Petr Macinka, a prominent Czech figure, stirred considerable discussion at the Munich Security Conference with his sharp criticism directed toward former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While many appreciated his bold rhetoric, others, including his thesis opponent Petr Sokol, criticized him for employing a logical fallacy during his debate with Polish Minister Radosław Sikorski concerning the European Union's democratic deficit. Sokol, who currently serves as a member of parliament for the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), provided context to the criticism by pointing to the details of Macinka's thesis, which he had reviewed following the media coverage surrounding the conference.

In an interview, Sokol asserted that he would not have revisited Macinka’s master’s thesis had it not been for its recent use as a political tool by the Deputy Prime Minister. He affirmed that the thesis was rated highly for its structural integrity and writing quality. However, he expressed that he, as both a citizen and politician, might disagree with some of its conclusions, especially when used in political discourse. Sokol also discussed the notion of 'democratic deficit,' arguing that the discourse surrounding it often relies on oversimplification of complex issues, making it crucial to engage earnestly with such critiques rather than resort to fallacies.

The implications of this debate extend beyond academic circles, hinting at the broader challenges within political discussions about the EU and democratic governance. The exchange highlights how academic qualifications can intersect with public political discourse, raising questions about the responsibilities of scholars and policy advocates in their public engagements. This incident serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining rigorous argumentation standards, especially in arenas where policy impacts are significant.