Únor 1948 jako počátek nelegitimního režimu
February 1948 as the birth of an illegitimate regime

Summary/Abstract: This study looks at the legal contexts of the communist putsch in Czechoslovakia in 1948. The roots of the events that took place in February 1948 can be found not only in the years preceding that time, but also during a period that is far older. First, the author seeks an answer to the question as to why a totalitarian Czechoslovak Communist Party government was not established as early as 1945. He finds an answer in the international context of that era, when Czechoslovakia acted as a kind of “shop window” for the Soviet Bloc, and had the task of proving the possibility of democratic parties being able to co-exist with the communists. The author considers the proclaimed “Czechoslovak road to socialism” to be nothing more than a propagandistic proposition, as demonstrated by facts proving the Czechoslovak communists’ complete lack of independence and their unconditional submission to Stalin’s USSR. Moreover, representatives of the Czechoslovak Communist Party themselves clearly declared that there was no other route to socialism besides the Soviet one. The next part of the text contains an analysis of the legal situation in the period 1945-1948. Attention is devoted to the political contexts ensuing from the newly established system of the National Front and the international context, where the incorporation of the Czechoslovak Republic into the Soviet Bloc can be deduced. The focus of the legal analysis in the given time frame deals with the issue of Czechoslovak Germans and Hungarians, as well as the principle of their collective guilt for the Nazi reign of terror, which was enshrined in legal regulations, and the transfer of the burden of proof to defendants, which is identified (in the same way as it has been by other authors) as an antecedent to the repression of the regime that emerged after February 1948. As an issue that is legally very contentious, the study also describes the statutory definition and activity of Special People’s Courts, which prosecuted the perpetrators of Nazi crimes and their accomplices. The impact of nationalisation is also not overlooked, and emphasis is placed on the difference between this policy and that which existed under communism, consisting of the fact that it was considered necessary to provide compensation to the people who were affected. The so-called Lex Schwarzenberg law went even further. This once-off piece of legislation illustrates the deliberations of the state’s political representatives on the irreversible nature of the route to socialism. The author also points out the importance of state security, where the activity of communists aimed at seizing unlimited power in the country is most vividly apparent. Using several specific examples, the paper demonstrates the breach of legal precepts by representatives of the Czechoslovak Communist Party in the security services and their expedient approach to the law. It also refers to illegal methods and preparations used by the communists for a decisive battle. The author outlines an entire range of facts proving that it is impossible to describe the years 1945-1948 as a period of government by rule of law and democratic principles. Nonetheless, as opposed to the era after February 1948, this period did allow for the possibility of invoking one’s rights and exercising constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, albeit with great difficulty. As regards the course of events in February 1948, the author defines the difference between legality and legitimacy, whilst also describing the illegal practices of the communists before the resignation of ministers from democratic parties. He emphasises the completely legal approach of the democrats, which clashed with the expedient attitude of the communists who did not view the law as a framework that defined the limits of their actions, but as an instrument that was specially constructed to benefit and serve the Communist Party. He reaches the conclusion that the communist putsch was inevitable and describes its development in terms of constitutional law. He identifies the resignation of not 12, but 14, members of the government as a crucial fact. When this occurred on 25 February 1948, the government became inquorate and therefore non-existent from a constitutional standpoint. The author also draws attention to the tactical and propagandistic considerations that led the communists to claim the resignation of only 12 ministers, thereby invoking the argument that the situation simply involved replenishing and reconstructing the government. The reasons for this approach can be found in the international context, where the communist putsch was being discussed in the UN and had attracted the attention of the entire world. Consequently, Czechoslovak communists tried to simulate the legality of their seizure of power. The reality, however, was utterly different, and the fact that there were 14 resignations overturns the idea that the course of events in February 1948 was constitutional in formal terms, which is a view that has also been supported up to now by some of the specialist literature on the subject. The author describes possible alternatives that would have been in line with the constitution and points out that the government of the “revived National Front” cannot be viewed as being constitutional, despite the fact that President Edvard Beneš accepted the resignation of the 14 ministers under unacceptable pressure from the leadership of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and appointed a new government under Klement Gottwald, which had apparently only been replenished and reconstructed. The study does not omit the actual implementation of the putsch, in which the illegitimacy of the communists’ actions is patently obvious. The illegal practices of the security services, the arrest of well known democrats without any legal basis, the unconstitutional methods of illegal “action committees” and the purges they carried out at all levels of the state apparatus, in political parties and factories, as well as the similar manner in which ministers were thrown out of their offices, before their resignations had been accepted, by usurpers from the ranks of the action committees (even though the ministers had a mandate from voters in free elections) demonstrate the Czechoslovak Communist Party’s complete contempt for the constitution, laws and democratic rules. A typically putschist phenomenon comprised raids on the secretariats of other parties by armed communists and the participation of illegal Party units/people’s militias in the seizure of power. Likewise, the nomination of Communist Party agents in other parties for government was completely at variance with democratic principles. Moreover, the structure of the new government did not respect the results of the elections in 1946. Slovak bodies were also illegitimately taken over, which tramp led on the will of voters who had ensured an overwhelming victory for democratic parties in 1946. Furthermore, the study draws attention to the repressive nature of the new authority, which clamped down on demonstrating students and subsequently terrorised entire swathes of Czechoslovakia’s population with mass purges, a class concept of law and a dictatorship of the proletariat (the Czechoslovak Communist Party). Consequently, the author provides a basis for the thesis that the events of February 1948 comprised an anti-constitutional putsch, which was not rooted in the will of the citizens of the Czechoslovak Republic, as expressed in free elections. This therefore results in the conclusion that the regime of the Czechoslovak Communist Party was illegal and illegitimate right from the very start of its existence, both in accordance with the standards of the time and recognised legal precepts.

• Details
• Contents