Prague - Czech Prime Minister and Social Democrat (CSSD) head Bohuslav Sobotka may have problems with the party´s regional leaders, but the creation of regional lists of candidates by "all people" in referendums will hardly produce a fundamental change, David Klimes writes in daily Hospodarske noviny (HN) today.
He is commenting on the party´s decision to hold an all-party referendum on three questions.
The question of quotas set for women´s share in politics is rather a joke where the CSSD was not even able to elect a woman-deputy chairwoman, Klimes writes and adds that Sobotka himself originally proposed a government with no woman on it last year.
The issue of accumulation of paid posts, which caused some turbulences within the party, only covers up an intra-party struggle that is going on under the veil of party democracy, Klimes writes.
Sobotka has simply never wished (his intra-party rival) Michal Hasek "the couple of posts" he had, Klimes writes with some exaggeration, and adds that Sobotka was not perhaps alone. But a well-functioning party does not need to solve this via intra-party referendums, Klimes writes.
Why does the tax return form contain a column for a relief for trade union members? Why is the same column for members of horticultural or chess associations missing, Miroslav Korecky asks in Mlada fronta Dnes (MfD) and writes that this has the same logic as that small breweries and zoos pay lower taxes.
Korecky writes that tax legislation is a jungle, in which there are dozens of similar nonsenses.
The tax relief for union membership fees, which Finance Minister Andrej Babis (ANO) would like to to cancel is a huge nonsense. The employees deduct the fees from their taxes and their trade union cells´ incomes are relieved of taxes, too, Korecky writes.
The trade unions, protected by their "sister," the Social Democrats (CSSD), will never sacrifice this privilege. If they did so, this could reveal how many of their members would support the trade union idea in a situation where they would really have to pay the fees from their own pockets, Korecky writes.
One century ago, militarism was manifested by that politicians were taking over the opinions and recommendations of generals, while 90 years later, the situation is entirely different: military solutions are enforced on soldiers by politicians, Jan Eichler writes in Pravo on the 100th anniversary of the breakout of World War One.
He writes that militarism having the form of an excessive relying on military means in pursuing political goals, on wars and on subsequent occupations is a phenomenon that is always dangerous.
The 1914 events show how dangerous it may be where politicians are pushing through the interests of their own country unilaterally, regardless of the interests and stances of other countries, Eichler writes.
He writes that the current situation where the United States and its allies on the one hand and Russia on the other hand accuse one another of expansionism and are stepping up hostile statements is also very dangerous.
True, it does not threaten to develop into a war like that one hundred years ago. Yet, it is a very serious problem, it is a failure of politicians who have not learnt anything from the past and who are unable to act as responsible statesmen, Eichler writes.