Czech press survey - January 5

He comments on the Friday´s verdict by the US, which also confirmed that the rejected candidate Tomio Okamura would not participate in it. The Interior Ministry eliminated him from the presidential contest over a high share of invalid signatures in support of his candidature.

Zverina writes that if the court only adjourned the presidential polls, it would irreversibly deform a political competition as only a few candidates would be able to gain sufficient finances for further campaigning without problems and transparently.

The election abolition would harm citizens who rely on valid laws, Zverina says.

This is true even if the direct presidential election implementing law is criticised rightfully and it should be amended. The US may later ask legislators to so so, Zverina adds.

"One outraged, disappointed and offended egotist (Okamura) who wanted to be a president is not a too high price for the first direct election," Zverina concludes in LN.

The direct presidential election is basically fair despite serious shortcomings in the implementing law and it is good that the Constitutional Court (US) has not adjourned it, Martin Komarek writes in Mlada fronta Dnes (MfD) today.

The theory about a conspiracy of politicians and judges to harm "a people´s candidate," senator and tourism businessman Tomio Okamura who was eliminated from the contest, is pure nonsense, Komarek writes.

He says the speculations that the court might abolish the election afterwards as it decided to keep dealing with Okamura´s complaint are unsubstantiated.

If the US first permitted the election and then cancelled it, constitutional judges would be irresponsible madmen. However, the previous experience with their decision-making does not indicate such a possibility, Komarek point out.

Consequently, the US can be expected to assess the direct presidential election as in harmony with the constitution though it may demand that some articles from the respective implementing law be rewritten, Komarek writes in MfD.

The Czech government cannot deny its responsibility for the controversial amnesty that outgoing President Vaclav Klaus declared as of January 2, Jiri Hanak writes in Pravo today.

He says he would not have raise objections to the presidential amnesty if the perpetrators of big financial crimes and corruption had been exempted from it.

However, it was actually "an act of humanity" since those who had stolen hundreds of millions and billions of crowns could not yet enjoy them in peace and now they can, Hanak writes ironically.

He adds that some government politicians were playing a second-rate theatre performance in connection with the amnesty as if they had nothing in common with it. Yet the government as one whole is accountable for the president´ acts.

If Prime Minister Petr Necas, who countersigned the amnesty, and Justice Minister Pavel Blazek (both Civic Democrats, ODS) really cheated the government TOP 09 and LIDEM politicians and concealed the amnesty from them, they should not vote confidence in such a cabinet again, Hanak notes.

"It is true that the president initiated the amnesty but it would not come into force without the consent of the head of government. It (the government) is responsible for it and the government politicians´ words of regret are merely an elegy for their own incompetence and cowardice," Hanak concludes.

Author: ČTK
www.ctk.cz