by Sharon Fisher
With the second round of the presidential elections approaching on April 17, a feeling of frustration has swept through Slovakia, and many citizens will have difficulty voting for either of the two finalists. Both of the ruling parties’ candidates failed to make it to the second round, giving Slovak voters a choice between former prime minister Vladimir Meciar and his erstwhile ally, Ivan Gasparovic, neither of whom seem appropriate figureheads for a country that is joining both NATO and the European Union this year. Meciar, who is chairman of the opposition Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (HZDS), was widely responsible for Slovakia’s international isolation prior to his party’s defeat in the 1998 parliamentary elections due to his government’s disrespect for the rule of law, harassment of opponents, and misuse of public institutions. Although Gasparovic distanced himself from Meciar by leaving the HZDS prior to the 2002 parliamentary elections, he still deserves much of the blame for what happened in 1994–98, because he served as parliamentary chairman during that period. Meciar’s victory in the first round of the elections on April 3 was not unexpected, as he still has loyal supporters throughout the countryside, but few had anticipated the success of Gasparovic, who prevailed only thanks to support from the popular opposition party, Smer.
Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan’s first-round defeat came as a shock to many Slovaks. On the surface, it would seem that his lack of success was due largely to the poor timing of the elections, as tax and regulated price hikes that were implemented by the center-right government in January 2003 and 2004 have had a negative impact on purchasing power, particularly among socially disadvantaged groups. Taking advantage of that situation, the trade unions joined forces with several opposition parties in an effort to dismiss the cabinet by organizing a petition campaign for a referendum on early parliamentary elections. Left-leaning President Rudolf Schuster, who has made no secret of his dislike for Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda’s government, scheduled the referendum on the same day as the presidential elections, in the hope of attracting a higher turnout. Nonetheless, just 35.9% of the electorate took part in the referendum, far below the required 50% threshold.
While the low turnout in the referendum was good news for the cabinet, the presidential elections were disastrous, signaling rising complacency among voters and a lack of enthusiasm for the ruling parties’ candidates. Slovaks have struggled much harder than most for democracy and international acceptance, and with the country’s accession to NATO and the EU, many citizens mistakenly believed that they no longer had to fight. That attitude was also based on the positive outlook in public opinion polls, which showed Kukan with a comfortable lead over the other candidates. Turnout in the first round reached just 47.9%, which was much lower than in other recent elections, partly also due to nice weather. A clear sign that voters were uninspired by the candidates came in the ethnic Hungarian districts of southern Slovakia, where as little as one-fifth of the electorate turned out, despite the fact that ethnic Hungarians are usually loyal and disciplined voters.
Dzurinda’s party, the Slovak Democratic and Christian Union (SDKU), deserves much of the blame for Kukan’s failure, as the party’s communication with the electorate has been poor and its image has been tainted by scandals. The biggest factor in Kukan’s defeat was that the ruling coalition did not manage to agree on a common candidate, and again, that failure could be blamed on Dzurinda himself, as he proposed Kukan for the presidency without consulting his coalition partners. Kukan lost to Gasparovic by just 3,644 votes, while Frantisek Miklosko, who was backed by the ruling Christian Democrats (KDH) and the Party of the Hungarian Coalition (SMK), won 129,141 votes. Although the fourth ruling party, the Alliance of the New Citizen (ANO), had initially put forward its own candidate as well, he left the race well before the elections and endorsed Kukan. Another contender who took support from Kukan was Martin Butora, who was backed by various non-governmental organizations and by a party that recently broke away from the SDKU.
The results of the April 17 runoff and their effect on policy during the next five years remain uncertain. Since 1998, Slovakia has made tremendous headway in revamping its reputation, and Meciar’s victory would initially be very damaging symbolically. In that sense, Gasparovic may be a better choice, but only since he is less known than Meciar abroad. In practice, the ruling coalition may be better off dealing with Meciar than Gasparovic, who could become Smer’s puppet in an attempt to sabotage the cabinet’s work. In contrast, Meciar’s attempts at improving his image could make him more cooperative with the ruling parties, although his unpredictability remains a major problem. Given that Meciar has been a highly polarizing figure in political life throughout Slovakia’s post-communist transition, the outcome of the second round will depend largely on voter turnout and the ability of Gasparovic to mobilize anti-Meciar voters. While the extent of antipathy toward Meciar would normally give any opponent an easy lead, many democratically oriented citizens will be reluctant to vote at all. The SDKU and SMK have refused to support either candidate, while the KDH and ANO have gone so far as to instruct their supporters to stay home. A low turnout will work in Meciar’s favor.
Regardless of all the hoopla over Meciar’s probable victory in the second round, it must be noted that presidential powers are relatively weak, giving him little room to block cabinet decisions. Although Schuster vetoed many government laws during the past year, the ruling coalition easily overrode those decisions, even after losing its parliamentary majority last fall. Nonetheless, the impact of Kukan’s defeat will surely be felt in other ways. With Slovakia’s EU accession approaching on May 1, there has been a reluctance to instigate major shakeups in the cabinet. However, after that date, changes are expected, possibly reaching to the highest levels. Still, we expect that economic reforms will continue, since all four ruling parties remain committed to bringing change. The presidential election results may actually have a positive impact on the current political situation, as they will make the ruling parties more aware of the need for cooperation among themselves and better communication with voters.
