I don’t want this bit of the article to sound like a defense of official clerks and bureaucracy. I am pointing out that, figuratively speaking, the state cannot rely on its army in an environment where corrupting pressure is being exerted. On the one hand, political parties must realize that a government office is not conquered territory. It is also necessary to increase repressive measures against those who are facilitating corruption or even organizing it. It is necessary to increase repressive measures against those who are facilitating corruption or organizing it.
In this context, the incommensurability of the duties of a diligent manager in the private sector and the public sector sticks out like a sore thumb. In the private sector, liability for damage arises regardless of culpability, i.e. through the simple fact that damage has been incurred due to a breach of duty. Liability for damage is not limited and, in the event of any doubt, the burden of proof is transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant.
We can in an almost-live transmission form ourselves an idea of what the situation is like in the public sector by using the contract for the technical support for the EU presidency as an example — somehow no one bears responsibility for this.
I would recommend dealing with this marked asymmetry by amending the law on budgetary rules as well as the law on the assets of the Czech Republic.