Moderating the political debate on pension reform between the government and the opposition was one of the most demanding and hopeless tasks that President Petr Pavel set before himself. Many times in the past it has already been shown that a broader political agreement on the future form of pensions would be extremely desirable and state-building, but in principle it is a utopia – in the end, everyday politics, the pursuit of political points and the bribing of voters have always won.
Seen through this lens, the president’s meeting with the Minister of Labor and opposition leaders on Thursday was actually not a complete mess. It was nice that at the joint press conference with the head of state, Marian Jurečka, Alena Schillerová and Karel Havlíček tried to show a constructive face, they generally praised the progress of the meeting and, against the whip-lashed speeches in the House of Representatives and on social networks, the whole thing seemed quite hopeful.
The most interesting moment was Pavlo’s masterwork as a moderator – right in the opening speech he announced that all participants agreed that in the future it will be necessary to raise the retirement age. This obviously scared Havlíček and Schillerová quite a bit, which is not surprising.
The ANO movement has so far insisted in tense debates that 65 years is an unbreakable ceiling. A few months ago, the leader of the movement, Andrej Babiš, took pictures with trade unionists and communists at demonstrations with “STOP 68” banners, which is an acronym denoting a vicious opposition to the gradual increase in the retirement age from today’s 65 to 68 for today’s forty-somethings.
Did Havlíček and Schillerová really admit during the meeting with the president that the limit of 65 years is unsustainable, if there is to be unbearable pressure on the other two peaks of the pension triangle, i.e. the amount of insurance premiums and the amount of pensions? That would be real progress!
In particular, Alena Schillerová – perhaps with an idea of what she would hear from the boss – subsequently tried to moderate the president’s statement and choose a classic delaying tactic: it is necessary to discuss all parameters, the debate about age must be linked to the debate about demanding professions, let’s wait for enough analytical data and similarly. But she did not go so far as to completely deny Paul’s words and confirm the unbreakability of the 65-year-old boundary.
Does this mean a shift in the debate on pensions and progress in the search for that chimerical “broader political consensus”? Small, but yes. If the ANO movement does not deny Thursday’s statement on Friday, which would also not be completely unprecedented, it could at least indicate a consensus on the unsustainability of pensions. And without exaggerating the state-building willingness to talk about the future of pensions without populist rhetorical ballast.
Let’s not be under any illusions, no agreement has been reached and it is still not very likely that we will see one in this election period. Nevertheless, after the meeting at the Castle, there was at least hope that one of the opposition parties would be able to accept the inexorable reality and agree with the government not on solutions, but at least on starting points. This would be good news for the country and a major success for Peter Pavel and his pension advisors.
