From the book ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER - Attempts to publish this book in the Czech Republic lasted fifteen years. It was published by the Institute for Political and Economic Culture with the support of the VIA Foundation under the "CEE TRUST - Strengthening the Nonprofit Sector" program and the Embassy of the United States of America in the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, we still lack the real elite that we have liquidated ourselves, and therefore the necessary strength to implement the ideas below. A job for generations with an uncertain end. JŠ
***
I don't believe in own Czech way
I do not believe that the prevailing atmosphere of skepticism and small-mindedness needs to be overcome by patriotic pride. Indeed, there is nothing worse than false pride and the idea that a positive attitude towards the place and community in which we live is incompatible with a critical attitude towards oneself and one's fellow countrymen. False patriotism brings xenophobia, provincial self-centeredness and isolation from the outside world.
In other words, I belong to those unpatriotic people who believe that the main task of the Czech intelligentsia is not to seek its own Czech way, not to discover the discovered, but to humbly seek solutions that exist in developed societies. For I dare to distinguish between higher and lower civilizations, more advanced and more backward societies.
It must be admitted that we have had nearly half a century of being left behind under the colonial umbrella, even more backward imperial powers. The most effective way to correct our political system is to adopt models of social organization discovered and successfully implemented elsewhere long ago.
In other words, in the current "state building" it is best to seek out and imitate the most successful models and translate the best proven works into Czech. I see the benefit of translated literature not only in filling gaps in many areas, but also in unifying the terminology of the social sciences, which has become separated from Western culture.
The biggest problem in our public political science debate is the terminological marasmus and dilution
Some basic terms have many meanings. Thus the key concept of democracy has more than a hundred meanings. We can arrange them on a scale from the original narrowest meaning of government by the people, or the majority, to the broadest all-encompassing designation of good government.
Another problem is that we can't debate
Democracy as majority rule is in deep crisis in the post-communist countries because its so-called aggregative conception, or decision-making and legislation based on the outcome of interest group voting, is beginning to prevail. Who is with whom and against whom is more important than finding the best decision in the long-term interest of all. As a result of the growing importance of lobbying, persuasive methods adopted from marketing, and the trading of votes of disciplined party caucuses, the so-called deliberative or deliberative concept of democracy is being lost in parliamentary and public debate. This concept is the last argument for preserving democracy in its original, narrower sense as majority rule, but it presupposes the preservation of the basic rules of proper, substantive debate, or what is called discourse ethics.
There are different kinds of debate
A professional debate, in which the participants try to get at the truth, is different from a political clash, in which two members of parliament compete in a contest designed to win more votes and popularity. In every society, including the most primitive tribal groups, the elders of the tribe, gathered around the fire, have always tried to find the best solution to the problems facing the tribe in a substantive debate. This debate must have certain procedural rules. It is actually a tool to find a substantive solution or a general will (volonté generale versus the Rousseauian volonté de tous).
The counterpart of this 'deliberation by the fire' in modern societies should be public debates in the media
If we think of our regular debate programmes on all television screens (The Cauldron, Seven, The Sunday Game) from this point of view, we must despair. These programmes are an example of negative discourse ethics, which is the best way to a generally stupid mood. Rather than being a model of proper and fair debate, they educate viewers to something that is its opposite.
This is where the famous book ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER comes to the rescue
Retired American Civil War general Henry M. Robert wrote this book, originally intended as a sort of rules of procedure for Parliament. Because all kinds of substantive debate have some common ground, this book has become a guide for all sorts of societies, boards, clubs, and organizations, and has gained immense popularity. In the midst of a stormy argument in the Junior Common Room of an Oxford college, I did not initially understand that speakers were admonishing each other for violating Robert's Rule No. 10 or Rule No. 18. So I was introduced to I don't know how many editions of this book. I was also interested in it because the rules of procedure and procedure in the courts, which have evolved over two thousand years, are based on similar principles. Learning not to deviate from the thesis under discussion, to avoid personal arguments in factual disputes, to be concise and to the point, to observe the order and sequence of argument, and to listen to the opposing side is part of a general education and part of the culture in democratic societies. Education for brevity, candour and accuracy can be taught and cultivated in debating societies, and political elites in particular should be role models for cultivating the rules of the internal morality of debate.
I have brought several editions of this book to Prague: from the original classic text through modern corrected and revised editions to the two most recent popular paperbacks, Robert's Rules for Idiots and Robert's Rules for Dummies. The attempts to publish this book took fifteen years. It is not a panacea, but it is another stepping stone in building the foundations of a free society - namely, the transformation of people's minds.
JUDr. Vojtěch Cepl st.
***
Legal sentence: 'From the point of view of constitutional law, it is necessary to determine the conditions under which the incorrect application of simple law by the general courts results in a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Constitutional Court sees these conditions in the following circumstances: fundamental rights and freedoms in the field of simple law act as regulatory ideas, and therefore they are linked to the complex of norms of simple law. Violation of one of these norms, either as a result of arbitrariness (e.g. disregard of a mandatory norm) or as a result of an interpretation that is extremely contrary to the principles of justice (e.g. excessive formalism), then constitutes a violation of a fundamental right and freedom."
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, Case No. III ÚS 269/99 of 2 March 2000, President of the Constitutional Court Prof. Vojtěch Cepl. st.
Read more...