The 37 out of Marendo

Public register of Lindoma, transport history desk
Nezad and Raduc, stations P6 and P7 of the Phosfor line

1. The two stations

P6 Nezad and P7 Raduc stand 780 metres apart on the eastern branch of the Phosfor line, in the neighbourhoods of Posad and Iupin. Both opened on 4 November 1972, in the last construction round approved by the Central Planning Directorate. They are cut and cover boxes at a depth of 9 metres, with side platforms of 74 metres, faced in the ribbed grey panel used across the whole of the 1968 to 1974 programme. P6 has three exits and P7 has two. Neither has been substantially rebuilt, and the 2019 renovation covered the lighting, the tactile paving and the lifts only.

2. The man

Nezad Raduc, 1911 to 1979, was born at Calmena and trained as a statistician at Sederna. He entered the planning apparatus in 1949 and served on the Central Planning Directorate from its creation in 1954 until its dissolution began in 1974. He held the signature on the greater part of the tonnage plans of that period, including the housing programme on the standard four floor drawings, the Tavrino chemical expansion, and the construction authorisation for stations P1 to P7 of the Phosfor line.

His professional reputation is poor and has been so since the Cortius Report of 1968, which he received and did not publish. The specific findings against him are the retention of tonnage as the governing target after the 1961 closure of the repair workshops, the approval of the Tavrino discharge volumes that killed the Marnaqui below the works by 1966, and the practice of transmitting targets downward to assemblies that had already been reduced to consultation. He gave evidence to the reform commission twice, in 1975 and 1976, and was neither charged nor rehabilitated. He died at Calmena in 1979.

3. Why the name was split across two stations

The Directorate had a standing rule that no station carry a full personal name, adopted in 1959 after the argument over the naming of P1. Where a person was honoured, the given name went on one station and the family name on the next, so that neither station could be read on its own as a monument. The rule produced Nezad and Raduc on the Phosfor line, and later Halid and Beslic on the eastern main line, which is the only pair the practice is now popularly associated with.

4. The renaming question

Proposals to rename the two stations have been brought to the communal council of Lindoma four times, in 1977, 1991, 2008 and 2021. All four failed. The 1991 debate is the one usually cited, since it was argued directly against the Prague precedent of 21 February 1990, when thirteen station names were changed in a single decision and Leninova became Dejvicka, Gottwaldova became Vysehrad, and Moskevska became Andel. The petitioners held that a planner whose findings are on the record should not be read off a wall by half a million riders a week.

The council's answer in 1991, restated in 2008 and 2021, rests on three grounds. The names carry no ideological content of themselves, since the split naming rule was adopted precisely to prevent that. The stations were built and are used, and the record of who authorised them is a fact about the network. And the Republic dissolved the Directorate by procedure and published the Cortius Report in full, so the account of the man is available to anyone who looks for it, and removing his name from two boxes in the ground would remove nothing else.

The 2021 minority opinion, signed by nine of the thirty-one members, held that Prague renamed for the benefit of the people using the stations rather than for the historical record, and that the two purposes should not be treated as the same question. The proposal has not been brought again.

Public register, Assembly desk
Interim National Council of the Republic of Fluid

Resolution 61 of 2026, on the naming of persons in the official record

Adopted on 14 May 2026. Moved by the Humanist Socialist Party. In favour 68, against 19, abstaining 13, of 100 members.

Text as adopted

1. Official documents of the Republic recording the history of the Republic name no individual person as author, originator or holder of a decision of state, and refer to the organ that acted.

2. This applies to: the official history maintained by the Office of Constitutional Revision; the summary and register published under Articles 314 to 316; the booklet distributed to every dwelling; the plaques, inscriptions and permanent signage of the organs; and material prepared for schools by the education committees.

3. Where an individual name is necessary to establish a fact, it is recorded in the annexes and in the archives, which are public and open without charge.

4. Nothing here binds a court, an audit report, an inquiry, a criminal record, the communal registers, the press, or any private or scholarly publication.

5. Nothing here permits the removal of a name already given to a place, a station, a street or a building. Those names are decided by the commune under Article 141.

Grounds stated by the movers

The Directorate governed for twenty years without publishing its plans, and it was dissolved as an organ, by procedure, over two years. No person was tried and no person was made to carry it. The movers held that this was correct and that the official record should follow it, since a history written around persons produces two things the Republic has reason to avoid: a figure to be honoured, and a figure to be blamed, and a country able to make the second is able to make the first. Argument was made from the 1959 naming rule of the Directorate itself, which the movers described as the correct instinct in the wrong hands.

Grounds stated against

The Democratic Socialists and the Movement for Democracy opposed. The Democratic Socialists held that responsibility without names is not an assumed responsibility, and that the Cortius Report is readable precisely because it says who received it and did not publish it. The Movement for Democracy held that the resolution instructs an office of the state on how to write history, and that the instruction is the objectionable part regardless of its content. The National Traditionalists divided, four against and two abstaining.

Effect on existing texts

The official history was revised over a year and the current text names no person after 1890. Two hundred and forty names were moved to the annexes. The Office of Constitutional Revision recorded that no fact was removed and that the annexes are linked from every paragraph they support.

Presa comunal, Lindoma · Politics desk
The commitment that appears in no law: what the "complete democratic preservation project" actually is

7 August · Institutions desk

Where it comes from

The phrase appears in two places in the public record. The first is a joint standing decision of the Humanist Socialist Party, Environment and Justice, Shelter and Provision and the Democratic Socialists, registered on 3 February 2026 during the drafting of the present Constitution. The second is a resolution of the interim National Council of 9 March 2026, adopted 71 to 21, which instructs the Office of Democratic Integrity to report annually against the objectives set out in the first. No article of the Constitution uses the phrase and no organic law names it.

The four parties held 79 of 100 seats at the time of the second decision. Neither text creates a power, and both are drafted as commitments the signatories accept against themselves.

What the two decisions differ on

The February decision is about substance. It commits the signatories to treat the guarantees of Titles II, III and X as fixed, to bring no measure that would attain a result listed in Article 265 by indirection, and to accept the annual indicators of Article 261 as the measure of their own conduct in office.

The March resolution is about appearance, and says so in its opening paragraph. The Republic exports uranium concentrate, fuel assemblies and specialised components, and the European Union is the destination of most of what it licenses. Every licence carries a safeguards condition. The resolution records that a state which looks authoritarian from outside will lose that trade whatever its constitution says, that the loss would fall on provision, and that the appearance of democratic government is therefore a material interest of the Republic and not a matter of pride.

The Movement for Democracy voted against on the ground that a commitment made because it pays is worth less than one made because it is right. The Humanist Socialist mover answered that the Republic had already learned in 2024 what happens when a good intention has no consequence attached to it.

Anti-populism and anti-tension

There are three domestic limbs in the project.

The first is the de-personalisation of the official record, which reached the chamber later as Resolution 61 of 14 May and was adopted 68 to 19.

The second is a commitment against tension. The signatories undertake to bring no measure whose principal effect is to set one part of the population against another, to name no group in the recitals of a bill, and to answer any accusation levelled at a group by publishing the measurement instead. The Office reports on compliance and has no power to sanction.

The third concerns the classification power. Both the National Traditionalists and Shelter and Provision were classified under the 2024 safeguard, and the parties record that the abolition of that power in the present text is permanent, and that no signatory will propose its return under another name.

Misinformation and hybrid attack

The project's external limbs were drafted after the failure of 2025.

The signatories rule out prohibition. No signatory will propose an offence of falsehood, a licensing regime for publication, a state body empowered to determine what is true, or the allocation of resources to media by reference to what they publish, the last of these being void in any case under Article 265(1)(g).

What is proposed instead falls into four practices. Publish the underlying measurement, in open form, before the dispute arises. Answer within a working day, from the organ that holds the data, and never from a party. Concede a true element of a hostile claim in the first sentence of the answer, on the finding that a correction which concedes nothing is read as a denial. Leave the archive intact, including material that reflects badly on an organ, since a record with holes in it is the material the next campaign is built from.

The single named vulnerability is the uranium trade itself. The report notes that a campaign attributing a safeguards breach to the Republic would be cheap to run, hard to answer quickly, and expensive if believed, and that the answer to it exists only if the inspection records were public before anybody asked for them.

What it is not

The Office of Democratic Integrity confirmed in July that it holds no power under either decision beyond publication, that it classifies nobody, and that a signatory in breach faces no consequence except the finding. Asked whether a commitment enforceable by nothing is worth writing down, the head of the Office answered that the register exists so that people can check, and that a party which signed this and then acted against it would be doing so in front of the whole country.