At a security conference in Munich, Czech student Petr Macinka sparked contrasting reactions from the audience with his sharp criticism of Hillary Clinton. While some applauded his boldness, others noted a significant argumentative flaw in the manner he debated with Polish Minister Radosław Sikorski on the topic of the European Union's democratic deficit. Macinka defended himself by stating that he extensively covered this theme in his thesis, a contention made more public after Deputy Prime Minister's comments. Sokol, who is currently a member of the ODS and was Macinka's thesis opponent, reflected on the media discussion surrounding the thesis after the fact. He stated that the thesis was well-written and formally sound, warranting a high grade. However, he also expressed that his personal disagreements with some of the thesis's conclusions do not detract from its academic quality. Sokol's remarks indicate a careful distinction between academic merit and political discourse, emphasizing that civic agreement is not necessary for academic assessment. The debate about the European Union's democratic deficit, as highlighted by Sokol, often falls into oversimplified arguments that do not sufficiently engage with the complexities involved. This ongoing discussion is crucial in understanding how political narratives shape public perception of democratic integrity within the EU, and it raises broader questions about how political discussions are framed and the role of academic work in political debates.