Polyarchy doesn’t mean democratization is done. To sustain Polyarchy it needs continuous civic engagement.

History and the World Wars were rarely on Czechoslovakia’s side. In 1938, before World War II, Czechoslovakia was betrayed by Britain and France, who forced Czechoslovakia to surrender their country to Nazi Germany. From that moment on, Western democracy felt synonymous with betrayal. In World War 2 the Soviet Union’s red army freed Czechoslovakia and Prague from Germany. The Soviet gained people’s support and trust. In 1946, the communist party won a plurality of votes in an election. However, in 1948, the Communist Party staged a coup d’état, abolishing multi-party competition and establishing an authoritarian one-party regime. This marked a sudden collapse of Czechoslovakia’s interwar and postwar democratic revival. After that it was an autocracy for Czechoslovakia for more than 30 years. During those years in 1968 citizens made an attempt to reform from within this was called “Prague Spring” and later in 1977 “nonviolent human rights declaration” that used the regime’s own laws against them to expose its hypocrisy is called “The Charter 77” which starts to show inclusion. These resistance movements later contributed to the creation of the Civic Forum during the Velvet Revolution. With the restoration of a multi-party system, press freedom of association was secured, making the peaceful alternation of power possible and expanding political contestation. Even though these movements failed it became a footstep to polyarchy as “Inclusion(p.116)”. Finally in 1989 The Soviet lost its power. Citizens took this as a chance to once again combine their powers to go on a general strike and mass protests. In 1990 finally Czechoslovakia was once more a democracy. On Dahl’s graph the citizens raised inclusion and contestation from each axis to the fullest making polyarchy happen.

Within the mentioned process of democratization, the events of Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution played especially significant roles. The Prague Spring demonstrates the first attempt of the Czech political power to move away from the Soviet form of communism since 1945. The process kicked off with the leader, Antonin Novotny being replaced by Alexander Dubcek, who had reform minded political preferences. Dubcek’s government planned to alter Czech policies in order to create a “Socialism with a Human Face”. This plan involved ending censorship, increasing the possibility of political contestation. Dubcek’s government planned for more reforms that could’ve increased inclusion along with contestation, bringing the country of Czech closer to Dahl’s definition of Polyarchy. However, due to rising levels of conflict between conservatives and liberals, Dubcek struggled to maintain power. Ultimately, on August 20th, 1968, the Soviet Union initiated an invasion, ending Czechia’s attempt for liberalization. But, in 1989 a new revolution ensued. On November 17, a protest that was an officially sanctioned student memorial demonstration commenced the fall of communism in Czechia. The demonstration turned into a protest against the government. Despite the peaceful manner of the protest itself, the authorities did not react peacefully. After the brutal suppression, various anti-government acts were initiated across Czechia, led by Vaclav Havel, who was the coauthor of the previously mentioned Charter 77. After being overwhelmed by the force of the opposition, the Communist government was cornered. As a result, the Pro-USSR government was dissolved and a new democratic government led by Vaclav Havel was born. The velvet revolution brought the increase of both contestation and inclusion. The level of contestation rose as people were given the right to criticize the government and demand political change. Inclusion rose as well, as ordinary citizens—such as students, workers, and artists—were able to engage in direct political action. The success of the Velvet Revolution seemed to ensure a reliable democratic future.

Freedom House continuously classifies the Czech Republic as a consolidated democracy, consistently awarding it top scores in Electoral Process, Freedom of Expression, and Associational Rights. And also, it shows consolidated democracy graph around 2000 to 2008 by polity 4. From Tyranny Tracker Czechia is also mentioned as holding competitive elections and a level playing where the opposition can assume power. Also, independent media, political leaders, civil society organization and members of the public can freely criticize the government. The state does not manipulate media outlets to secure favorable coverage, and they have the freedom to engage civic protests and activities. All people have the freedom to express on media without getting censored. Which shows us once again that Czechia is a polyarchy.

However, Czechia experienced another subtle democratic erosion when Andrej Babiš stepped into the field of politics. Andrej Babiš gained his power quickly by using the citizen’s outrage on the political establishments corruption into forming ANO (meaning “Yes,” short for Action of Dissatisfied Citizens), claiming to represent “hardworking people” against corrupt political elites(p.256). Which is based on populism – a political approach that gathers people against a perceived corrupt elite or establishment. Before the elections he acquired MAFRA, the biggest media corporation to twist public opinion so that he would have advantage, using his money as a billionaire. As prime minister, he triggered serious democratic erosion concerns when he abruptly replaced the Justice Minister just as an investigation into his alleged EU subsidy fraud was closing in. However, Czech civil society and its democratic institutions showed strong resilience. Over 250,000 citizens gathered in Prague to defend the rule of law. This is called Million Moments for Democracy. This is where “inclusion” becomes more than just citizens going to vote but into active civic vigilance. The Czech experience demonstrates that to endure polyarchy it requires expanding this concept into substantive and active civic vigilance which will defend the rule of law that is more than just the act “voting”. Checks and balances kept firm, as independent courts refused executive interference. In the 2021 election, a united opposition coalition peacefully ousted Babiš from power. A few years later, in October 2025, even though ANO returned to government Czechia’s vigilant citizens, the judiciary itself, and the history of Czechia have prevented one party from taking control. Preserving polyarchy from quiet illiberal backsliding. Now Czechia is currently going through consolidation of democracy. Czechia’s enduring resilience shows that polyarchy survives not only through written rules, but through active civic vigilance and autonomous institutions.

What the history of democracy in Czechia demonstrates is that the achievement of polyarchy does not indicate the conclusion of democratization. The Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution demonstrated the expansion of contestation and inclusion. What they do not demonstrate is their consolidation and maintenance. Therefore, polyarchy does not depend on simply establishing democratic institutions. Maintaining political competition, participation, and the capability of normal people to challenge the government is equally significant. Overall Czech history clearly demonstrates Dahl’s two dimensions of polyarchy: contestation and inclusion. It tells us that contestation and inclusion need to be continuously exercised by the people. Like the way it was expressed as the peaceful resistance against Andrej Babiš, true democratic consolidation occurs when institutional checks and balances are actively sustained by civic participation.