Jiří Pehe on Havel, Zeman – and a dramatic escape to the West
Jiří Pehe is one of Czechia’s best-known political scientists, regularly sharing his insights with domestic and international media. But his own story is also noteworthy. After a dramatic 1981 escape to the West, he made a new life in the US. Following the fall of communism he returned to his native country and became a close advisor to President Václav Havel. Pehe then became director of New York University Prague, a position he is about to retire from after more than a quarter of a century.
What was your family background? Was yours a household where politics was discussed among the family?
“I came from a family that was not very political. My mom was totally apolitical, but of course we talked at home about the situation under the communist regime quite often; she wasn’t a friend of the regime, but like so many people like so many people she kept it to herself.
“My father, on the other hand, was actually a soldier, but he wasn’t a soldier in the communist army because of some convictions but because both of his parents died just before World War II and he was raised by distant relatives and when he was 18 – not even 18, he was younger – they told him to get out.
“So the only institution that could take care of him was the army, so he went to the army. I think that he regretted it for most of his life.
“But, which is sort of funny, he wasn’t a great friend of the regime either.
“And then in 1968 he did something – I never found exactly what he did but he disappeared for a few days – and after that his career in the army was totally stopped. They didn’t throw him out, but he wasn’t promoted any more or anything of the sort.”
You studied law and philosophy here in Prague. Why those subjects?
“Well I studied law because, partly because of my father’s problems, I could not get very easily into any other school that I would like to study at, like philosophy.
“Paradoxically, although law was sort of one of the disciplines where there were certain ideological pressures, they also took 500 students.
“I had good grades at high school so I tried law school and was admitted.
“Then after just one year I actually enrolled at the school of philosophy for ‘night studies’ or whatever you would call it – it was basically not my main school but I was able to go there and participate in lectures, seminars and so on.”
Were there not ideological pressures at the philosophy department?
“There were. But one advantage of the arrangement I managed to secure was that if you were what they called an ‘extraordinary student’ you could choose your courses.
“So one great advantage was that I didn’t have to take any courses in Marxism-Leninism; I just chose the courses I was interested in.
“And there were several good professors there who survived 1968 or, better said, 1969 and the beginning of the normalisation regime.
“So I would take courses on Greek philosophy, on medieval philosophy and classical German philosophy, and that was something I really enjoyed.
“Quite frankly I spent more time there than at the school of law, which I just sort of went through, in order to get my degree.”
In the early ‘80s you got out of Czechoslovakia. What were the circumstances of your departure from the country?
“I wanted to get out ever since I was 13, when the Soviet troops invaded Czechoslovakia; I was thinking I should get out of here and live in a free country.
“But of course out wasn’t really easy. So I went through high school and university in Czechoslovakia and then, when I started working as an editor at a cultural magazine, I actually – together with my first wife – managed to get permission to go to Yugoslavia.
“We decided to use that trip to escape. In the end it wasn’t as easy as it looked, because in 1981, when we actually escaped, the Czech authorities actually made an agreement with the Yugoslav government about Czechoslovak passports; they would put a stamp in your passport and it would read, This passport is valid only for the territory of Yugoslavia.
“We managed to persuade two Austrian students to put us in the trunk of their car and smuggle us across the border.”
Jiří Pehe
“So we tried to cross the border several times and every time we were returned because that stamp told the Yugoslav border guards they should not let us through.
“In the end we escaped under rather dramatic circumstances, because we actually managed to persuade two Austrian students to put us in the trunk of their car and smuggle us across the border from Koper to Trieste.
“It was adventurous mainly because the Yugoslav border guards would check every other car, and also because they chose the wrong time to cross the border so we were waiting at the border for about half an hour, with us both compressed in this little trunk of a Citroen – you maybe remember those Citroens that looked like frogs.
“In the end we managed to cross, they didn’t open the trunk, and these two Austrian students were extremely happy. They were extremely proud of themselves; rightly so, I should say.
“So my first impression of the West was when they went from the main road to a field – it was a dusty road – and we fell out, because we couldn’t stand, we had no blood in our legs.
“So they were these two Austrian students dancing above us screaming ‘freiheit’, which I would say bears a certain historic irony.”
Just to rewind a tiny bit. You were 13, you said, at the time of 1968 – what kind of things did you see during the invasion?
“I saw really bad things, simply because, as I mentioned, my father was an officer in the Czechoslovak army.
“We lived outside Prague in a town called Milovice, which later became the largest site for the Soviet army in Czechoslovakia, so we went through a process of basically being evicted and the Russians taking over this garrison.
“So I remember the period between August 21 and the time we left – my father was transferred to Moravia – as a very sort of turbulent period, with a lot of unhappiness, because my grandmother took it so hard that she had a brain stroke and later died, she was so devastated by the invasion.”
You ended up living in New York and you went to Columbia University, where you studied International Relations. What was the experience like of studying there, compared to here at Charles University?
“It was a huge difference. One of my greatest experiences in my life, which I will remember forever, was entering the library of Columbia University, with millions of books, and being able to borrow any book I wanted.
“That was really something that after my experience from here, where if I wanted to read something I was really interested in I either wouldn’t get it or I’d have to get it through samizdat or one of those channels. And there I could read whatever I wanted.
“So I spent a lot of my time at Columbia just reading all the books I’d always wanted to read.
“And in general I liked the style of American education, where much more emphasis was put on research, independent thinking, discussing.
“One of my greatest experiences in my life was entering the library of Columbia University.”
Jiří Pehe
“I was very lucky because one of my professors was [political scientist] Zbigniew Brzezinski, so it was obviously a very good school; I was lucky to get into it. So Columbia was a great experience for me.”
You also wrote articles for the New York Times. What kind of pieces were they taking from you?
“I was of course reflecting on what going in the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire. When I started writing it was about the time when Mikhail Gorbachev got to power.
“I had been writing before for the publications that Freedom House, the human rights organisation I worked for, published, but my articles for the New York Times I started writing when Gorbachev got to power.
“I was basically analysing what going on. I remember – though that wasn’t an article for the New York Times – I wrote an article in 1986 or ’87 saying that the communist regime was going to fall and arguing why it was going to fall.
“Jeane Kilpatrick, who was a famous thinker and also politician, had a syndicated column across the United States and she took the article and basically quoted what I said in great detail.
“My articles for the New York Times I started writing when Gorbachev got to power.”
Jiří Pehe
“So that was a moment of glory for me, but with one little problem, the editors misspelled my surname. Instead of spelling it the way it should be, they spelled it P-E-A-G; they couldn’t believe I could be called P-E-H-E, obviously.
“So in all the newspapers where it was published I was quoted as P-E-A-G. Then people were calling Freedom House looking to talk to me from various universities and think tanks – and they were all asking for Mr. P-E-A-G, which of course was a little stain on this great moment of glory.”
As you know, sometimes Freedom House has been accused of being connected to the CIA, as well as overly interfering in the internal affairs of some countries. Was there anything that Freedom House did that you were uncomfortable with?
“No. I of course was aware of the fact that Freedom House was considered right of centre on the American political landscape. I knew about the accusations of its past connections with the CIA.
“During my tenure there, which was between ’85 and ’88, I didn’t see anything of that sort.
“I was responsible for monitoring Eastern Europe, and as you know Freedom House published, and still publishes, yearly surveys of freedom.
“So my task was not only to monitor politics and human rights in Eastern Europe but also to write for this survey, to write enough input for the main editor to be able to rank various countries in Eastern Europe.
“I wrote an article in 1986 or ’87 saying that the communist regime was going to fall and arguing why it was going to fall.”
Jiří Pehe
“For me it was a very useful experience. Certainly I didn’t personally detect any great bias. I think that Freedom House did a lot of good work, at least at that time, and I would have probably stayed there but I got an offer to go to Munich, to Radio Free Europe, so that’s what I did.”
There you also a kind of analytical role. When 1989 happened, when did you first come back to Prague?
“I was working for Radio Free Europe’s research department from 1988, so the Velvet Revolution happened when I was there.
“My first trip to Czechoslovakia after all those years in exile was a bit funny, because the head of the Czechoslovak broadcasting department, Pavel Pecháček, was actually allowed to go to Czechoslovakia as the first journalist from Radio Free Europe ever shortly before the revolution started.
“He went to Czechoslovakia to cover the canonisation of St. Agnes of Bohemia. But it happened that at that time the revolution started, so he moved his equipment and everything to a hotel on Wenceslas Square and started reporting live on those demonstrations.
“After about two days the secret police, which was still powerful, took him and transported him to the border and actually kicked him across the border line into Germany.
“He came back to Munich and we had a meeting – I was part of the broader management of Radio Free Europe at that time – and the bosses at Radio Free Europe were discussing how to proceed.
“I thought they would say, OK, we cannot send anyone, because it’s too dangerous still.
“But they said, No, we have to send someone with an American passport – and they all looked at me.
“So that’s how I got to Czechoslovakia. About three or four days after the revolution they sent me to Bonn, to the Czechoslovak Embassy, to pick up my visa.
“And I went to Prague and I spent 10 days there.
“That was my first trip and it was very eventful. I was able to go to some meetings of the Civic Forum, I met a lot of dissidents and was reporting back to Munich.
“So that was something that I of course will never forget.”
One of those dissidents was Václav Havel, I guess. At the end of the ‘90s you worked as an advisor to Havel for a couple of years. What was it like working for Havel, and even being with him?
“That was a great experience. And quite frankly, if Havel didn’t offer me that job I would have probably gone back to the United States, because I thought I could teach at a university there.
“But when I moved to Prague, which was in 1994 with Radio Free Europe – or actually with a research institute which was called the Open Media Research, which was connected to Radio Free Europe – I started writing for Czech newspapers.
“Havel read my articles and as he later said he always agreed with me and he followed me.
“So one day I got a phone call from this man from the Castle. The operator at Radio Free Europe said, They are calling from the Castle and there is this deep voice asking whether I would like to meet with him and saying that he would like to offer me a job.
“I thought, OK, this is one of those TV pranks, they are filming it somewhere and it’s a joke.
“But it turned out to be true: It was Václav Havel. So he met with me and he offered me the job of head of the political department in his administration.
“It was a great experience. First, I took it, because who would refuse the opportunity to work for one of the biggest personalities of the 20th century?
“Second, as far as our relationship, Václav Havel was extremely personable, funny; he had a great sense of humour, which was very important for me.
“And he was somebody I could admire, so for me it was a great experience.”
Were you always on the same page politically? If I understand it right, your politics are more centre-left?
“Actually politically we were on the same page, because if I could describe Havel in political terms I would describe him as leftist liberal. And that’s what I consider myself to be as well.
“Later he started leaning more towards the Greens and supported the Green Party, but we were mostly on the same page politically.
“When we had some disagreements it would be about some concrete steps.
“Maybe the biggest disagreement we had was in 1997, when the Klaus government collapsed and Havel wanted to name a new government very quickly; he had this idea that it should be a government of young people and so on.
“If Havel didn’t offer me that job I would have probably gone back to the United States.”
Jiří Pehe
“I argued that he should be careful and he should give Klaus a second chance, because Klaus would use it against him, the fact that he didn’t get a second chance.
“In the end that of course happened. Klaus was very bitter about being left out and blamed the collapse of his government on Havel and the Central Bank and some smaller parties.
“And he was able to present himself successfully as a martyr almost, a victim.
“That was something where we had a slight disagreement, but otherwise I would be in agreement with Havel about almost everything.”
After working for Havel you became the head of NYU here in Prague, a job you’ve had since that time: two and a half decades. How has the experience been?
“Working for New York University was a great experience for me, simply because American universities are in general very liberal. They don’t really ban people from expressing their personal views and so on; certainly it was so when I started at NYU.
“So I was able not only to continue writing and expressing my own views, in commentaries and so on, but I was also able to continue working with Havel as his external advisor.
“In fact when I asked NYU whether I could do so they were very happy; they said, Sure, as long as you are not employed by him directly as far as we are concerned there’s no conflict of interest.
“So I continued as Havel’s external advisor until the end of his tenure.
“Later I considered working for NYU to be great for many other reasons, simply because I have a connection to the United States and I was able to maintain that connection, I was able to spend a lot of time in New York, which I love.
“So for me it was an ideal arrangement. And I’m sorry to say that I’m retiring this year.”
You are interviewed a lot by the media, international and local, including Radio Prague International – I think you are the most interviewed person ever in the history of Radio Prague International – because you have great political insights. Are there every any approaches from journalists that you find annoying? Are there ever times where somebody calls you and you think, C’mon?
“What I find annoying, to be quite frank, is when I’m approached by a journalist who has already written the article he wants to interview me for in his or her mind.
“I feel that they just need quotes from me. And in some commercial media here they are even so frank that they say, I just need a few quotes from you.
“And then I sometimes say, Sorry, I don’t have time, because I want to give them a piece of analysis, not quotes they can put into whatever they are writing.
“But otherwise I’ve always been very open to journalists, because not only do I think it’s my job – I also think that’s the only way to reach the public, next to my own writing.
“And especially when I am interviewed by foreign journalists I feel that it’s sort of partly a public service that I do.”
You were no friend of presidents Klaus or Zeman, and Zeman publicly criticised you strongly. He said you were the “stupidest journalist” and “a hyena”. What’s it like to be abused publicly by the head of your own state?
“Quite frankly it didn’t affect me too much, because I really had no respect for Zeman, as a politician, as a human being.
“And it was to some extent almost paradoxical that I started getting a lot of emails from people I didn’t know who actually supported me.
“I really had no respect for Zeman, as a politician, as a human being.”
Jiří Pehe
“They said, Zeman said this about you and until now I have not followed you but now you are my hero, and so on.”
So it was like the best recommendation?
“Yes, it was an advertisement for me. That says something about his bad reputation.
“And as far as the president of the country attacking an individual journalist or analyst or whatever, that I think is in itself something that really speaks very badly about Zeman, because politicians simply don’t do that.”
As we spoke about, you are also of course associated with Václav Havel. Do you get a lot of abuse? Because Havel is a kind of hate figure for a certain section of Czech society.
“It’s almost name-calling. Because I worked for Václav Havel and I never distanced myself from him – and I don’t know why I should, because I think he was a great president and a very interesting person, a dissident and so on – I am often referred to as ‘Havloid’.
“That’s one of the terms that the enemies of liberal democracy here use.
“But that’s something that I certainly don’t mind. I get a lot of hate mail from people on the nationalist-populist side of the political spectrum in general.”
Does that spill over into real life? Or is it all keyboard warriors abusing you online?
“Mostly it’s online. I never hid my email address, so I also get these things in my email inbox.
“Of course very often I just see from the subject line or from the way that a message starts that it really doesn’t make sense to even open it.
“There have been a few exceptions to the rule that people here are not personally aggressive.
“Even people who disagree with me very often approach me when I’m sitting on the train and start talking to me. And before we get to Prague actually I am able to explain to them certain things, and they are happy about that, that we actually were able to talk.
“There were only two incidents which were quite unpleasant.
“In the ‘90s I was very critical of the Civic Democratic Party and they had a rally in Prague. I was walking near the Old Town Square, where they had that rally, and I was sort of surrounded by several very aggressive people who looked like they could physically attack me. In the end it didn’t happen.
“Then there was a nationalist, anti-Islamist activist whose name was Martin Konvička who asked his followers on Facebook to eliminate me.
“I didn’t really react to it, but my good friend the former dissident Jan Urban got very upset and filed a police complaint.
“The police investigated but it didn’t go anywhere; they concluded that it was just a misdemeanour. So a call for my physical liquidation was just a misdemeanour.
“So I thought, OK, if that happens again it doesn’t even make sense to go to the police, because obviously they don’t take these things seriously.”
Soon you’re turning 70 and, as you say, you’re stepping down as the head of NYU Prague. How will you fill your days in retirement?
“I will continue doing what I have been doing until now. I have written I think 10 books by now, five of them novels, and I have another novel coming out soon.
“So I will continue writing, because that’s something where I guess I express myself the best.
“I will also continue serving the current president, Petr Pavel: I have been on his foreign policy advisory team.
“So I have things to do. And I have discovered the beauty of having a dog; I spend quite a lot of time being with the dog, contemplating, thinking and so on, because we live near a forest outside Prague.
“So I cannot say that I think I would be bored.”
If I could ask you one political question: Andrej Babiš is very likely to win the next elections and there’s a significant chance he will form the next government. He of course is a buddy of Orban and Fico. How far do you think he may go down the path that those two have taken?
“I think that we have to distinguish between how far he would like to go and how far he can go, because the Czech Republic – as I keep telling foreign journalists who ask me this question – is structured constitutionally in a different way than Hungary or Slovakia.
“We have two chambers in Parliament. The upper chamber, the Senate, is elected in a way that makes it very difficult for extremists to gain any ground, so it’s completely dominated by the current government parties.
“The Senate has some important powers, including absolute veto of any constitutional changes and electoral law changes. It also selects members of the Constitutional Court, who are nominated by the president.
“So Babiš, if he wins and if he’s able to form a government, which is still not certain, he will have to work within this framework.
“He will not be able, unlike Orban, to make constitutional changes. He will not be able to change the electoral law and satisfy, for example, the demands of Tomio Okamura, whose party wants referendums as the main tool of deciding – because that would not be approved by the Senate.
“So I don’t think that that the Czech Republic will follow in the footsteps of Hungary and Slovakia.
“There may be some attempts to do so, for example with regards to the public media; that’s something that can be changed by the law.
“But at the same time we have the Constitutional Court, which probably will oppose any such efforts.
“So it will be difficult for Babiš. If he becomes the prime minister we will probably hear a lot of populist rhetoric again and he will probably be more pro-Russian in his views.
“But I don’t expect him to be able to significantly change the system here.”
