Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, dear friends,

it gives me great pleasure to greet you today in this beautiful Advent season. We have met today, on a significant and important occasion, to reflect, to think and to answer all the questions that have been asked.

And hopefully we will find a few thoughts that may help someday in the search for the often-lost pieces of Czech statehood. This evening was dedicated to a topic that deserves the highest attention and interest.

This evening is dedicated to the search for the roots of Czech statehood. It is no coincidence that the volume you now hold in your hands is royal blue, and it is also no coincidence that it bears a very important title.

It is a small, but all the more important collection of texts from the field of constitutional law and state studies, to which personalities from the Czech social science and legal environment, who really have something to say on the subject of Czech statehood, have contributed their ideas.

In my article, I have decided to seek the roots of statehood from the individual. I am not going to attempt to provide you with any academic definition of what statehood is here, however, for the purposes of this paper, it can certainly be assumed that it is the ability to make decisions about oneself.

This desire, ambition, and ability to do so can be carried by both the individual and the state.  And I believe that ONLY a state made up of individuals who have that power and desire to make decisions for themselves can ultimately form a sovereign and self-determining state,  that is not just the traditionally perceived „triple-bottom line“ of territory – population – power.

So let us take a moment to reflect together:

If we want to understand the essence of statehood, we cannot do so without going back to the roots, to the essence of being, to the existence of man within a certain group, to the nation and its land. Our Czech nation has been living here for hundreds of years, like a centuries-old tree that keeps growing new branches.  Its roots are firm, but not indestructible.

If we stay with, let’ say,  arboristic parallels, then it is directly suggested that the Czech linden is a tree that needs a lot of care from its own people in order to maintain itself as an independent and distinctive and significant element on the map of Europe and ultimately the world.

It is no coincidence that our country has natural boundaries that can be seen only from space.

The mountains that our ancestors crossed and protected themselves with are imaginary walls within these natural borders, which both protect us from external threats and define what is truly ours. And we citizens are responsible for protecting these imaginary borders, because we the people of this country are the bearers of these fundamental rights and freedoms, traditions and customs.

A state is not just a territory, but also citizens who are aware of themselves in that territory. The state-forming subsoil can exist without state power, and conversely, state power may not express the fact that there is a national identity at all – just as state power can suppress such a national identity

I believe that on the imaginary citizen-state vertical described above, one must always start with the individual. Only a citizen who is aware of his or her rights, and who is concerned about them, is capable of forming a sovereign state in conjunction with like-minded citizens. Simply put:

sovereign citizens form a sovereign state, not the other way around.

The Constitution in its Article 2(1) provides that it is the people who are the source of all state power. It can be successfully argued that a people who allow themselves to be governed by „foreign“ law and legislation are not sovereign, and such a people cannot successfully constitute a sovereign state.

While reading this compendium, one cannot simply argue about whether the sovereignty of the state would be helped by this or that change in this or that law, or anything else – for such changes can only be approached when there is a substantial degree of self-awareness of the sovereignty of the individual – only when there is a majority of sovereign individuals can one proceed to raise the ambition for the state to be sovereign as well.

For those who cannot decide for themselves certainly cannot decide for others, even if they have the most institutions at their disposal.

What is essential, however, is to identify what is the basis of statehood, individuality, dignity – or what is the pre-requisite of all these. Indeed, these values are not infrequently expressed in the highest-level laws, which are the Constitution, constitutional laws and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

I believe that this is primarily because what is ultimately captured in the highest laws is not some human „invention“ – it is a capture of the essence of humanity itself, and of dignity and respect for it.

The authors of the Constitution approached the drafting of constitutional laws with the knowledge that society changes, opinions age, and preferences change – yet there are values that cannot be described as anything other than fundamental, and that have a durability that transcends not only electoral terms but generations. It is not for nothing that the Constitution of the Czech Republic also contains what constitutional lawyers refer to as the „perpetuity clause“ – Article 9(2) of the Constitution, which states that „it is inadmissible to change the essential elements of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.“

These essential requisites can certainly be seen from a state-law perspective, in the sense of regulating the relations of the various democratic institutions, or from a human-rights perspective, which in my view is far more predictive of a truly sovereign state – where respect for individuality can do more for statehood, for example, than a functional parliamentary setup.

The most important human rights value in my view is certainly equality in rights and dignity. However, Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms states that „People are free and equal in dignity and rights.“ This is in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which identifies the same as a supreme value. Therefore, any attempts to remove or to modernise (usually to narrow) interpretation of individual fundamental rights should be viewed with particular criticism. This is particularly visible in the area of attempts to restrict freedom of expression, or the freedom to make decisions about one’s health or the inviolability of one’s person.

I consider human rights to be the highest value, and only a state that treats these rights with the utmost respect can, in my view, claim to defend its own statehood – this is because statehood is an expression of individuality at the international level, while human rights are an expression of individuality at the interpersonal level.

From a lawyer’s perspective, it seems to me essential to point out that when it comes to fundamental rights and any attempts, however subtle, to remove, deconstruct or revise them, such attempts must be viewed with a highly critical eye, however well-intentioned they may be (although I doubt this in most cases).

It seems to be a fairly recurrent phenomenon that there is a sorting of views into majority and marginal ones, and that these views may in future form moats between different groups in society – however much the law simply forbids it. Simply put, what I am talking about here is the ostracization and dehumanization of minority opinion currents, whether through statements by public officials or the polarization of opposing views without rational discussion.

The Charter explicitly states that the state is based on democratic values and must not be bound either by an exclusive ideology or by religion. Fundamental rights are then guaranteed, as discussed above, regardless of other statuses – apparently including worldview.

In doing so, the Charter is to be read not as a telephone directory – but as a thoughtful enumeration of areas in which the state simply should not, should not, and as a rule must not interfere for good reasons. If people are to be equal in dignity and rights, then all the more so that equality and dignity cannot be interfered with for the exercise of the fundamental rights that the Charter goes on to enumerate.

Therefore, it is unacceptable for someone to become a „second-class citizen“ if, for example:

• he/she wants to make decisions about his/her own body and what medical procedure he/she will undergo on his/her own and without coercion (when, according to Article 7 of the Charter, the inviolability of the person and his/her privacy is guaranteed);
• wants to think or thinks differently within the freedoms of thought, conscience or religion guaranteed by Article 15 of the Charter;
• wishes to protect his privacy and personal data as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Charter;
• wishes to express his or her free opinion in word, writing or in any other manner, as provided for in Article 17 of the Charter.

The essence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms is to define rights that are truly fundamental, and will be fundamental in 30 and 50 and 100 years, just as they were fundamental 30 years ago.

Finally, to bring ideas about the individuality of man to ideas about statehood – I will leave you with this thesis: what is true between individuals is also true between states.

If I began this post by reflecting on the sovereignty of the state, and moved on to the necessity of the state to respect the sovereignty of the individual, this thesis, from my perspective, expresses the basic idea of this post.

A state is only as sovereign as its citizens are free and capable of making decisions about themselves – and as capable of guaranteeing the same for each other.

Free and equal citizens cannot elect as their representatives anyone who somehow thinks „at home“ and differently outside – but it cannot be said that if the current political representation and the dominant political current act contrary to the requirements of preserving statehood and sovereignty, that this is a criticism directed exclusively at the political representation – for it is also elected by the people, and such people, who are not aware of their individual sovereignty and the sovereignty of each individual, can hardly demand anything else from their state externally.

It may seem somewhat counterintuitive to say that in creating, seeking and maintaining statehood one must start with the individual – however, I believe that only individuals aware of their own sovereignty can demand that the state take charge of its sovereignty.

With the upcoming Christmas, I’ll make a wish. I wish for an end to the period of a divided society, , that every one of us would give impetus to the state to navigate through those hard international waters and it would fight for its position. If we defend what is ours and do not ask for others‘, we too will be well off.

I wish each of us to be aware of our fundamental rights, and at the same time those privileges that secure those fundamental rights to each of us like that umbrella , especially in those difficult times, to be able to protect them, so that each of us becomes a guardian, small or large, but each of us

Not just the lawyers in the courtrooms. All of us.

Our nation lives in the heart of Europe for a reason. We are one of the few who have identified our territory our country from as far away as outer space.

We have everything we need; we are a strong nation; we are the Czechs.

Therefore, we just have to remember, not to be afraid and stand and walk upright.

Thank you for your attention, and I trust you will enjoy tonight in the best of company.

Další články