History pur-sang: poisonous 19th-Century Nationalism

Perhaps it is given by the time of the year; the days are shortening, the snowflakes start to fall, Christmas decorations everywhere. It's a period, where slowly one begins to look back to the past year. Why? It does make one feel good perhaps. Perhaps it's in human's nature to do so.

Even politicians begin to draw conclusions. At least one would expect. The current coalition is technically at its end, and a new campaign culminating in parliament elections is ahead of us. But somehow I have the feeling, that instead of making a political inventory, the coalition is about to create smoke curtains instead. Suddenly, we have an Act on Nationality and national symbols in the media, where politicians argue, how good it is to sing national anthems in school, because we need to be proud to be Slovaks (author is exlcuded).

When leaders start using murky polemics, I get rashes. Why is it - especially now - suddenly an issue, to have a necessity to feel proud of being a Slovak? When does one feel pride for one own's background, heritage, culture? In my view, when a society ('nation') has achieved great things; when it excells in noble deeds, progress, cultural achievements.

True, Slovaks have a slight dent in their national pride awareness. But in all fairness - when one sees greedy politicians hording millions of Euros into their own pockets - not to forget also of those close to them, when you see indecent and inappropriate vulgar behaviour (to put it mildly) by coalition party-leaders, tenders which are meant to tunnel funds into companies of cronies, lies and so on, one cannot help but feeling a bit... well, .. embarrassed.

The current humbug about the nationality question is perhaps a mere naive attempt of politicians to appear doing good deeds for one's country. Instead, they increase the antipathy towards themselves and create further gaps between the population and themselves.

In a recent radio broadcast, there was a discussion in this matter. A parallel was drawn between the Italian public school crusifixes and state symbols. There is absolutely no limit to the shallowness of the politicians' rhetorics. A crucifix should be a symbol for 2000 years of European [christian] culture?! May I just remind, that not until the 10th or 11th century Europe was indeed christened to a certain extent. Before that Europe had other religions. simply put; a 2000 year christian European tradition simply does not exist, and neither the mentioned "fact", that the solstice celebration was "a Slavic tradition". It was a tradition that existed outside the Slavic boundaries as well, as was the case with the Celts, Germanic Tribes, and so on. These fanatic attempts of Slovak politicians to appeal to this, gives me a kind of déjà vu of the crooked ideology of the Third Reich, with their swastika's and believes in a pure arian heritage, or the fanaticism of Mao's Cultural Revolution, or Kim Il-Sung's North Korea. Let's not get carried away by propaganda, and keep historic facts within their correct contexts, facts and boundaries and not stealing attributes to your tiny group of followers. Europe has many influences, many of them even non-christian. There are people, like me, who do not wish to be forced watching crucifixes, as they are equally a symbol of the crusades, the inquisition, the senseless demonisation and persecution of the Jewish population of Europe and beyond. Those are our rights too. It's not that I mind others having their own symbols - please, have as many as you want. But since 1945, we have realised and understood what blind cultural and religious monopolies could lead to.

The attempts are clearly to cover up many things which the present government failed to manage - maybe even more controversies, which we are not aware of yet. But they are silly, shallow, sophist blabberings of a bad kind of regents without any scruples, who are using mere 19th century nationalism to poison people's minds. Such a pity that more than 40% still blindly believes them. And we thought we were in a Europe of the 21st century. Eagerly I am craving for some fresh air and a common sense to land here. L'histoire se répète. Maybe yes. Woe unto us!

MS

The Value of Education

Human beings are in principle conservative creatures; they feel safe within certain traditional patterns and tend to resist to 'unknown' changes. Moreover, people tend to cling on to prejudices. With these two givens, a society's behaviour is explained - though only superficially. How to effectively break through such a pattern, especially when we have to open society to become more transparent and progressive. I am referring to situation, where a specific society has suffered from a totalitarian past and desperately needs changes to become truly democratic in values and deeds.

We can think of a variety of true life examples to demonstrate the aforementioned: One that comes first to my mind is the case of Germany - especially the former West-Germany. It needs no long elaboration to describe the pre-1945 status of German society. Immediately after Germany's capitulation, an educational programme was implemented, that should educate young people to become democratic members of their new post-war society. The overall success was perhaps, as it was 'imposed' by the occupying allied (Western) forces. As to the morality of whether a triumphant power should be able to impose their political views on the other shall not be the subject of this blog. It can be argued, that in the case as it was of the Third Reich-ideology the necessity is clearly without any discussion.

Currently, as I regularly report on the political situation in Slovakia, we can clearly see evidence of the opposite trend. Whereas political mismanagement thrives, the change against its unethical behaviour is minimal - rest a few individual exceptions. Nevertheless, the majority is either indifferent, ignorant about the possible repercussions, or too passive.

While we should not delve on non-scientific approaches by claiming e.g. that such is "in the genes of the people or nation", there is however indeed a clear cause for these deficiencies in society: Education. It is not so much, that education taught this society for more than 40 years that the Soviet Union was a paradise, which of course is not the case any longer. After 20 years since the 1989 revolution, textbooks are - to an extend - leaving totalitarian socialism behind them. It is more a problem, where pupils are hardly taught about values beyond these textbooks. Teachers-Old-Style prefer subservient students - you do not ask critical questions to your teacher, you learn to recite what he told you, giving a (wrong) signal that it clearly doesn't pay off to be critical, to question injustice, etc. It's safer to keep quiet, go with the flow: The bully will win.

If such basic skills - those that we take for granted in the West, are not instilled onto young pupils, young grown-ups have hardly an example to follow. Society has only a superficial coating of being a modern and a free society, while inside the old structures still ravage and very successfully. The fact that schools lack money - and it is not really about having a pc for every student - it reflects on the payslip of staff, who is - and let's be honest - grossly unmotivated and for a part unskilled enough to face this task.

It has been throughout history a repeated slogan; our youth is our future. Whether anyone will remember such slogans from darker times, it must be admitted that it is a true statement. Ignoring youth will eventually lead your society down the slope. There will be no competitiveness - economically that is - and the fading of ethical or demacratic values leads to political instability. Education is not about learning an alphabet, or being able to add, subtract, divide and multiply. It is a value, which is vital for a society to survive, and therefore beyond any value. It's worth it!

MS

The Game of Politics - A Matter of Responsibilities...

It can be argued, that power and the role of those who are in power has changed over the centuries. Was it only to control your property in the ancient times, nowadays, when we have painfully crawled out of the straight-jacket of absolutist monarchies and slowly introduced the rights for each individual citizen, our perception of the roles of states and their politicians is somewhat modified. As the basis nowadays is the overall public interest, government is responsible - answerable - to society how it is dealing with this responsibility. In the end, the citizen as the sponsor of the state, by means of taxation, is one of the stakeholders in the game. A logical consequence,... one might say. But is it?

Societies in the 'West', at least those where I had the privilege to dwell for a shorter or longer period, usually would follow such given. Of course, you always find a rotten apple somewhere, but that's usually on an exceptional basis. Once a politician 'screws up', where his reputation is disputable - even in the event, this is perhaps only because of an alleged controversy - his career is at risk, sometimes followed by resignation.

Yet Slovakia follows a completely different equation of power. Yesterday, we had the second round  for the local government elections. For those who monitor the political scene, it is highly remarkable how things tend to go in the opposite direction. If you see that your sink is about to overflow, you turn off the water. Not so.

The present coalition government has without any scruples demonstrated that their sole interest in governing is not to secure public interest at all but nothing else than enriching themselves. Anything getting into the open - mostly accidentally - is opposed as a 'bad machination of the bad press to smear the reputation of the Republic', while meanwhile the whole tunneling simply continues.

Not only has the ruling Socialist party of Prime Minister Fico transgressed against several legal regulations during the aforementioned elections, causes that cost society billions of euros are defended for months and months. Hardly an image, that would make any western politician publicly credible enough to retain his title of a politician. It turns a politician straight into a a criminal. On top of it, Mr Fico has defended his political views with blatant lies about the pre-1989 period. Perhaps even to the post-1989 generation this is an obvious phantasy and for a politician a dangerous statement to make, when almost everybody can prove the opposite to be true.

Fico and his cohorts have cunningly put this scheme together; pass a law, which curbs free journalism, then slowly moving Minister of Justice Harabin (who had proven contacts with the drug mafia - should never have been a justice minister in the first place, let alone a supreme judge) into the post of presiding the Supreme Court: Suppress all negative publications - claims that are bringing newspapers to bankruptcy. The court procedures are obviously decided upfront (remember who rules the courts). In case it would end at the European Court (and one does not need to be a high shot lawyer to guess who will be reprimanded), any compensation will be paid out of the state budget (taxpayers' money) - the individual politicians will be the big winners.

What would you expect would happen in such a case? No, you are dead wrong; the result is that the ruling party remains a comfortable majority of around 40%. In other words, this game will go on for a while, till the national treasury chest will be empty. While EU commissions scrutinize potential new member states, Slovakia can continue its tunneling without any pressure from Brussels. So far. True is that several EU projects are currently under investigation, but the victim will be the Slovak taxpayer. 40% is quite an achievement! Politics without responsibilities. Just a horde of thieves. Wouldn't you be sad?

MS

The legacy of 1989

Today is the famous date, when 20 years ago the Velvet Revolution started in Czechoslovakia. Twenty years is a long time, although I remember it very vividly - as if it was just yesterday. But, as we all know, everything is relative, also these 20 years can be perceived differently.

In any case, the period has proven that living in freedom - or rather learning finally to live in the long yearned for freedom is a lengthy process. In November 1989 Czechoslovakia was a proud country, bursting with confidence, doing away with its communist government, where a dissident became suddenly their president. Two nations regained together their freedom and somehow remembered their 1918-spirit, where both nations linked together under Masaryk to emerge from the ruins (and century old domination) of the Habsburg Empire. Yet this freedom soon brought forth cracks that would eventually lead into a split of these two nations. While I have always regarded - having lived abroad - my background being Czechoslovak, this split was for me in a way a big disappointment. Obviously, each nation has a right to live its own life - govern its own state, that is. Fortunately the split was also smooth: after a Velvet Revolution we had a Velvet divorce.

Living in Slovakia, has given me some remarkable insights, which definitively make me convinced, that the split of the two states was a good thing to have happened. Not only because of the aforementioned statement, but it has made me clear, that Czechs and Slovaks, despite their linguistic similarities, are in fact indeed different people. Despite even the formative years of being one state (1918-1939 and 1945-1992). The 20 years, especially 16 years independent developments, have shown results which appear almost as if Czechs and Slovaks are (were) the complete opposites.

What pains me a bit is that whilst Czech media, Czech government and other groups commemorate the enthralling events of 1989, Slovakia's politicians systematically trivialise the events, and more and more behave like the cronies of the pre-1989 period. Prime Minister Fico declared earlier that he "didn't notice" any November 1989. Being a student it is hard to imagine that he couldn't notice. Not only stated Fico the fact that there are more important events in Slovak history (meaning that November 1989 was therefore indeed insignificant?), even planned an official  trip to Moscow - of all places! - during these commemorative days.

An academic conference (I would like to add, it was purely pseudo-science happening) about the revolution organised by the governing party was held. Instead of some substantive discussions, Mr Paška - Chairman of Parliament and co-member of Fico's political party, addressed a crowd - exclusively consisting of allied parties only - and emotionally propagated an analysis, which could easily be carbon-copied from the former communist demagogues, more appropriate during party rallies rather than an academic conference.

Such signals by such politicians, plus the fact that news in the Slovak public media is visibly censored - or at least distorted - are a slap in the face of those, who have once stood in the streets and squares back in 1989. When following both Slovak and Czech programs on television, I am deeply saddened, that this society has allowed such government to go so far. In all fairness, there are of course exceptions, those individuals, who indeed do care, who do whatever they can, yet they face a strong wall, which is erected by ignorance, indifference, and criminal mafia-practices among political key players. Yet through this, both countries have demonstrated to be of a different substance.

The legacy of 1989 is difficult to describe in one sentence. But freedom is a brittle state, which needs time to mature and to ripen before society will have a profound understanding of their responsibility towards freedom. As long as freedom means nepotism, manipulation, preaching hatred towards minorities, then there's still a long way to go. 1989 Teaches us that ordinary people en masse can perhaps overturn a seemingly all-powerful regime, to maintain the good spirit of those days has proven to be more difficult. A nice thought was discussed in a recent documentary; Living in a "bad regime but with good people around" was more bearable than living in a "good regime with bad people around you". The latter seems more prominent nowadays.

My foreign background gives me indeed a peculiar magnifying glass when looking on society and politics as a whole. While I am partly proud of originating from this region, I equally do realise, that those many years abroad have made me feel more and more that perhaps my compatibility with this region unfortunately is somehow fading. In my view, the legacy is to keep on working and questioning every step of society: to find the best way towards an ethical and moral society. Present day excuse-attitudes are inexcusable, it is manipulative, blinding, and will only lead to painful erring. The deplorable and lamentable state of a corrupted judicial system and restriction of freedom of speech is not what 1989 should have brought us, it is exactly the opposite. True is that one can freely travel and has more freedom than before 1989, yet Slovakia cannot afford to remain complacent. There's still much to be done as potential danger lurks.

As for now; will attend today the Central European Forum in Bratislava, to show my support for the real spirit.

MS

Religious sophism

Living a life of an informed citizen, one becomes critical. Especially, when the surrounding consists of political mischief and debates which hold little valid arguments. Therefore one of my favourite publications is the Slovak magazine ".týžden" - probably derived its content including its layout from the American periodical Newsweek. Enjoying every week critical and though-inspiring comments, I eagerly follow the RSS feeds.

Not that I find time to read all of them; admittedly, I accumulate more than approximately one thousand feeds in a few hours, so I have to be selective. One headline I initially left aside; a reaction on the European court ruling, that public schools should dispose of their crucifixes. A matter, which one would tend to ignore in the early 21st century one would say. Yet I decided to have a closer look, as religious debates are still - more or less - one of my interests. 

The author Jaroslav Daniška, comments on this very Italian matter. Is there a connection to Slovakia? The fact that Berlusconi began to feel the hot breath in his neck since the court decided to lift his imunity was an issue completely ignored in the Slovak media (would it be too uncomfortable, probably even resulting in a precedent for the present cleptocratic coalition?), this has become important feature. Why?

Let's be fair; to a degree it can be understood, that a measure, which has repercussions to some centuries-old Catholic practices, is attracting some attention abroad as well. But, in all objectiveness, the verdict stipulates (as far as I am aware) that religious symbols - i.e. the crucifixes - are to be banned and this pertains to public schools - and public schools only.

What the author started in his (video) blog, is a correct identification of the aforementioned fact. But them he slips into a dangerous argumentation: He labels this prohibition being equally to the ban of religion from public life as during the totalitarian (communist) era. His pleading is somewhat pathetique as the reasoning and comparison is way off appropriate.

First of all; perhaps Rome may be both capital of Italy and the centre of Roman Catholicism, there is no valid argument to proclaim, that Italy is per sé a country which deserves Catholic symbols everywhere. Whether you like it or not, even in Italy, there are enough people who are of perhaps Jewish, protestant, islamic, Sikh or for the sake of it, atheist background. Must every parent, from a different denomination be forced to be confronted with Roman Catholic symbols, just because he or she happens to live in bella Italia??? Come off sir! We are past way beyond the Inquisition era, and we have a freedom of religion. In case you stick to your religious symbols and rites, I wish you all the freedom to do so, and therefore you can enroll in Catholic schools, of which you will be able to find more than enough around there. 

Somehow I get allergy rashes by this type of unjustified religious whining. To avoid misunderstanding, I am very open to other thoughts, and in my eyes, everybody has all the right and space to practice his or her believes - provided I have also my space. Peace to them all. But, labelling the said (in my view a fair and tolerant) court ruling as being an attack to Italian Roman Catholicism, religion in general and comparing it to communism from the past is a very ludicrous and poor debating level. It's no more than pure sophism. Maybe Slovaks are perhaps still overly happy with their freedom of religion, which they regained only since 1989 and thus sensitive to anything related to Catholicism. Don't make it however into a pathetic crusade and indirectly offending other religious minorities. This is unworthy of your magazine, and somewhat a disappointment in your quality. Or is it a confirmation, that you are far from ready to be an open society after all? Let's hope not. I consider it still a faux pas - at least a slip of the tongue - giving a wrong signal, and hopefully it will not be repeated again. 

MS

BBC discussion in Slovakia

   As I am a frequent watcher of BBC television, I was witnessing the latest television broadcasting of BBC Question Time where the British National Party leader Nick Griffin was one of the guests in the panel. The attention was rather triggered by the protests on the BBC premises, so I was eagerly waiting for the programme to be aired. Nick Griffin, in my view, made a complete fool of himself, mostly because of his frequent contradictions and argumentation which were too shallow to be taken seriously, and thus taking him seriously as a politician was therefore out of the question.
   Whether the set-up of Question Time was ideal, is not exactly what I want to delve on, as I doubt whether Mr Griffin would be capable to withstand any critical BBC confrontation, regardless of whatever set-up, or a one-to-one discussion with another political figure. He may protest and complain to the BBC as much as he wants - as he did the next day - but the truth is, that exposure by media is the best way to publicly show what kind of politician we have, and it is rather his limited capability which is the obstacle to himself.
   There is however a more alarming issue, which made me a bit uncomfortable. Obviously, a Slovak newspaper reported on the aforementioned matter, with a link to YouTube, as the BBC in principle is not available in Slovakia. What is alarming, are the discussions that followed after the article. It can be understood that perhaps some British citizen feels a resentment against some neglected political issues, and therefore - as an act of protest - votes for a party, even if this party may have some controversial principles. But it is their own milieu, concerning their daily life. What shocked me immediately, was the extremist and racist tone of some of the Slovak comments, condemning the BBC (for attacking Mr Griffin), and having some ideas and impressions, which would perfectly fit among the rank and files of the BNP. 
   True is, that (and this is confirmed by some prominent Slovaks) this society is far from cosmopolitan; it has little experience with foreign cultures - and indeed because of this being latent xenophobic. This can explain their sophist argumentation on Britain's imigration issues. Perhaps 99% of them never were in Britain, that aside. What disturbs me, is the uneasiness of common people to see the valuable role of media in a democratic society. Unlike the Czech Republic or Britain, Slovakia has a 'public TV network' which is controlled by government (and yes, censorship is not uncommon). Therefore objective news is hard to find. Those who are objective, and critical, face court with financial compensations that bring them on the verge of ruin. 
   The most integer president candidate Iveta Radičová - who unfortunately didn't make it - once stated that Slovakia has remained a village. Education is grossly neglected, therefore teaching people from a young age ethical values and becoming critical remains just a wishful thinking. Society has a trend to be indifferent instead of alert and much wrong can thrive endlessly, since hardly anyone feels a responsibility of his role as a citizen towards his own society. 
  A critical and well balanced talkshow on Slovak television is non existent, journalists lack a solid and supportive background, and leading politicians behave as if communism never left. The few exceptions are, despite their good intentions, a weak minority who will hardly reach considerable influence. It was another show of what this society thinks and wants. The result will be felt in a few years time, far too late, when they realise how destructive their leaders were, and how their passive role gave them all the leeway to do so. BBC-type standards media would be highly desirable. Just a few see that fact, because the majority doesn't understand this at all.

MS

Political reality

As I lived most of my life abroad, I can say that I was fortunate enough to have a close experience with other environments, witnessing different political systems, closely watch various trends in journalism and compare notes with every day people how they perceived their own society around them. No matter how much one reads books or magazines, such experiences are worth more than one can fathom, and surely give a person a rich contribution to his own baggage.

While my background equally confronted me with totalitarian systems, the more I have a three-dimensional comparison to make with my day-to-day events. Readers of my articles know me for my highly critical opinion, and it is no secret, that either my professional interaction as well as personal observations in present day Slovakia are frequently - if not always - dealing with analysis of trends that are disturbing, to say the least.

Last Thursday, we were awaiting a discussion programme on Slovak television. Before elaborating on the contents of the said telecast, let me first explain the background: Journalist Štefan Hríb, with a brief career path with Radio Free Europe, has for some years moderated a discussion programme, covering all sorts of subjects from science, sports up to politics. He got a name for being highly articulate about certain issues, not afraid of criticising government. His critical tone caused his programme to be banned from Slovak state television, but was later on taken over by a commercial network.

The political situation in Slovakia is - unfortunately - far from ideal. Twenty years after the so-called Velvet revolution of 1989, there is a high suspicion (and it can be easily demonstrated) that old structures from communist times are back. We are talking about infiltration of political figures into the courts and intimidation of judges, causing the judicial system to be completely incredible. Scandals, in which high ranking politicians are involved, which are costing society millions if not billions Euros, while at the same time urgent problems regarding pensions, health-care or even education, are visibly neglected. After some revealing broadcasts with judges and politicians, Mr Hríb insisted also to invite Prime Minister Fico, to come to his programme to give his points of view and to provide him also a fair chance to oppose perhaps some misunderstandings around his functioning.

It must be said, that the Prime Minister has a peculiar way of communicating to the press; when being asked critical questions, resorting to name-calling ("you journalists are idiots", "media is only writing lies and filth", "media is politicising problems, it's not your role to act like an opposition in Parliament"). Perhaps, Mr Fico still believes in the ideal situation, where media during communism should write pro-party statements. In addition, current moderators of political programmes have hardly the guts to ask real critical questions, which is appalling for someone who is used to e.g. Ted Koppel, Jeremy Paxman or Sir David Frost.

Admittedly, I was tremendously surprised to read an announcement the other day, that the Prime Minister accepted to come to the programme. Even to the extent, that I was convinced, that he would cancel at the very last moment (as is common). But he came. Now the question was, how long will he last, eventually to walk out on the show.

The atmosphere was clearly a bit nervous; Mr Fico elaborated on Slovakia's soccer victory the previous day (mind you, the only goal against Poland was their own), visibly stalling time and attempting to move away from political themes. Nevertheless Hríb stepped in and moved towards the relevant issues. Leaving overall details aside, there were a few things that could be noticed: The Prime Minister made a one-man show of it, babbling about propagandistic shallow and empty phrases, and had no intention to answer some critical points.

The reviews after (even during) the show were tremendous: Whether on Facebook or other forums, Hríb's programme was highly cristicised, for not being too strict. Having followed the programme till the end, I had a very, but indeed very awful feeling. And it took me several hours to recover from the blow. What in fact was the whole bottom line of this?

Firstly, I would like to start by stating that I do not fully understand the negative tone against moderator Hríb. When following Fico's media performances, it was clear from the onset, that any type of in-depth discussion is practically impossible. And it could be sensed, that Hríb had to balance a bit to keep the discussion going - the risk was realistically there, that if insulted, Fico would immediately leave. In fact, in my opinion Hríb should be actually saluted for this achievement. Those critics should try it for themselves, comparing themselves perhaps (and ridiculously) with just a Larry King.

Further to Mr Fico, I can truly add this: A Prime-Minister, who should be responsible for all his coalition-members' actions whilst denying any kind of responsibility ("that's their internal party's problem"); A Prime-Minister, with a laywer background, who publicly proclaimed before any court verdict the guilt of a young Slovak citizen, who sactions dodgy businesses and embezzlements, is not even by chance worthy to be a politician. A Prime-Minister who admits not reading newspapers and magazines, is out of touch with reality. A Prime-Minister, who things he is able to say that morale is not a political issue, that as long as the laws are kept (which in fact they are NOT) deserves nothing else but to be sacked immediately.

The saddest thing is, that despite his high-handed performance, like an autoritarian regent, his preferences are unbelievably high. The Slovak public seems to be indeed more interested in a free goulash, roll and a pint during elections, rather than realising, that with Fico the whole country is going totally bankrupt. Both economically but also even morally. Decency and ethics are foreign words - probably even banned due to the new Language Act. And this has lead to the fact that your pensions will soon be dried up, your health-care will crumble down soon. Not to think of other catastrophic scenarios. You can feast on your free goulash, but it will not save you from reality; the situation for which every Slovak will have to pay for in the future. The said TV programme has shown the real face of Fico. It has demonstrated, that Fico is an incompetent lawyer, is a ruthless, opportunistic and a coward spineless politician, still dreaming of the socialist era, and enjoying a cult that could equal Stalin or Kim Il Sung. In a West-European country, which in fact is a EU -partner, Fico would be a nobody. It is sad, that there is not a Slovak majority that wants to understand this. The only response is shrugging shoulders. What else could I think of this?...

MS

The Slovak Language Act - Just a matter of communication

   Everyday life, whether in the office, school, on the train, shop, or at home depends a great deal on communication. It is essential for us to function and most of all, to co-exist. We have created certain conventions on what is appropriate and when. Throughout generations, these conventions have been passed down the line, some have slightly changed, other replaced, where it was the general public initiating or approving these changes. When changes come (forcibly) from 'above', then a certain tension appears between the powers. In principle, mutual respect should be prevailing.
   Slovakia has recently passed a bill through Parliament, which - to say the least - has caused heated discussions. It is said to guarantee the access of information to all Slovak citizens; or to be more exact, that Slovak speaking citizens can insist on information in the Slovak language, especially when living in an area - like Southern Slovakia - where there is a considerable Hungarian speaking minority, and where Hungarian is commonly used. 
   Considering, I would enter a Hungarian supermarket, and would not be able to get through because of the language barrier, I could leave and find my way to a competitor, who is willing to accommodate. Simple enough I would say. In the event, you would deal with a municipality, then of course, such a directive would make sense. It should be noted, that personally I have never encountered any of such, so I will regard it as an academic discussion for now. Therefore, in order to 'protect' a person like me, who doesn't know any Hungarian, by law I have the right to insist on a Slovak document. To expand it a bit; even road signs, memorial tablets, billboards...

   Why the controversy then? There is a part of the law, which - even to me - raises some concerns. Firstly, it has pretty ambiguous directives and foremost, it states even considerable penalties. But in a broader light, one cannot help but get the feeling, that - despite of a practical logic for a state to stipulate the use of its national language - it is merely a tool used by the present government for other purposes. The Slovak-Hungarian relationship is very brittle, and to date an ongoing bickering between some nationalist politicians and the minority leaders is visible. Unfortunately.
   But especially this ambiguity has become increasingly a hot item: up to the point where Mr Vollebaeck of the OSCE was asked to step in. His verdict was immediately aired by the Government, and thus "affirming" that from the beginning the said Act is completely in line with international (European) standards. They forgot to mention one small detail; Mr Vollebaeck indeed came to such a conclusion, but mentioned that implementing sanctions might cause some distress. And that was - to some point - exactly one of the complaints of the Hungarian minority. Furthermore, the law in practice is so confusing, that the Mail System and the Ministry sent several contradicting explanations to each other, which was more than sufficient evidence.
   The question arises, why is government not sitting round the table with the opponents of the Law and openly discuss in order to clear the air and dispose of all misunderstanding? Clearly, it is not interested in a solution: The increase of scandals has become too embarrassing, and this Language Act could act like a distraction. Last week, both the Republic's President and the Prime-Minister were televised in a discussion programme. One remark made by the President, literally smashed his own windows; he stated that before signing the Act, he invited all involved parties (read: minorities) except the Hungarians, because he apparently "knew the outcome of their dialogue already". This is a political faux pas (but honestly, what could be expected from two politicians like this?), where he hardly realised how much he exposed his real face that moment.
   Causing tensions or erasing them is a matter of communications. If the goodwill is not there, perhaps at least an overall political responsibility should dominate. None of the present rulers have neither the sense of responsibility, nor the goodwill - albeit they continue to stress the contrary. The Language Act is therefore just a silly toy in a sandpit, where toddlers refuse to share it. This is not politics, this is a cheap soap opera. Cheap in quality, but heavily paid for. 

MS

The raging reporter...

   Many years ago, I acquainted myself with the works (and therefore the life) of Egon Erwin Kisch. Born in Prague during the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, he published in German and had a keen interest in reporting on certain social-related topics. One of his breakthroughs perhaps, was his coverage of the political scandal caused by the Alfred Redl espionage controversies in 1913.

   Kisch' life and his active anti-Nazi involvement, I shall not discuss fully, but what is worth to mention was his influence as a journalist to investigative reporting. Somehow, when we see throughout history, journalists have had a role to unveil misty scandals, monitoring justice, and you name it. In 1924 Kisch wrote a book, Der rasende Reporter, which in the end became his alias: The raging reporter. A couple of others colleagues can be mentioned, who have had influence on the course of history. How about Theodor Herzl on the Dreyfuss Affaire, or the joint efforts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the Watergate scandal?

   Why I refer to them? Currently, I see a disturbing trend, when following news on political events, and maybe even with news in general. In the event where million euros overspending is reported, public reacts with "don't they have anything better to write about? All this negative criticism", the Prime-Minister Fico frequently labeled journalists as "idiots" or "hyenas" and even wrongly creating a picture as if he is the victim of tabloid journalism (in my view, not very professional, even if one doesn't always like the confrontational question, but then:.. it's part of your job) while government spokespersons give unprofessionally inadequate answers at press conferences. It seems clearly here, that the role of the media is (too) poorly understood.

   With such a political setting - admittedly, with my West-European upbringing - I expect journalists to be double critical and find out the fullest truth behind every abuse or embezzlement scandal. Last night however, it was even shocking to see a TV-reporter getting a childish response from a spokesperson (being rather her own opinion, which was completely irrelevant to the matter, where a Ministry had acted against legal regulations). Yet, the journalist made no visible attempt to insist on either an adequate and professional answer or getting further to the source. Instead you get a picture, as if two inexperienced high-school actors enact a reporter's scene. As a viewer, you feel being mocked. There you get into a spiral, where there is hardly any respect for each other professional function.

   Yes, it is the journalist's duty, to inform public - in fact so is the governments, but if government fails, then the journalist is the last source to get things into the open.  And it worries me, that journalism has become almost without true critical approach, commitment and ethics. Exactly this is what Slovakia would urgently need, as a lot of disinformation - unfortunately from the government - gets into the media. Of course there are a few exceptions, of true investigative professionals, where a young reporter literally ear-bashed the PM's spokesman in front of the cameras for treating the reporters in such a disrespectful manner. Especially these serious journalists should also try giving a bit more effort to 'educate' broader public. Such a spirit is perhaps the only hope, where Slovakia might perhaps one day move into the right direction of becoming finally an open society.

   A complete opposite is, when switching to e.g. a French or a German TV channel, where on several occasions each week you find discussion programmes on politics or society with not only politicians and political analysts but especially writers, journalists and other public figures. There the role of newspapers and intelligentsia has still a dynamic influence. And mind you, politicians there carefully follow how they appear in the press and tend to listen to the public voices. Utilising a vital symbiosis. One great example: Katarína Ragáčová - the insistent reporter, whom I mentioned before - is currently Slovakia's raging reporter, and public, instead of complaining on journalists' involvement, should realise, how important journalism still is. It is a kind of quality control of your society.

MS

The new generations - part I: the Generation 40

   This year we will soon celebrate the 20th anniversary of the so-called Velvet Revolution. When looking back,1989 was indeed a revolutionary year; the Tien-An Men demonstrations of Chinese students for more democracy - which ended tragically in a massacre, Gorbatchev's perestroika was signing the destiny of communist ruled Eastern Europe - where a poorly managed church demonstration in East Germany unleashed slowly a whole exodus of people, through Hungary and Prague to the West - culminating in the end into the fall of the Berlin Wall, respectively in the whole Iron Curtain. Europe's political map was completely re-designed.

   Those, who at that time were about to start their 'professional' career are now in their forties. - therefore "Generation 40" for this part - Back then, perhaps because of adolescent rebellious attitudes, it was that (student)generation  which had perhaps a certain attitude, expectation and distrust towards the established ruling forces that caused them to be the litmus of how the changes would evolve. It is now still an age, where - at least in my case, being in my mid-forties - there lies much ahead of us, in which we perhaps have enough ideals and energy to address issues which we still would like to change. We witnessed certain things within our society going down in time. We noticed perhaps, despite irreversible changes, perhaps a slow return towards old structures, fighting against a more powerful (more powerful than individual politicians) Moloch of institutions, ministries, where the bureaucratic tradition was rampant like a virus, never to leave the organism. We have unfulfilled feelings, or are to the contrary completely satisfied.

   In 2009, I live in one of the countries belonging to former Czechoslovakia (later Czecho-Slovakia, the hyphen to illustrate the federal equality between the two nations). Slovakia has detached itself from Prague, to have its own future in their own hands. For their self-esteem, I would argue that it was a good decision - despite the negative economic effects at the onset. But severing the umbilical chord also meant that suddenly this society had to learn to bear responsibility for its own deeds and decisions. To air frustration at another ruler, be it in Prague, Budapest/Vienna or else-wise was no longer possible. 

   After 20 years some expectations didn't completely work out the way we envisaged them back then in 1989. Slovakia still suffers with wounds from centuries under Hungary, has not straightened out itself to be confronted with ethnic minorities on its territory, has inherited a state which didn't function for decades and is not easily reformed to move and - as a consequence of the latter - a hidden menace of unceasing corruption. I shall try to fathom the sentiments and explanations within the population in order to find a rationale for the current unsettling situation, and why the aforementioned lingering issues, which do form a serious threat to the country's stability, are still persisting. 


(to be continued)

MS

A new sound

Slovakia goes forth. Society, after centuries of Hungarian supremacy, the Habsburgs, totalitarian regimes and gaining independence from Prague, is still struggling to find its true place in history and to find peace with its own identity. Despite belonging to the 'democratic' bloc, political stability is far from reality. Through a hastened NATO-entry, EU membership, Schengen and Euro-zone, the outside looks blue with gold starred European. Yet the overall equilibrium is still wafer thin, while the true democratic foundation - the tradition of its constituents knowing their political rights -  is not just missing; it is furthermore leading to a kind of general public indifference. 

   From an outsider's perspective, this blog is an attempt to hold our every day's life a mirror and to ponder on trends within this society and to analyse developments. Are those trends natural, expected, questionable, or even to be condemned? Westerners have a different background - given by their specific historical past - yet we form the Western bloc, and certain adaptations are to be in place. Not to copy four-wheel drive cars, exclusive brands, but to put it explicitly; even a political ethical/moral conduct and expectations.

   It will be inspired by current affairs, input from friends, discussions and the like. For a wider accessibility, especially outside our region, I have decided to publish in the English language, to broaden the range of readers. In our modern, computerised and English-oriented world, this I presume, will hardly meet any objections. I am truly looking forward to meet my readers here. For sure, the first article(s) will come soon, as life is far from boring.

best regards from Pezinok,

MS