Please note that these opinions are wholly mine and are not to, in anyway meant to pin one group of people against another, but has been written in the most fair and objective way that I have been able to write.
For more than eleven years, Liberland has presented itself to the world as a bold experiment in liberty, voluntary association, and limited government. Yet for the past year or so, a clear and deepening political divide has emerged within the community itself. While this division is not primarily about policy details or competing visions of free-market economics, it is though, at its core, a split over support for—and opposition to—President Vít Jedlička. Although the antithesis of the growing divisions could be said to involve a more nuanced “suits vs settlers” as other journalists have noted, my take is that the reasoning is more a lack of a unified community based on common needs and interests. Liberland does bring together a wide spectrum of people together and the phrase “it’s like herding cats” is one that I have used before to simplify how difficult it is to get people to agree on certain actions. An example of one that was quite strange to me was that for a particular meeting several people raised a fuss over the use of software that included things like Google Meet and WhatsApp. This may appear to be an unusual argument for most people, for circles within Liberland and outlying heavily privacy centered communities this is common place though.
On one side stands the pro-Jedlička camp, which views the founder and president as the indispensable architect of the Liberland project and the necessary continuity figure for any future progress. On the other side stands a growing opposition that has coalesced around Congressman Dorian Stern and Mirek Kaspar. This faction argues that the project has stagnated under the current leadership and that meaningful reform requires structural change. Members of Congress and candidates for Congress have increasingly aligned themselves with one camp or the other. The result is no longer a healthy debate among freethinkers; it is the formation of opposing political blocs. It was not until after my first Liberland Congress debate that I moderated back in December of last year that I realized that there was such a divide among the candidates, I wish I had known this prior to the debate as my questions would have been more pointed and I may have formatted the event differently as well.
The opposition has gone further in their work though. Recently they have formally created a fork from the main Liberland community, It is an alternative governance structure that operates separately from the institutions centered on Jedlička’s leadership. This development marks a significant escalation. What began as criticism has become institutional separation. While the organization was originally to be positioned as an alternative administration to the current Liberland government they have made it clear that they wish to be considered as a wholly independent legal entity from Liberland including but not limited to a new name, a different land location from the current claim of Gornja Siga, among other such changes.
I was personally recruited into this opposition Congress and I accepted the position for one reason only: as a journalist and as Editor-in-Chief of Liberland Press, it is my responsibility to understand why a faction of Liberlanders felt compelled to create such a fork in the first place. One cannot properly report on the current state of Liberland while remaining willfully ignorant of the grievances driving a significant portion of the community. Investigation requires access, and access sometimes requires temporary participation. I entered with open eyes and a clear mandate—to observe, to listen, and to report accurately to the broader Liberland community. I want to be clear that I wanted to bring these two factions back together by working with both sides, it became quickly apparent to me however that neither side would want to actively speak with the other.
I want to be extremely clear that it is on this point alone in which these two factions have become so entrenched on in that neither side will communicate with the other in a meaningful way. Both sides will claim to be in talks with the other but I personally can attest that nothing substantial work has been done because of the inherent mistrust both parties have with each other. I will not disclose all of the information that I had gathered during this time period because I do not want to agitate both sides more than they are already at but I will say I understand the dynamics of the situation but I do not agree though with the rhetoric and actions that have occurred as a result of the various though.
At the end of June I formally resigned from the position of the opposition Congress. I did so only because I saw no meaningful progress toward strengthening the community of Liberland. I was hopeful in the beginning that I may be able to find a way to bring both sides together. It is a shame for me though that the energy that would have been directed toward concrete reforms for Liberland was instead consumed by the politics of opposition itself. We cannot allow ourselves to be consumed by the very same partisan politics that countries around the world deal with every day, Liberland was created to be an alternative to the way all other governments around the globe operated and conduct themselves.
One observation from that period is worth stating plainly: the opposition Congress has been far more active in attempting to conduct legislative business than the main Congress. This may be due in part to greater internal agreement on certain issues among its members. Even so, the contrast itself underscores a clear and urgent need—an active, functioning Congress that actually deliberates, drafts, and advances measures rather than remaining largely inert. A free society cannot be governed by inactivity. As I stated before however, certain issues are from being agreed upon including their proposals at a constitution among other topics.
Both sides must now confront an uncomfortable truth. After eleven years, the current government has still not ratified and submitted a constitution to the citizens of Liberland for their consideration and consent. After eleven years, the operations of government remain far less transparent than the principles of liberty demand. And after eleven years, background checks on prospective citizens remain insufficiently robust—with real consequences.
This last point is not theoretical. People with various felony convictions, including offenses that would still be recognized as crimes even under a consistently libertarian legal order, have in fact become citizens of Liberland. I have personally seen and reviewed court records that attest to this. The existence of such cases is not a matter of rumor or partisan accusation; it is a documented reality that any serious free society must address. A voluntary community cannot sustain trust, security, or credibility if it admits individuals whose past actions demonstrate a willingness to violate the rights of others, yet fails to maintain rigorous, transparent screening. Robust background checks are not a concession to authoritarianism. They are a basic requirement of self-preservation for any society that claims to value individual rights.
These are not supposed to be seen as partisan talking points. These issues I raise are structural necessities that large numbers of Liberlanders across the current divide could reasonably support. Consider a few concrete examples of proposals I have advanced both as Editor-in-Chief of Liberland Press and as a candidate for Liberland Congress.
First, the formal ratification and submission of a constitution to the citizens. After more than a decade, the absence of a clear, publicly ratified foundational document remains the single largest institutional gap. A constitution that defines the limits of government power, the rights of citizens, and the basic rules of the political order is not a left or right issue; it is the prerequisite for any coherent free society.
Second, meaningful transparency reforms. These include clearer public reporting of decisions, resource allocation, and official actions, along with mechanisms that allow citizens to follow and question the work of their representatives. Transparency is the practical expression of the principle that government exists to serve the people who consent to it, not the reverse.
Third, budget and fiscal processes that incorporate greater citizen input and modern tools such as smart contracts where appropriate. A system in which citizens can see how resources are prioritized, and in which certain routine processes are automated and auditable, reduces both opacity and the potential for arbitrary decision-making.
Fourth, practical support for settlement and intentional communities as the real foundation of Liberland’s future. Without people living, working, and building on the ground under clear and stable rules, the project remains largely theoretical. Strengthening the conditions for settlement is a shared interest, not a factional one.
Fifth, the creation of limited advisory boards or similar structures focused on specific domains—settlement, marketing and outreach, technical infrastructure—so that expertise can be brought to bear without concentrating unchecked power. These are modest, functional proposals aimed at competence rather than ideology.
None of these ideas requires one side to capitulate to the other. They represent common ground that can be advanced by any serious Congress, whether the main body or any alternative structure. The fact that the opposition Congress has shown greater legislative activity only highlights how much is lost when the primary institutions remain largely inactive.
The existence of the fork is evidence that there are Liberlanders who no longer believe these reforms will emerge from the current structure without pressure. The persistence of the pro-Jedlička camp is evidence that many others still place their trust in the founding leadership and fear that open conflict will destroy the project entirely. Both concerns contain elements of truth. Neither justifies indefinite paralysis.
Liberland was never supposed to replicate the factionalism and institutional stagnation of the systems it sought to escape. Yet that is precisely the path we are on if the two camps continue to treat each other as enemies rather than as co-owners of an unfinished experiment. The president’s supporters must accept that loyalty to a founder does not require permanent exemption from institutional accountability. The opposition must accept that creating parallel structures without a clear, constructive program for the main community risks fragmentation without progress.
The path forward is not complicated, though it will require maturity from all sides. Ratify a constitution and place it before the citizens. Strengthen background checks so that citizenship retains meaning and the documented problems of the past are not repeated. Increase transparency so that trust can be rebuilt rather than demanded. Build an active Congress capable of doing the actual work of legislation. Engage seriously with the practical proposals already on the table. These steps do not require one side to surrender to the other. They require both sides to remember why Liberland was founded in the first place.
I firmly believe though that many of those in the opposition group will stay in their break off group and not coalesce within what should be considered the main Liberland community for the foreseeable future.
I resigned from the opposition Congress because I concluded that the most useful contribution I could make was not to deepen the divide, but to report on it honestly and to insist that the underlying problems be addressed. That remains my position as Editor-in-Chief. Liberland does not need more factions. It needs the courage to finish the work it began eleven years ago.
The fork is real. The division is real. The evidence of inadequate screening is real. The relative inactivity of the main Congress is real. The choice before us is also real: continue down the path of mutual suspicion, or return to the hard, unglamorous work of building institutions worthy of a free people. The community deserves better than stalemate. It is time both sides acted accordingly.
Liberland has been very resilient in its history and will weather this event too, it is just a matter of how many people will actually break away and not come back?
cons?