No need to resurrect Monarchy: We need sound national confidence

Tomorrow is an auspicious anniversary of the death of the penultimate Austrian emperor, who had significant bearing on Czech history, namely, Franz Joseph I. The funeral marches on the bleak autumn day, a century ago, presaged the demise of a great empire he ruled for almost three score and ten years. Good to hear that his importance is getting a fairer treatment now, and his name starts to lose its customary ideological labels. The end of the First World War, associated with the redrawing of maps and a change of the world as it was known before the “primeval catastrophe” of the 20th century, in 1914, initially inspired euphoric reactions to a new order of things, which however were soon to dissipate in social crises, political violence, brutal infighting, the rise of dictatorial regimes, and ultimately a new devastating war. Suddenly, thoughts about the resurrection of the Austrian commonwealth harked back as a reminder of the golden times, when the world still seemed to be in order. Well, it was not exactly the case, and we all know it from experience: our life is driven by the habitual optimism that dictates that pastures were greener, way back when.

The current geopolitical situation makes one ponder over the virtues of a restored “quasi-monarchy”, meaning closer regional interaction of the nations that were once a part of it. The idea invites attention especially in the wake of the crises that erode the cohesiveness of the European Union. Closer cooperation between the Visegrad Group and Austria, and possibly also other states, has emerged as one of the important challenges of our time. If they acted in closer concert, the voice of these countries could sound louder in the crucial ongoing debates about the future of European integration. However, there is the risk of accelerating the emergence of a multi-tier Europe and splitting the EU between the founding nations, which would be at the core of developments, and those which could find themselves marginalized.

However, we—meaning the Czech society—should know where we want to go and what role we ought to play. We should not look to any clearly defined limits of our existence in Europe that only make one distance himself from his neighbours, but we should try instead to find a concept that would positively delineate our place in the realm of Central European cooperation and within the Euro-Atlantic relationships. As a midsize nation in the heart of Europe, we must prove more cohesive-minded than the case is now. Therefore the perennial “us/them” division should gradually cease to apply. Public discourse reveals ever deeper divisions between Bohemia and Moravia, Prague and the rest of the country, towns and villages, across the many social groups, and based on a generational world outlook. The polemic is marred by aggressive, demagogic rhetoric that precludes any unbiased insight on the facts being discussed. In a situation when we observe an accelerated erosion of the certainties of life, interhuman relationships, and encapsulation in mutually uncommunicative pockets, driven by growing fears, it is existentially inevitable to look for a common interest that we can express and jointly pursue. Without deep internal societal changes we would hardly find common ground for cooperation in Central Europe. It is good to know that it was not only the demise of Franz Joseph, but indeed also the inability to find an agreement, which dealt a mortal blow to the Central European monarchy project, in 1918.