From Masaryk to Havel: A quick history of Czechoslovakia's presidents
On October 28th, Czechia celebrates 106 years since the declaration of Czechoslovakia as an independent state. Historian and political scientist Jan Adamec walked us through the history of the new country's heads of state, from its first to its last.
Back in 1918, we have this new country, Czechoslovakia. It's established as a parliamentary democracy, it is a republic, and it needs a head of state. They create this position of president, but where does the position come from? What were the inspirations for the job of Czechoslovak president?
“The establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic was the result of the gradual disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the entire war, Masaryk was responsible for negotiating the future independent state. Initially it was thought it would be constitutional monarchy, but these opinions changed during wartime, in the course of negotiations with Great Britain and Russia. There was a big influence of American political system, where there was a huge Czech diaspora, which was rather influential on Masaryk and on the process of establishing the Czechoslovak Republic.
“So, I think in the last three or two years of the war, there was more or less the consensus that the future independent state will be established as a parliamentary republic with the president. But there was a difference; initially Masaryk thought that it would be a presidential system, that it would be based on the American model, where the head of executive power is president. It would naturally give him a huge amount of power in the future republic. But the consensus of politicians within from the pre-war political parties was that they were against it, they opposed it. So the constitution was written so that the prime minister would be the head of executive power, and not the president. The president was given only a ceremonial position.
“It was the beginning of a clash or friction between Masaryk, who was a strong personality, and thought that he would be this American-like president, and the political parties who were not willing to give him such powers, and who wanted to retain those powers for themselves. It was evident that there is a strong personality of Masaryk, who was not given the legal powers. Sometimes he was trying to circumvent the constitution and these formal rules, and was trying to exert his influence informally through loyal politicians, journalists, media and such.
“The president of the Republic during the interwar period had an important symbolic and ceremonial status. He could, for example, attend and preside over cabinet meetings, but his real constitutional powers as an independent decision-maker were quite small.”
Taking the story forward to 1948 and the communist coup, we have Beneš as the president. Beneš was not a communist, but safe to say the politics of Czechoslovakia then was quite dominated by communists. What could Beneš do in the face of the communist takeover? Could he have done anything to stop it?
“For us, for the Czechs, it's quite convenient to blame Beneš, solely Beneš, for being responsible for the communist takeover in 1948. But in fact, it was not his fault. The whole political system of the so-called Third Republic from 1945 to 1948 was designed by a consensus of all political parties and all politicians, not only communists, as kind of a pre-totalitarian system. And the communist coup d’état in 1948 was only the climax of a longer process of silent Sovietisation, a non-violent Sovietisation from 1945 to 1948.
“Concerning the cabinet crisis, which resulted in communist takeover in February 1948, it was more about non-communist politicians and ministers who, I would say, blew it, more than President Beneš. The truth is that, after heated exchanges, these twelve non-communist ministers resigned on February 20th 1948, and they consulted with President Beneš two days before. Based on their memories, they were given the impression that the president, Beneš, would refuse to accept their resignations and would call new elections. They thought they would win these elections, beat communists and drive them out of government. But the whole series of events after this showed that these non-communist politicians were not prepared to openly clash with communists, and communists responded with the all-out mobilisation of their supporters in trade unions and factory councils and peasant movements. They called a huge demonstration on 21st of February in all major cities and towns. On February the 24th, they called a one-hour general strike in which 2.5 million workers participated.
“The communists were much more able to mobilise people on their side to beat these non-communist parties, and it was not the problem of Beneš. He was only watching the events, and there was not much he was able to do. Certainly he could have made a different decision at the end of the crisis on 25th of February, concerning the acceptance of new government, but I think it would not have changed much of the situation. This communist takeover would happen sooner or later. It would not depend on Beneš.
“It's convenient for us to blame Beneš, for not standing up to the communists in February 1948, but the question is more complex and more complicated. The communist party was too strong, too mobilised, and Beneš was a president in a system in which he was not supposed to have these huge constitutional powers. There was not much he could have done to stop the communist takeover at the time.”
And then after 1948, we have the communist period in Czechoslovakia. We have five presidents during this time. Why do you think that the presidents from the communist era are not so well known today? If you asked a random Czech on the street to name all the presidents, they could tell you Beneš, Masaryk, Havel, but, say, Novotný and Svoboda are not quite so well known. Why is that, in your opinion?
“I'm not quite sure I agree. I think if I asked, for example, about Klement Gottwald or Gustav Husák, they are quite well known. But people may not connect these names with the presidency. They are not much known as president of Czechoslovakia; they are more connected to the position of First Secretary of communist party, or the Chairman of the communist party. So they are much better known as communist leaders than Czechoslovak presidents.
“When you talk in public discourse about Klement Gottwald, the first thing people talk about is that he was a staunch Stalinist, he was the communist responsible for the takeover, for repression, for collectivisation. He was responsible for more than two hundred and thirty people being executed on the basis of political accusation, and for thousands of people being deported to forced-labour camps. All this disastrous period, from 1948 to 1953, this era of forced Stalinism in Czechoslovakia is closely connected with Klement Gottwald. But that he was a president is not the first thing that people will say if you ask them who he was.
“The same can said about Gustav Husák. In 1969, he was elected First Secretary of the communist party, and this was his primary job. The job was to be head of the communist party; all other roles, such as president, prime minister or head of parliament, were just rubber-stamping officials for what was decided inside the politburo or the communist party’s decision-making centre.
“It’s a different story with Novotný or Zápotocký. Here I would agree that they are, especially for the younger generation, politicians who are more or less forgotten. But this does not mean that they were not powerful, especially Novotný, who ruled Czechoslovakia from 1953 to 1968. He was a very powerful and key figure for Czech Neo-Stalinism, and also for the early 1960s period. He was the prime enemy of the reformers during the early stages of the Prague Spring.”
“There is also Ludvík Svoboda, who was the only president during the communist era who was not tightly connected with the communist party. He was not within the high ranks of the party. In this sense, he is more relatable to Pavel, because of his military background. At the time when Svoboda was elected, this was a source of legitimacy. People expected a new type of president, after the party functionaries like Gottwald or Novotný. There was a demand for a new type of president from a different background. Svoboda was a national hero. He was the commander of the 1st Czechoslovak Army Corps, which was based in the Soviet Union and fought in WWII. He was acceptable both for communists, because he did not resist the coup in 1948 and he was rewarded for that, and also for the non-communist majority in Czechoslovakia.”
In what way did Václav Havel shape the presidency? What was his contribution to the role, both as the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first of the newly formed Czech Republic?
“In Havel’s case, we need to differentiate the terms in which he was president. In 1989 and the end of the first phase of the Velvet Revolution, he was something quite new. He was a dissident; he had nothing to do with the previous regime. Moreover, he had been jailed and persecuted by that regime. He was recognised as a moral authority, a thinker, a philosopher, an artist – something quite different from all the previous presidents. He was not a professional politician. Maybe with the exception of Svoboda, all the previous presidents had some experience with professional politics, because they were elected president. Havel did not, although from the late 1960s, he was involved in politics as a public figure, as a thinker and a dissident.
“From the beginning, in his first term, he had huge informal authority, but Havel was soon consumed by everyday politics. This did not come naturally to him. He faced several problems concerning party politics and new, strong politicians. Soon he clashed with these concepts and with Václav Klaus and other politicians, who had quite different perceptions of how politics should be done. They were not satisfied with Havel’s concept of a non-political system.
“The problem was the same as with Masaryk; Havel was an extremely visible and powerful informal figure, but he was not given more formal powers by the constitution. His role was supposed to be ceremonial and symbolic, but Havel, same as Masaryk, was not satisfied. Havel exerted much more power than the constitution allotted to him. It’s the case with all strong personalities, people with strong charisma and informal influence, which was definitely the case with Masaryk and Havel.”
