LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Alexander Dubcek : The Former Czech Leader Surveys Another ‘Prague Spring’

In the long, brutal nightmare of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, few names symbolized both the hope and humiliation more poignantly than that of Alexander Dubcek. Elected Czechoslovak leader in January, 1968, Dubcek presided over the flowering known as “Prague Spring.” His regime initiated the market reforms and relaxation of press censorship that ultimately incurred the wrath of the Soviet leadership, provoking the Warsaw Pact invasion of August, 1968, and the resulting 20 years of darkness.

In the green hills of Bratislava, on a winding street that looks out over the city and the Danube, is Dubcek’s home, where he has lived alone since the death of his wife, Anna, last year. On the way, the road passes a large villa. It is the home of Vasil Bilak, last surviving signatory of the infamous letter that invited the Soviets to quell the revolution--and beckoned tanks into Czechoslovakia.

Until Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s 1987 visit to Czechoslovakia and the relaxation of security, neighbors had grown accustomed to the police camped on Dubcek’s doorstep. Such harassment had cut him off from friends in the years of “normalization.” He had been removed from power in September, 1969. But, instead of standing trial for counterrevolutionary activities, he was sent as ambassador to Turkey--partly in the hope that he would emigrate, confirming his label as a “right-wing opportunist.” He did not. In June, 1970, he was recalled and, two days later, was expelled from the party. Dubcek was given a job in the Slovakian Forestry Commission, where he worked until retirement.

Miraculously, Dubcek survived two decades of vicious party propaganda with his stature intact--though controversy still surrounds him. He repeatedly has had to justify his actions in 1968--particularly post-invasion concessions that brought accusations of weakness and political naivete. On the eve of the 1989 Velvet Revolution, however, it was clear that his name retained its magic. He stood with Vaclav Havel above Wenceslas Square, hearing his name again shouted by a crowd of thousands, and watched on television by the nation.

During the revolution, Dubcek was linked with Public Against Violence, a Slovakian counterpart of Civic Forum. He was courted, unsuccessfully, by Vladimir Meciar, the controversial nationalist leader whose movement for a democratic Slovakia led the coalition that won 45% in the June elections. Dubcek instead joined the Social Democratic Party, which won just enough to participate in the Slovak National Council.

At 71, Dubcek has the bearing of a polished statesman. His smile is seen on posters displaying a bouquet of roses--the Social Democratic symbol--with the slogan “I’m with you, stay with me.” It is this face, as others have remarked, that came to symbolize the phenomenon of ‘68--Socialism with a Human Face.

Question: You said in the past, “Politics opens the way to economic reform.” Yet the Velvet Revolution was clearly a revolt against ideologies. What is the role of ideology in economic reform?

Answer: Well, those are two different things. First, I would still say that politics opens the door for economics and economic reforms. . . . . Politics is everything. Politics includes housing problems, the issue of whether or not we can travel--politics is everything you touch in the place you live. Politics is always here in one form or another. The point is only: What should it be like? Our idea is that politics should be for people, that it should encourage democratic development and social welfare, culture and all that is related to man’s life. This is my understanding of politics.

Before, we were striving for change in politics and installed a new type of politics. Now, everyone can participate in politics--be it Christian Democrats, Liberals, the left and the right--and work toward what we see in West European democratic life.

Because of our location in the center of Europe, our politics and economics will most likely develop along the lines of modern West European democracies. The fact that I am now speaking with you proves that politics has opened the door. . . . A new spirit is here.

Q: Now, on the coming separation of the Czech and Slovak republics--in June, the Slovakian National Council declared sovereignty. You have supported the historic need for self-determination among Slovaks, yet you were opposed to the split?

A: . . . . Yes, I am an advocate of the idea that, in this critical moment of constitutional crisis in Czechoslovakia, the constitutional position and powers of the nations of Czechoslovakia can be tackled so as not to break the Czechoslovak links and maintain the Czechoslovak state in a new form adequate to the present times.

This is also why we--who are not part of the coalition (led by Vladimir Meciar)--have been pointing out in the Parliament that the integrative elements of Czechoslovak statehood must be preserved. What are they? Common currency, as it is the backbone of our union. There might exist hundreds of common things, but if it were not for a common currency, they would mean nothing. Also, common border guards and army, banking and unified customs and tax systems--as well as coordinated foreign policy. So this is our idea. I am speaking about it--though many tell me that, as a politician, I should not be taking the chance. While this country is still together, one must apply every effort to avoid the rift. . . .

The Czech political leaders insist that there either be the federation as it used to be or nothing at all--which is not true. Therefore we say that if certain links are preserved, there is some hope for the future. Seldom does a reunion follow divorce. . . .

Before the (June) election the Czech and Slovak political leaders were interlinked in government coalitions. The coalition partners were all this time presenting, in Slovakia, proposals for solutions of mutual relations. In not a single case was a proposal accepted by the Czech political representation. . . .

The going became more and more radical for Christian Democrats, the Democratic Party, the Public Against Violence movement and all the other partners in the former coalition. This is why we find ourselves in such a crisis. What we did not see was a coming together of the coalition partners to find a consensus, and this is needed if there is to be harmony.

Q: As for those in Slovakia that exploit this--using nationalist concerns--one point debated in the West is the alliance between former communists and right-wing nationalists. What is your view?

A: We must distinguish between two things: Not all that is going on in the Slovak political scene can be referred to as nationalistic or extremist. The Slovaks have been building up their national identity for a thousand years, striving for autonomy and affirmation of their own existence. All this time, they have striven for autonomous administration. This was also their goal in 1918, when the (Czechoslovak) Republic was founded . . . .

Why am I talking about this? Because there are some aspects of the current process that are well-founded--and as they had not been tackled, they now create space for extremism. In 1939, the Czechoslovak Republic was broken up for some time into the (Nazi) Protectorate and the Slovak State. Next to Yugoslavia, the biggest uprising against the Fascist regime was in Slovakia, with the aim of restoring the Czechoslovak Republic and establishing national bodies such as the Slovak National Council, which came into existence in the course of the uprising.

The roots of the Slovak National Council reach as far back as 1848, when the nation was struggling for its existence. All this was later reflected in the so-called Kosice Program (declared in 1945 in the town of Kosice) and elaborated jointly by the Moscow and London exile governments . . . .

If such aspirations are not listened to, then it is grist for the mill of extreme national separatism. And since no success was achieved during these past three years, this is why we are where we are now and the scene has turned more radical. Not only were there rifts in the political coalition partners, but this also provided ground for the absolute extremists who say that nothing but a split can be of some use . . . .

Q: It is sometimes said in the West that what is happening here is the result of former communists who would like to return the economy to central planning.

A: . . . One must distinguish between orthodox (communists) and the grouping that emerged as a consequence of having recognized that the old way was leading nowhere. This latter group has a different genesis, they follow a different road.

One mistake the Czech political radicals made was they did not first attack the communists from the period of the last 20 years, but the ’68 communists. And there are hundreds of thousands of them. This is what made the democratic front weaker in the struggle against the narrow-minded, dogmatic, militant structures. The ’68 communists, though they had to work later as taxi drivers or window cleaners, they did not lose their credibility. So why should they be defamed in the eyes of the young generation? But this is the price we have to pay in the development of this revolution. It is neither the first, nor the last. It’s a historical fact that, when any revolution reaches a certain stage, it starts devouring its own children.

Q: With regard to economics--whether discussing orthodox communists or those associated with 1968--what can socialism mean in the current context?

A: . . . There is no power, including the left, that could reverse this. The question is not whether we would like to continue economic reform, but how to make the reform we have chosen the most successful, how to achieve prosperity, how to avoid social tensions that could bring our young, fragile democracy to a halt.

It is true that the wrong steps could hamper the democratic development of this country. But by having a highly qualified expertise in place that would not replace but only modify practical steps in the implementation of the economic reform, we will not give them the chance. Even in France or Austria and other countries they are still pondering how to solve the problem of the privatization of large businesses. And this goes on within the framework of market economies. In our country, where there was only a totally directed economy, we have no pattern to follow in questions of privatization. And yet, we have this process in place . . . .

Q: As someone who suffered for 20 years under the regime dismantled in 1989, what is your position on the Lustration Law, limiting the participation of former communists for five years?

A: I am absolutely against it, because the screenings have missed the original target and did not fulfill even the tasks staked out by the Parliament. Originally, the screening process was targeted at those who worked with the State Security Police. Unfortunately, it ended up attacking hundreds of thousands who were suffering under the previous regime. All the people of 1968 are in those files. And those who, some 40 years ago, were chairmen of local Communist Party committees or members of the Central Committee cannot work at present, say, in the local government as officials responsible for the environment or housing. That is, those who were blacklisted unlawfully over the past 20 years--they were sacked from their jobs, their children could not attend schools. These days they are blacklisted again, but legally.

Even while chairman of the federal Parliament, I was screened by the Federal Bureau on Security shortly before elections. It was made public that a commission was investigating my case. Germany’s President von Weizsaecker also got involved, when he said that, if this act were to be put in force in the Soviet Union, both Gorbachev and Yeltsin would have had to be dismissed because they were both party district committee chairmen . . . .

Q: What do you believe is the antidote to anti-democratic forces in Slovakia?

A: I would consider it a great success if those who share my opinions--and this includes also the Party of the Democratic Left and (Meciar’s) Movement for a Democratic Slovakia--if steps are undertaken that will eliminate the current approach of that part of the Czech political representation striving for the breakup. We are in a critical situation. I cannot help thinking that, had I been the victor in the elections, I would still strive for the best alternative, the best achievable points, by showing good will and exerting certain pressures. I am still searching for others who think along these lines, and trying to act accordingly--though our position might seem hopeless. It would be of benefit for both the Czechs and the Slovaks, as well as for Europe, if the best is preserved from our relations and applied in a new form. The divorce might bring unpleasant elements into play that no one has even thought of.

We have been working toward a positive solution. What is good is that these ideas are being given more attention in the Czech political community, and this is where I see the hope that Czechoslovak relations can be preserved in a new form and that the crisis will be overcome. That’s why I say that hope dies last. If we do not have hope, we lose our sense of life. As you see in the Olympiad, everything is played until the last second.