If we want to understand how a political-economic regime works, it is pointless to focus on what is written in constitutions and laws, or on what statesmen say. What is important is to observe how such a regime operates and try to formulate the rules according to which it functions. In this respect, the work of political scientists is very similar to that of scientists in the natural sciences.
It is important to distinguish between malfunctions and normal functioning. Is corruption a malfunction or part of the normal functioning of a political-economic regime? If it is a malfunction, there will be an effort to fix it. This attempt may not ultimately be successful, but it must be recognised as significant and involve those in power. Conversely, if a case is criticised but does not prompt any serious effort to remedy it, then it is considered to be part of the system’s normal functioning.
The Regional Court in Olomouc sentenced a young man to sixteen months in prison for posting unacceptable content on Facebook. However, he was still a minor at the time. This case highlights that even children in the Czech Republic can be imprisoned for expressing their views.
The Times newspaper reported official statistics that in the UK, approximately 12,000 people (!) are arrested and taken away in handcuffs every year for unacceptable comments on social media. The UK is not criticized for this. No official human rights institution claims that the British authorities have acted unacceptably. It is possible that from time to time someone may criticize these conditions, but this does not lead to any corrective action. It is therefore part of how the system works.
The relevant section of the Czech Republic’s constitution, and those of other European countries, reads as follows: ‘The state has the right to punish citizens who criticise it through harassment, arrest, financial penalties, prohibition from practising a profession and even imprisonment at its discretion.’ However, it does not have the right to impose unconditional sentences of more than ten years for such criticism.’