Drobečková navigace

The 1960 Constitution

The Constitutional Act No. 35/1960 Coll., that amends the Constitutional Act on the elections to the National Assembly, on the elections to the Slovak National Council and the Constitutional Act on the national committees of April 1960 preceded the adoption of the new constitution. It fixed the number of deputies on 300. The elections were linked to the national discussion on the draft of the new Constitution of Czechoslovak Republic.[1]

Preparations of the new Constitution built on the soviet theory and terminology. According to Pavlíček’s collective the constitutional situation after its adoption was paradoxical because the conflict between the constitution de facto and de iure was much smaller than in the case of the preceding constitution, the Constitution was full of proclamations.[2] Likewise according to Ján Gronský, the Constitution of 1960 is juristically on a lower level than the Constitution of 1948 (it contains rather ideological grandiloquent sentences, political and legal newspeak often without any specific meaning), though it was less fictive than the 1948 Constitution.[3] On the other hand, the 1988 textbook of the collective led by Peška and Zdobinský still claims the quality of Constitution of 1960 because “The Constitution reacts to the political relations and institutions and thus also brings complete ideological view of the organization of the society and the state.”[4] The content of the 1960 Constitution reflected, according to Jaroslav Šabata, the practice of the fifties - it was cosmetically modified neo-Stalinist product and its main component was the petrification of the leading role of the communist party, thus enshrinement of a sort of a state party.[5] The 1960 Constitution is an exhibition of a fully established communist jurisprudence that contains conclusions that this jurisprudence reached.

The new constitutional text was published in the Collection of Laws under No. 100/1960 Coll. on 11 July 1960 provided that the same day it was approved by National Assembly and it also came into effect and abolished the preceding constitution; there is no need to emphasize that it was passed unanimously by the Parliament as usually in the totalitarian Czechoslovakia. This Constitution was distinctive by explicitly referring to the leading role of the communist party, distinction of various types of ownership and different degree of its protection (private, personal, cooperative, socialist social ownership). Regulation of rights and obligations of citizens was based on their collective perception: “In a society of the working people in which exploitation of man by man has been abolished, the advancement and interests of each member are in accord with the advancement and interests of the whole community. The rights, freedoms and duties of citizens shall therefore serve both the free and complete expression of the personality of the individual and the strengthening and growth of socialist society; they shall be broadened and deepened with its development. In a society of the working people the individual can fully develop his capabilities and assert his true interests only by active participation in the development of society as a whole, and particularly by undertaking an appropriate share of social work. Therefore, work in the interests of the community shall be a primary duty and the right to work a primary right of every citizen.”[6] Economic, social and cultural rights are regulated in the first place, restricted regulation of political rights follows and the personal freedoms may be found at the end (protection of privacy, freedom of movement and residence are absent). The list of obligations was wider than before – to protect socialist ownership, to observe the rules of socialist conduct; the performance of public functions is an obligation just as the defence of the country and its socialist social order. Despite opulent introductory Declaration, the constitutional regulation of supreme organs of state power was rather fragmentary and unimportant because the real centres of power were located out of the state machinery, which was even confirmed by the 1968 Pavel Peška's article in which he highlighted that the rule of political machinery is symptomatic for the factual constitution of the time which makes provisions on the role of representative bodies unrealistic.[7] National Assembly consists of 300 deputies elected for a term of four years, president and government are accountable to it. National Assembly elects the Supreme Court judges and the president.  The president was effectively the supreme official of the communist party (the first secretary of the Central Board of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia). The position of the Presidium of National Assembly remains just as strong it in the Constitution of 1948. Due to the sporadic number of sessions of Parliament (twice a year) the Presidium makes use of the similar powers as the National Assembly, including the power to issue legal measures. The Slovak National Council is a national organ of the state power and administration in Slovakia (a similar Czech organ is missing). The Constitution also contains parts dedicated to the national committees, courts and public prosecution. The courts and public prosecution protect socialist state, its social order and the rights and true interests of its citizens and organizations of the working people. By their activities they educate citizens to be loyal to their country and to the cause of socialism.

Entertaining peripeties relating to the alteration of a state emblem took place. The emblem was constitutionally defined as a red escutcheon in the form of a Hussite shield with a five-pointed star in the upper part, with a white, two-tailed lion bearing a red shield on its chest showing a blue outline of Krivan Mountain and a golden fire of freedom. Despite this clear description, the state emblem had to be specified in a special Act No. 163/1960 Coll., on state emblem and state flag.

The Constitution of 1960 was a presentation of results of the socialist jurisprudence. In other sectors there is effort to build up formally perfect and exhausting socialist law. The sixties were the era of grand codes, for instance the Civil Code, Criminal Code, Civil Procedure Code or the Act on Public Health Care were adopted. Those codes persisted in our legal system long after the revolution in 1989 (new Administrative Procedure Code was adopted in 2004, new Criminal Code in 2009 and new Civil Code only in 2012).

It is an interesting paradox that social changes that brought easing of the situation began after the adoption of the ideological constitution – cultural plurality, wider possibilities of travelling, foundation of guilds and associations etc. The Act on Travel Documents (No. 63/1965 Coll.) or the Act on Periodical Press and other Information Resources (No. 81/1966 Coll.) brought rather higher quality of the regulation in the area of travelling and press. For the first time since the beginning of communism the Press Act legalised censorship and tried to define its powers.[8] The Main Administration of Press Surveillance was renamed to Central Publishing Administration, and turned into a state organ governed by a minister. Its objective was to prevent information containing facts classified as state secret from publishing and distributing. The Press Act implemented the institute of press correction which protected individuals from false statements published in the press.

Further liberalization took place in the late 1960s Czechoslovakia. People travelled more even to the West and had a chance to produced artworks more freely. The so called renewal process began in the communist party. It allowed criticism of certain policy steps of the Communist party.

Some of the victims of criminal reprisals of the 1950s were rehabilitated or granted amnesty already in the early sixties (e.g. the former communists at the suggestion of the so called Kolder’s Commission of the Central Board of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia for investigation and finalization of party rehabilitations, see also the work of Piller’s Commission). In June 1968 the Act No. 82/1968 Coll. on judicial rehabilitations was adopted. According to this act anyone unlawfully punished was entitled to the annulment of a judgement or decision, to publication of the information about his innocence, to obliteration of its condemnation and to compensatory damages. Furthermore it was possible to make those who were involved in the unlawful decision-making responsible.

At the end of 1967 a new Electoral Act (act No. 113/1967 Coll., on the elections to National Assembly) was adopted and even though no elections were held under this act, it was an interesting attempt to expand pluralism. National Assembly was supposed to be elected in the multi-mandate election districts where the number of candidates exceeded the number of mandates that were supposed to be occupied. Although only the members of the National Front were allowed to stand in the elections (and thus the act did not introduce standard political competition), it would imply at least a wider range of candidates.

The Act No. 84/1968 Coll. of June 1968 amended the Press Act. The new regulation contained in paragraph 17 of the Act abolished censorship. The provision prescribed that censorship, defined as an intervention of state authorities against the freedom of speech and against distribution of information through the mass media, is undue. In this context, judgement of the Municipal Court in Prague of 28 February 1968 is interesting and unusual for the case law of the time. The Court held that the false statements that may be corrected by the press corrections are only factual findings and not any of their assessments or opinions on them. Consequently, the Act only allows press corrections of factual allegations and not of evaluating and critical views and opinions; any other interpretation would be excessively narrowing.[9]

The Act No. 128/1968 Coll., on the National Front was prepared in June 1968 and was only adopted in September 1968, i.e. after the occupation by the Warsaw Pact troops. The Act builds on the “humanistic principles of socialism and pluralistic conception of the political system.” It introduces a pluralist political system, however operating only within the National Front. The Act does not mention the communist party at all. Furthermore, the Act even implements judicial review of decisions on prohibition of the activities of a political party. The Act was abolished in December 1970 (Act No. 146/1970 Coll.) with no substitute.

Literature:

Michal Bobek, Pavel Molek, Vojtěch Šimíček (eds.): Komunistické právo v Československu. Kapitoly z dějin bezpráví. Masaryk University, International Political Institute, Brno, 209.

Jan Gronský: Komnetované dokumenty k ústavním dějinám Československa, 3^rd part, 1960-1989. Karolinum: Prague, 2007.

Vladimír Kubeš: Dějiny myšlení o státu a právu ve 20. století se zřetelem k Moravě a zvláště Brnu, 2^nd part, published by Masary University in Brno in 1995.

Viktor Kanpp and others: Úloha socialistického práva a jeho zdokonalování při výstavbě rozvinutého socialism. Nakladatelství Svoboda: Prague, 1987.

Státní právo československé socialistické republiky. SPN: Prague, 1962.