The research leading to this article received funding from the Czech Science Foundation (grant no. 19-11091S). The author thanks Mark Gillis for sharing his translation of some of Čermák’s texts, and Jan Holzer and Pavel Dufek for their constructive criticism.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Baroš, J. People are born to struggle: Vladimír Čermák’s vision of democracy. Stud East Eur Thought 76, 157–175 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-022-09530-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-022-09530-w