[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10178-S10179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

   WHAT NEXT, MR. PRIME MINISTER? DEMOCRACY HANGS IN THE BALANCE IN 
              SLOVAKIA ON CONSTITUTION'S FIFTH ANNIVERSARY

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, 5 years ago, the speaker of the 
Slovak Parliament, Ivan Gasparovic, described his country's new 
constitution as ``an expression of centuries-old emancipation efforts 
of the Slovak people to have a sovereign state of their own.'' He also 
spoke of its ``supreme binding force.'' Since then, the people who 
present themselves as the guardians of Slovakia's statehood have 
undermined Slovakia's constitution.
  This is what they have done.
  This May, the Ministry of Interior ignored the Constitutional Court's 
ruling and altered an important referendum on NATO and on the direct 
election of the President, effectively denying the people of Slovakia 
their constitutionally guaranteed right to register their views through 
a referendum. Defending its actions, members of the Prime Minister's 
party insisted that they acted in conformity with the constitution--as 
they interpreted it--and that they were justified in placing their 
views ahead of the ruling of the highest court in the land.
  The actions of the ruling coalition in the case of Frantisek 
Gaulieder makes clear that the Meciar government has a profound and 
fundamental disregard for the constitution of Slovakia.
  Then there is the case of Frantisek Gaulieder.
  Frantisek Gaulieder is a member of the Slovak Parliament who was 
removed from office because he renounced his membership in Prime 
Minister Vladimir Meciar's party, the Movement for a Democratic 
Slovakia. On July 25, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the 
ruling coalition's action which deprived Gaulieder of his seat was 
unconstitutional and violated Gaulieder's rights. But members of the 
Prime Minister's coalition again claimed that they, and not the 
Constitutional Court, have the right to determine what the constitution 
means, and have declined to act to restore Gaulieder to his seat in 
Parliament.
  In short, the ``supreme binding force'' that Ivan Gasparovic spoke of 
5 years ago no longer flows from the constitution, but from the will of 
Vladimir Meciar.
  When there are differences of opinion as to what a constitution 
means, whether those differences arise between branches of government 
or between the government and its citizens, in a state operating under 
the rule of law, it is the job of a constitutional court to interpret 
what the constitution means--not the Prime Minister or Parliament. 
Although this principle is taken for granted in many parts of Europe, 
and was established early in American history by the famous Supreme 
Court case of Marbury versus Madison, it has apparently not yet been 
accepted in Slovakia.
  Mr. President, the Slovak Democratic Coalition has moved, four times, 
to convene a special session of the Parliament in order to implement 
the decision of the Constitutional Court and restore Frantisek 
Gaulieder to his seat. Four times, however, Prime Minister Meciar's 
coalition has boycotted their own Parliament rather than face the 
following dilemma: restore Gaulieder to his seat--consistent with the 
Constitutional Court's decision--and risk

[[Page S10179]]

the chance that others will follow Gaulieder's example and defect from 
the Prime Minister's party, or vote down the Slovak Democratic 
Coalition's proposal to restore Gaulieder to his seat and confirm that 
whatever form of government exists in Slovakia, it is not 
constitutional democracy, at least not as we understand it.
  Sooner or later, the Slovak Parliament will reconvene. When it acts, 
or fails to act, on the Gaulieder question, we will know whether 
Slovakia is committed to becoming a functioning constitutional 
democracy. If it is not, what it will become is an isolated State under 
constant international pressure and scrutiny, cut off from a promising 
and prosperous future by the arrogance and greed of its own leaders.
  As Vladimir Meciar is asked in his weekly news show, what next, Mr. 
Prime Minister?

                          ____________________