Extreme sovereigntist movements pose a significant threat to democracies worldwide. They employ strategies that challenge the legitimacy of the state and often do not hesitate to use political violence to achieve their goals. In Czechia, the movement has two branches, differentiated by their relationship to historical developments and the interests of key figures within them.
Aleš Michal
July 17, 2024
Citizen sovereignty is a fundamental principle that binds modern liberal societies together. However, when taken to its extreme, it leads to an absolute denial of state authority and institutions, posing several challenges to liberal democracy. Amid growing skepticism about traditional politics and the increasing adoption of extreme approaches, radical political thinking on forms of sovereignty has led to the emergence of “sovereign citizens” movements worldwide. Believers in this idea call for supplanting democracy with alternative forms of governance, usually involving rule by the sovereign people, and they often do not hesitate to use political violence to advance their ideas.
The modern face of the “sovereign citizens” movement emerged in the 1970s in the United States, evolving from earlier militias that advocated a violent protection of state rights, first and foremost the right to defend localities against perceived oppression by federal authority. Over time, the movement’s calls for alternative forms of governance became increasingly intertwined with far-right conspiracy theories, both of which were amplified by the power of social media platforms, which also accelerated the spread of the central sovereigntist idea outside the United States.
The first European branch appeared in Germany, where the Reichsbürger movement gained notoriety for refusing to recognize the state and engaging in violent activities with the goal of carrying out a coup. Recently, the “sovereign citizens” movement has also taken root in Czechia, where it not only presents itself as an extreme alternative to the current system but is also divided into two factions. Although both aim to preserve civic-level sovereignty in a broad sense, they follow different logics and pursue distinct goals.
US Extreme Sovereigntists and Their Structure
The US “sovereign citizens” movement is deeply rooted in the defense of rights outlined by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which defined the limits of federal intervention in local defense structures. The act enabled the establishment of territorial militias, “posse comitatus,” embodying local sovereignty against the federal state, which then primarily sprung up across the Midwest. Despite changes in the act over the decades, the movement persisted. Over time, it took on a mostly radical and far-right orientation as a backlash against the expansion of minority rights. Today, the movement has approximately 300,000 supporters in the United States, yet it is territorially deeply heterogeneous.
The activities of the US extreme sovereigntists are twofold. They relate to a nonideological core that entails overwhelming local courts and offices to impair their effective operation, and to an ideological shell that promotes certain attitudes, mainly white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and extreme nationalism. While the nonideological core seeks to undermine the state, the ideological shell justifies the attitude politically. The central idea of the movement is to delegitimize the state as a whole: in the US case, this means recognizing only state acts predating 1933, when the US government ceased backing the dollar with gold. According to the movement’s followers, with this act the state lost its sovereignty and became dependent on the international community. The operations of the US movement serve as a blueprint for others, but local characteristics influence how the movement develops elsewhere.
The Czech Extreme Sovereigntist Movement
In Czechia, the development of the country’s statehood significantly shaped the sovereigntist movement. In 1918, Czechoslovakia emerged as a unitary state with significant Czech domination despite the presence of several ethnic minorities, like the Germans and the Slovaks. In the 1960s, national characteristics influenced the post-war communist regime and Slovak autonomy was ensured through representation in the parliament. The communist doctrine of democratic centralism, however, prevented the new state structure from evolving into a genuine federation in which Czechs and Slovaks would be on equal footing. These developments influenced the emergence and evolution of sovereigntist sentiments in the period of post-communist transformation. Following the Velvet Revolution in 1989, there were deliberations about the future structure of the state. Between 1990 and 1992, political negotiations led to its peaceful dissolution, resulting in two new entities: Czechia and Slovakia.
Like their peers in the United States, extreme sovereigntists have anchored their legitimacy in the historical existence of the state. But, contrary to US extreme sovereigntists, the Czech movement is characterized by a more discernible divide between its nonideological core and its ideological shell. In the United States, the extreme ideology rejecting the current form of democracy is an inherent, albeit long-latent, component of the movement; in Czechia, it emerged as an additional feature and is less coherent.
Over time, two branches of the movement have emerged, divided on which historical period is their main reference point. While one considers the entire existence of communist Czechoslovakia as a source of legitimacy, and its members wear clothing with the hammer and sickle or the state emblem of communist Czechoslovakia, the other refers to the democratic transition period between 1990 and 1992, arguing that no referendum justified the dissolution as the will of the people. The difference between the two factions therefore stems mainly from their relationship to communism and the perception of it as positive or negative.
The Legitimate Creditors of the Czech Republic has rallied around businessman Jiří Macháček since the 1990s. Back then, he sued the Czech state, claiming he was unlawfully detained on charges of financial malfeasances and that this prevented him from conducting business in Germany. After prolonged legal battles, Macháček received compensation to the amount of 4 million Czech crowns (€ 158,000) in 2006. However, he and his supporters continued to demand additional compensation from the state as they claimed the state had passed all the previous legal acts without a formal right to exist. Macháček involved his supporters as partners in the dispute, which, according to him, made this group of dozens of people “legitimate creditors”. This sect-like arrangement, serving the interests of one person, has remained at the center of the group’s mission. As in the United States, their activities involve inundating state institutions with compensation claims—a strategy of “paper terrorism”. According to their videos published on social networks, Macháček’s supporters issue requests to various state institutions such as the National Bank, the Ministry of Finance, or municipal authorities to overwhelm them and sabotage the functioning of the state.
Becoming a member of the Legitimate Creditors of the Czech Republic entails an “identification”, a pseudo-legal act, in which the supporter’s identity is validated and registered by the authority of Macháček, through which the supporter gains the right to request money from the state. The principle of identification follows a philosophy that considers Czechia a commercial corporation. Proponents argue that all data associated with Czechia were attributed to them at birth without their knowledge (including birth number and other details) and that Czechia, as a commercial corporation, requires consent for such actions. This consent can only be obtained by signing a contract between the given subject (the individual) and the supposed corporation (Czechia). In the absence of such a contract, Czechia has no right to enforce any legal acts or to demand sovereign citizens’ compliance with laws.
The second, more visible but unnamed, group was formed during the COVID-19 pandemic and includes known far-right individuals. It refers mainly to broad concept of historical Czechoslovakia, including its communist legacy. The group claims that it cannot recognize Czechia and Slovakia as functional states due to the absence of legitimacy in the process that led to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia because there was no referendum reflecting the will of the people. It is led by former journalist Jana Peterková and innkeeper Pavel Zítko, and it has dozens of supporters. It gained significant attention in May 2023 when the majority of its members stormed a court hearing involving Peterková, who had falsely claimed that patients were tortured in hospitals during the COVID-19 lockdown. Members of the movement demanded the termination of the proceedings due to the alleged illegitimacy of the judicial body. Both leaders are very active on social networks, where they spread conspiracy theories about the war in Ukraine, a “world government”, a new world order, and disinformation about COVID-19 and vaccination, thus connecting to the agenda of other actors in the extreme political space. With this program, the group can also be classified as populist as, unlike the Macháček one, it consistently advocates for rule by the people. Recently, its supporters disrupted some political meetings, such as a campaign tour of the party led by the minister of the interior or actions organized by the prime minister.
Extreme Sovereigntists and Liberal Democracy
The relationship of the “sovereign citizens” movement to liberal democracy aligns with broader trends in the extreme political field and underscores the enduring presence of the political periphery. Although radical political elements are becoming part of the mainstream and turn into parliamentary or governing actors, extreme movements like the “sovereign citizens” maintain a distinct, albeit limited, foothold within the political landscape. They have a negative stance toward liberal democracy. They often argue that the current democracies in the world are not real ones and should be replaced by direct rule by the people, without clearly defining who constitutes the people in this context.
As these movements reject liberal democracy, they do not participate in elections. Instead, a significant element of their ideological struggle is attacking liberalism to enhance their reach by connecting to narratives of mainstreaming radical actors. In other words, their strategy to gain support involves infiltrating radical (not necessarily extreme) political parties and movements. In the US context, this means access to the top structures of the Republican Party. In Czechia, people spoke out against the center-right liberal-conservative government, even though radical organizers do not give the “sovereign citizens” movement space directly on stage at protests.
The attempt to attach themselves to radical-right narratives highlights extreme sovereigntists’ affinity with illiberal and authoritarian regimes. For example, Zítko regularly appears in public wearing a MAGA hat or clothing featuring a handshake between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, and he expresses support for Viktor Orbán’s politics in Hungary. He is also sympathetic to the authoritarian regime in Russia and questions European aid to Ukraine, while he promotes pan-Slavism and uniting Slavic nations under Russian leadership.
Conclusion
The movement of extreme sovereigntists is incoherent, heterogeneous, and amorphous, but globally active. It is typically composed of a nonideological core of seeking the delegitimization of the state and its authorities, and an ideological shell that merges with the agenda of the radical and far right practically anywhere in the world. At the heart of both components is the denial of the legitimacy of the existing state, which inevitably implies an affinity for a previous state that had operated in the given territory. This program argues for extreme or violent behavior driven by various, primarily ideological, motivations in search of ways to avoid fulfilling citizens’ responsibility. The Czech case exemplifies the functioning of the nonideological core, evoking the authority of the former Czechoslovak state, and of the ideological shell resonant with that present also in the current US context.
Extreme sovereigntists’ views about liberal democracy are negative and destructive. In the United States, several violent crimes associated with the sovereigntist idea have been recorded over 50 years of the movement’s activity. In Czechia, despite the apparent effort by some members to emulate the US movement, the activities aim for paper terrorism and the online environment. Nevertheless, the movement is a danger through not only the political violence carried out in its name but also its efforts to merge with the mainstreaming radical scene, which can then spread its ideas and adopt its strategies.
*******
Aleš Michal is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague. His research focuses on definitions of conceptual boundaries of populist and anti-system political space and protest mobilization in Central and Eastern Europe.
The AUTHLIB consortium does not take collective positions. Publications only represent the views of their individual authors.
*******
Photo credit: Mehaniq via Shutterstock
