Unpolitics in the Czech Parliament: Minority Tactics Undermining Majority Rule

This paper explores how the Czech Republic’s parliamentary dynamics reflect a unique manifestation of unpolitics, where claims of misrepresentation fuel competition both within the opposition and between opposition parties and the coalition government. This two-fold competition contributes to a deeply dysfunctional parliamentary environment, undermining democratic processes and public trust. The populist opposition is led by two distinct forces: the technocratic valence populism of ANO 2011 and the nationalist-populist rhetoric of the radical-right SPD. Both parties assert claims of misrepresentation, portraying themselves as champions of “the people” against an elite-dominated establishment. Their populist competition amplifies rhetorical antagonism within the parliament. Simultaneously, the divide between the government and opposition exacerbates dysfunction. Populist parties employ obstructionist tactics and performative debates to paralyze legislative progress. Even when the government manages to pass legislation despite these obstructions, opposition parties escalate conflicts by filing lawsuits with the Constitutional Court, framing such actions as necessary to protect “the true will of the people.” These strategies result in procedural inefficiency, chaotic scheduling, and institutional strain, prompting calls for parliamentary rule reforms. Lawmakers and parliamentary staff alike face burnout as the opposition leverages minority protections to stall majority rule. By examining the competitive dynamics of Czech populist actors, this paper sheds light on how unpolitics destabilizes parliamentary institutions. The Czech case illustrates how unpolitics operates not just through populist appeals but also through the erosion of functional democratic practices—where minority protections are weaponized to paralyze majority rule, challenging the resilience of representative democracy.