A discussion of the differences between election systems in the United States and the Czech Republic from the perspective of a recent candidate and University professor.

Democracy is not a singular system or method. Every democratic government operates differently and provides its own unique experiences, especially in elections.

For Professor Jan Svejnar, a faculty member from the Business School, this observation was made abundantly clear when he ran for president of the Czech Republic. He recently gave a talk at the Ford School about his experience. Audience members accustomed to hearing about the presidential election in the United States were struck by the stark contrasts in the expectations of a president’s background, election format, and reaction to corruption between the American and Czech election systems.

Under the rule of Communism, Professor Svejnar left the Czech Republic in 1970 at the age of 17. He has since obtained his Ph.D. and established himself as an economist. He has also done a great deal of international work and work in the Czech Republic. However, he bases himself in the United States and not the Czech Republic. In the United States, it does not seem possible for a candidate based in another country to be competitive in an election.

In the Czech Republic, Professor Svejnar did stand a chance though. While his opposition criticized him for having “insufficient Czechness,” many factors seem to have allowed him to overcome this hurdle. For starters, people in the Czech Republic can understand why a person would leave a country that was under the reign of Communism. Professor Svejnar was even able to turn his situation into an advantage by playing up his international experience. The Czech Republic has set a high priority of bringing in international expertise to improve the country, and Professor Svejnar has plenty of expertise. He is a prominent economist with extensive research experience, is well known as an advisor to previous administrations, and he has even been asked to run for president before. Therefore, Svejnar was no stranger in the Czech Republic.

The format of an election in the Czech Republic also is quite different than in the United States. The only voters in the Czech Republic’s presidential election are the Members of Parliament (MPs). There are two chambers within Parliament, the House and Senate. This means that the election is in the hands of a few hundred people. There are three rounds to an election. In the first round, a candidate must win a majority in both chambers of Parliament. If no candidate accomplishes this, then the election goes to a second round, where a candidate must win a majority of all present from both chambers. After that, if there is still not a winner, then there is a third round, where a candidate must win a majority of the sum of the votes. Finally, after all of that, if there is still not a winner, then another election is held and the process starts all over again.

One of the major issues of the Czech presidential election was the issue of secrecy and corruption. Professor Svejnar proposed to open up the system, get people involved, and fight corruption. When he travelled around the country on his campaign to meet the people, his campaign was referred to as an ‘American’ campaign. This is because politicians have traditionally limited their campaign efforts to appealing to the members of parliament, the people who do the voting in the presidential election. Recently, more Czech politicians have adopted the method of appealing to the general population for support, a tactic people commonly identify with American politicians. Svejnar’s decision to campaign this way was important because it got the people involved in the process. There is a strong concern that too much of the politics in the Czech Republic is conducted behind closed doors, and Svejnar wanted to change this. People got to know him, and by the time the elections came, he led in opinion polls over his opponent 55% to 45%. He also worked to make the vote in Parliament public. The Czech Constitution allows for both public and secret votes, so Svejnar had to maneuver to make the vote be public. The consensus agreed that Svejnar would do better with a public vote, while his opponent would do better with a secret vote. A secret vote makes it much easier to pay people off, something that Svejnar’s opponent, Vaclav Klaus, has a reputation for doing.

When the election came on February 8, Professor Svejnar shocked many people, including his opponent, by winning the House in the first round of the election. The second round also ended with Svejnar winning the House and Klaus winning the Senate. Then, the third round was held on February 9 and followed the same trend. However, neither one was able to obtain the required amount of support to win, so a second election had to be held. The second election was held on February 15, with the first two rounds again ending at an impasse. In the third round, Klaus picked up some votes, and he managed to win by only one vote more than he was required to get. The final count was 141 votes for Klaus and 111 votes for Svejnar.

Throughout this process, there were signs of intimidation, blackmail, and the buying of votes. Additionally, the leadership of the Communist Party, a major swing party during the elections, is suspected of having been bought by Klaus. Sadly, this fits into what the Czech Republic has seen for many years now, so people were not surprised.

Now that the elections are finished, Professor Svejnar has been presented with many possibilities for what to do next. Some want him to start his own party. However, Svejnar ran for president as an independent, riding the support of a broad coalition of parties that spanned the entire political spectrum. He believes there are plenty of political parties in the Czech Republic. Other people want him to become a senator. The other possibility for Professor Svejnar is to remain right where he is, helping as much as he can as an independent analyst and academic. He has chosen to continue this route. He likes being an independent and believes that it is best for him to remain in that position.

While it would be entirely logical to think that Professor Svejnar would be disappointed about his loss in the elections, he appeared very upbeat about his experience when he spoke. He seemed to have really enjoyed it. In fact, in a jovial mood, he recommended that everyone try running for president! He should be careful saying something like that at the Ford School. Somebody might just take him up on that.