Jan Bartošek studied at the Faculty of Agriculture, then pursued therapy, and later even added politics to the mix. Since joining KDU-ČSL nearly twenty years ago, he has worked his way up from local levels to the highest ranks. He has served continuously in the Chamber of Deputies for twelve years.
At the start of the election term, you said you were prepared to discuss the opposition's topics. Were you able to initiate such discourse?
At the start of the election term, I truly believed that the Chamber could be a venue for constructive dialogue across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, reality showed that the current opposition – specifically the ANO movement and SPD – chooses filibustering and disruption over substantive debate. This isn’t just my impression or a political proclamation. It is a fact proven by numbers. In this term, MPs have met after 9 p.m. more often than in the previous three terms combined. The duration of speeches delaying the approval of the agenda – often by opposition members with priority speaking rights talking off-topic – has especially increased. We have lost a total of 480 hours in the current election term. For comparison – in previous terms, it was always around 170 hours.
Not only the Chamber but society at large seems increasingly polarized and less tolerant of differing views. What do you attribute this to?
The polarization of society is an alarming trend. One of the main causes, in my view, is how social media algorithms are set up and misused – platforms from which a large portion of the population now gets its information. These algorithms are not neutral – they are designed to provoke strong emotions, especially negative ones, because these keep us engaged the longest and generate ad revenue for the platforms. This triggers a vicious cycle in which we’re repeatedly exposed to one-sided, hateful, and often false content, because the algorithm recognizes that this is what gets a reaction from us. The result is increasing distrust, hatred, and an inability to accept other viewpoints. Such an environment leads to radicalization, anti-system behavior, and in extreme cases, violence or terrorism. If we want to protect the safety of our country and the entire European Union, we must understand how these algorithms work. It’s not about censorship or silencing opinions – it’s about making sure no viewpoint is algorithmically favored just because it profits from fear and anger.
The question of how to effectively fight disinformation could fill an entire book. Still – what tools does the government have, and how does it protect vulnerable groups most susceptible to disinformation?
I’ve long held lectures on disinformation and how to defend against it. It’s not unusual for people to approach me before an event with angry expressions, saying they’re curious how I plan to censor them. But we usually find common ground in the discussion that follows – and that’s key. Fear of censorship is widespread, which is why we must proceed sensitively when fighting disinformation. A positive, motivating approach that engages people is ideal. Scientific studies and public surveys agree that the most effective path is through education and improved media literacy. It’s no coincidence that those who spread disinformation most often target people aged 55 and older – for whom fact-checking online is not second nature. That’s why we should focus not just on schools, but also on courses and lectures for all generations. I’m taking this path myself, and I can confirm that public interest in disinformation is high – people want to understand, they ask questions, and engage in discussions. That’s a hopeful sign.
archives of Jan Bartošek
The Fiala government has been criticized for poor communication – whether it's unclear, infrequent, or both. Some government officials call this criticism a cliché. What’s your view?
Criticism of the government's inadequate communication is justified in some respects. In certain cases, we really could have been clearer, more specific, and more transparent. One particularly unfortunate example is how the opposition managed to distort the messaging around Minister Marian Jurečka’s pension reform. This is a crucial piece of legislation aimed at securing the country’s functionality from 2030 to 2050. But instead of substantive debate, a public perception has spread that it’s a harmful measure against citizens – which simply isn’t true. To some extent, this situation also stems from differences in internal party cultures. Movements like ANO or SPD operate as centralized structures where a single person decides everything. In contrast, democratic parties – like those in the government – conduct open, often intense internal discussions. While such pluralism of opinion is healthy and desirable in a democracy, it can sometimes appear as disunity or vagueness when presented publicly. That’s a challenge we need to handle better.
How difficult is it to stand out within the three-party coalition and bring KDU-ČSL’s themes to the voters?
Within the SPOLU coalition, KDU-ČSL has a well-defined identity and program. Our ministers are visible in the government and consistently advocate for Christian Democratic priorities. Thanks to their work, numerous pro-family measures have made it into legislation – such as family-friendly elements in the pension reform, stronger support for childcare groups, preferential part-time work options for parents, and clear rules for remote work. Without KDU-ČSL, these changes wouldn’t have happened. Perhaps surprisingly, our party’s representatives at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs have been the most successful when it comes to digitalizing public administration. A case in point is the Jenda app, which allows people to avoid in-person visits to the Labour Office and other authorities. Hundreds of thousands have downloaded the app, and satisfaction with it is high.
How do you view the “non-coalition” Stačilo! and the alliance of SPD with the Free Citizens, Trikolora, and PRO – where members will run on joint tickets without needing a higher electoral threshold to enter parliament?
It’s ironic how Tomio Okamura has spent four years fiercely criticizing the so-called “patchwork coalition,” only to now form a de facto coalition himself with parties whose leaders couldn’t stand each other not long ago. He claims it’s not a coalition – but that’s just wordplay. All we can do is hope that voters see through his lies and make their opinion clear in the elections.
CV BOX
Jan Bartošek (born November 10, 1971, in Jihlava) is a South Bohemian MP for KDU–ČSL, deputy speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, and a therapist.
He graduated from the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of South Bohemia and also completed courses in dramatherapy at Palacký University. As a therapist, he dedicated most of his professional life to helping people recover from drug addiction and reintegrate into society.
He joined KDU–ČSL in 2006 and served as the party’s vice-chair for more than 10 years starting in 2011, later becoming the first vice-chair. Since 2010, he has been a member of the municipal assembly in Dačice, where he also served as deputy mayor for four years. In 2016, he was elected to the South Bohemian Regional Assembly and successfully defended his seat in the subsequent election. He has served continuously as an MP since 2013.
For many years, he has focused on issues of defense and security. He strives for a strong, secure, and well–defended Czech Republic, firmly anchored in the EU and NATO.
ad
