Czech government presses ahead with public media funding overhaul despite weekend demonstrations
The Czech government's surprise move to abolish television and radio licence fees has triggered an angry parliamentary debate and demonstrations in Prague and Brno and other big cities. Critics warn that the proposed switch to state-budget financing could threaten the independence of Czech Television and Czech Radio. The government insists the reform will save households money without compromising editorial freedom. Protesters who spoke to Radio Prague International explain why they remain unconvinced.
The legislation was unexpectedly introduced in the Chamber of Deputies on Friday, October 23, and passed its first reading at 4:36 on Saturday morning, after an overnight parliamentary debate. Opposition politicians accused the governing coalition of rushing through a fundamental change to the country's public broadcasting system without sufficient consultation.
One of the proposal's strongest defenders is Tomio Okamura, speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and leader of the Freedom and Direct Democracy party, or SPD. In his parliamentary speech, he accused Czech Television and Czech Radio of political bias.
"No funding system is an absolute guarantee of independence. We know that very well, because neither Czech Radio nor Czech Television is truly independent. They openly favour one particular ideology, the liberal one, while censoring, distorting or discrediting opponents or information that doesn't fit the official propaganda."
However, Tomio Okamura did not provide concrete evidence to substantiate these accusations in the quoted passage. He also argued that abolishing the fees would save households currently paying both charges 2,460 crowns a year and eliminate the administrative costs associated with collecting and enforcing payments.
Under the proposed legislation, Czech Television and Czech Radio would instead receive their financing directly from the state budget. Critics say the reform would reduce their combined annual funding by approximately 1.4 billion crowns, or around 15 percent, while potentially exposing both institutions to greater political pressure.
The government points out that the European Union does not prescribe a particular method of financing public service media. Indeed, countries including Denmark and Norway already use public-budget funding rather than traditional licence fees. But opponents argue that the crucial issue is not simply where the money comes from, but whether the system provides sufficient guarantees of stable funding and editorial independence.
Brno protesters question the government's approach
The government's handling of the legislation sparked an immediate public response. On Saturday, October 24, approximately 4,000 people gathered on Freedom Square in Brno, Czechia's second-largest city, at a demonstration organised by the civic association Million Moments for Democracy.
Among them was Adéla Mazalová, a student at Masaryk University, who said she was particularly concerned about how the government was proceeding with the reform.
"We are not satisfied with the change and mainly with the process," she told Radio Prague International.She then referred to academic research comparing different systems of public media financing, arguing that the government's approach was failing to acknowledge their respective advantages and disadvantages.
Another participant, Anna Peroutová, said citizens needed to pay attention to the government's actions and make their disagreement heard.
Prague's Old Town Square fills with demonstrators
The following day, Sunday, October 25, a much larger demonstration filled Prague's historic Old Town Square, with protesters also gathering in surrounding streets. Although no official attendance estimate was available, the rally was one of the most visible expressions of public opposition to the proposal. Among those interviewed was Pavel Blažek from Prague, who acknowledged that state-budget financing could work successfully in countries with strong democratic traditions.
"It is possible that in some European countries, which have a very strong democratic tradition, this is not such a problem, as you say in Scandinavia. But in our country, where democracy is still quite weak, the risk that if media will be paid by the state, that it will lead to state control over media is actually high."
Other protesters expressed concern about Czechia's historical experience with politically controlled media. Klára Dřízhalová argued that the legacy of the communist regime made the proposed changes particularly sensitive.
"We have a different history. So I think with our history, it is more complicated because we remember the regime when it was controlled."
The protesters also criticised the speed of the parliamentary proceedings, arguing that such a significant change deserved a wider public and expert debate. Yet the governing coalition commands a comfortable majority in the Chamber of Deputies. Although the opposition-controlled Senate can return the bill and President Petr Pavel could veto it, the lower house can ultimately override both.
Prime minister rejects criticism
The demonstrations have not persuaded the government to withdraw its proposal. Speaking to reporters at Prague airport on Monday morning, October 26, before departing for an official visit to Algeria, Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, leader of the ANO movement, criticised what he described as aggression and misinformation surrounding the controversy. He argued that the legislative process was far from complete, with further parliamentary readings still ahead. He also indicated that changes to the proposal could be discussed during subsequent stages and insisted that the public broadcasters have nothing to fear from his government.
"Media independence will remain preserved, of course. We will never interfere with the journalistic work of Czech Television and Czech Radio. Neither will we interfere in their personnel affairs."
Public media employees have announced a strike for November 3, while organisers are preparing further demonstrations. The dispute therefore appears set to continue, with the government maintaining that it is merely changing the financing mechanism and its opponents warning of lasting consequences for editorial independence.
