I decided to read an interview with Mrs Maláčová, the chairwoman of the Social Democratic Party in the Czech Republic. Mrs Maláčová has chosen to go into the elections together with the Communist Party of the Czech Republic, even at the cost of protests and the subsequent departure of a large number of very experienced and loyal members from her party. I do not know why I did it, given that what I know about her is completely outside my sphere of understanding – perhaps simply because she comes from Uherské Hradiště, my birthplace. I can hardly believe that this compatriot of mine represents such an extreme position and has no qualms about collaborating with a party that, literally speaking, swallowed hers in the late 1940s. I just wanted to understand what her politics are built on. There are several arguments.
The EU–US trade deal.
Mrs Maláčová dislikes both the 15% tariff and the obligation to purchase energy from the USA and buy American weapons. She probably has never negotiated a contract and I suspect she does not understand the concept of negotiating power. And if she does, and thinks she could negotiate a better deal, then perhaps she should rather be nominated as the European Commissioner for trade negotiations (instead of Mr Štefkovic and Mrs Ursula von der Leyen).
The European Commission, which is responsible for such negotiations, has no strength to resist more aggressively. First, it cannot put forward a negotiating offer without the approval (direct or indirect) of the member states. Trump knows this, which is why he essentially deals only with heads of state and why he uses his tactic of reciprocal tariffs. Second, the EU does not have many strong bargaining cards: EU states need energy from abroad, and American LNG must help. European states have agreed to increase defence spending, and partly using it to buy weapons for Ukraine is also a good idea. Third, imposing tariffs on American exports? That would primarily mean tariffs on agricultural products, energy, and “military material”. It is true that US agriculture is less protected than European agriculture, but lowering European protection (as a concession to Trump) would at this stage be unacceptable in the EU to those who care about the health of their citizens (the so-called SPS conflict). It would also be unacceptable to most EU member states and would require fundamental changes in the “Common Agricultural Policy”, one of the EU’s cornerstones. In the best scenario this would mean renegotiation taking several years. Trump does not have that time.
Fourth, there is one argument the EU could have used – taxing US internet services operating within the EU. I do not know all the details, but I believe this option existed. It would not be a tariff, of course, but an application of indirect taxes. These could be non-discriminatory (MFN), which to some degree, though probably too little, might have only limited the dissatisfaction of the American side.
5% defence spending.
This Mrs Maláčová also greatly dislikes. She would apparently want another referendum on it. Her main argument is that “we cannot afford it”. Her explanation, however, is not only wrong but based on a failure to understand and present simple figures. First, the Czech budget deficit and national debt are among the lowest in Europe. As the head of the budgetary committee, Mr Skořepa (Lidové Noviny, 8 August 2025), shows, we are not at all in a position where the state cannot service its debt. Second, as far as I know, Prime Minister Fiala’s pledge regarding 5% does not concern the next budget (as Mrs Maláčová clearly has in mind), but the aim of reaching that figure by 2030. This means the increases would be gradual and not sudden, as she states.
I do not even want to comment on what her position means in terms of social priorities. No one, of course, likes that we must increase military spending in a situation where the danger of armed conflict looms. But Mrs Maláčová compares defence expenditure with social spending. Does she believe that a war conflict which could affect us would be solved by higher spending on education, or even higher salaries? Moreover, she claims that 70% of citizens are against such increases, which leads her to call for a referendum on NATO membership. Does this mean she adopts the position of those who deny the threat of war near our borders? On this Mrs Maláčová has nothing to say.
Energy prices.
She also dislikes household energy prices, saying they are “too high”. They are indeed high, but she should also explain why. She does not. The first reason is, of course, the collapse of the energy system based on supplies of gas and oil from Russia. That collapse affected the entire EU. Second, the end of dependence on Russian energy means a radical change in finding new suppliers, and massive investment in new distribution networks. Third, since Mrs Maláčová is “green”, she should know that one of the reasons is the too-rapid transition (in Germany and the EU) to green energy. She does not admit this. The fourth reason is the EU’s energy policy, based on the principle of a single market, which must include energy. Competitive conditions in access to energy cannot differ between Czech and German companies. But she does not understand this. Admittedly, this is not only her problem but one of our entire society. The organisation of the EU energy market is highly complicated, and unfortunately, throughout our membership in the EU there has been no clear explanation of the system of pricing energy products and services.
Her only recommendation (indirectly) is to reduce the price of emission allowances for Czech households. She claims that compared to German households the price is “ruinous” for Czech families and firms. But she does not understand that an efficient energy market cannot be controlled by the income group of her voters. The state should, of course, support low-income families, but through income subsidies, not by different prices for them.
“Low wages”.
Mrs Maláčová complains that even after 30 years our wages are “only 50% of German wages”. Firstly, the 50% figure is certainly nonsense; I would estimate it at around 60%. But 50% sounds more dramatic.
The essential explanation of wage differences, however, lies elsewhere. It is primarily about the dependence of Czech economic growth on German growth and foreign capital. The Czech economy has been driven by productivity growth in enterprises owned by foreign capital. That capital invested in the Czech Republic not only to take advantage of excellent working conditions but also the enormous wage gap between the Czech Republic and abroad. Second, Czech productivity has not been growing faster than German productivity; indeed, it has slowed down. This also causes slower wage growth.
Given that Maláčová studied at the LSE (one year MA?), I would expect at least some knowledge of economics. But her specialisation was evidently more political and sociological, which leads to her recommendation to press Volkswagen and others to increase wages to “the level of their German productivity”. She evidently believes VW simply exploits the working class, which also explains her closeness to the Communist Party within the movement “Enough is Enough”.
I suspect that for many Czech voters Mrs Maláčová will not be a major topic. Nevertheless, it led me to comment on issues broader than her. Moreover, as Mrs Maláčová and her present version of the Social Democratic Party, along with the Communists, call for a referendum on the 5% defence spending target and probably also on NATO and EU membership (which she so far denies), this should interest all voters. 35 years after the Czech nation enthusiastically welcomed the departure of the Communists from power, and even more enthusiastically called for entry into the EU and NATO, Mrs Maláčová’s and her party’s position is not only sad but dangerous.
Dr Zdenek Drabek
former adviser at the WTO and the World Bank