CESES FSV UK Praha 2006 - Centrum pro sociální a ekonomické ...

In 1948-1989, Czechoslovakia was a totalitarian state. One of the characteristics of totalitarian
regimes – as described e.g. by C. J. Friedrich or Zbigniew Brzezinski – is total control
of all organizations, groups, individuals executed by the ruling party. This of course includes
control over all interests and their representation. The “representation of interest” in communist
Czechoslovakia was performed by the so-called National Front, initially an unconstitutional
body but rendered constitutional in 1960, in which all political parties and interest groups had
to secure a membership if they wanted to exit at all. All decisions, including the decision who
can or cannot be a member of National Front, were actually made by the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia. The National Front incorporated not only political parties, but also other interest
groups such as trade unions (Revolutionary Trade Union Movement) and groups such as
the Czechoslovak Students‘ Union or the Czechoslovak Union of Women.
With a fair measure of simplification we can talk about state corporatism during this period,
because the number of associations was limited and they were closely connected to the state
(even directly dependent on it). However, they did not take real part in any decision making processes,
they had to incorporate what the ruling communist party had decided. In the totalitarism,
however, it makes no sense to talk about any levels of decision making, whether horizontal or
vertical. All decisions were made within a relatively small group, the Politburo (Presidium of
the Central Committee) of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. If any interest group wanted
to act independently, it had to act illegally (Charter 77 and many others).
The situation changed after 1989. The National Front was dissolved and political parties and
interest groups independent of the centralized system was allowed. Politics became a field for
competition for distribution of values in the society and the competititon of interests. This has
naturally opened up space for discussion on which model of interest representation should be
used – pluralism or corporatism. In the first period after the fall of the Iron Curtain we can see
tendencies to implement corporatism in the form of a tripartite system; later on, when rightwing
forces came to power, the role of tripartity was reduced to advisory status, while in the late
1990s the revival of an effective tripartite system and possibly also neocorporatism helped the
25