Religious contradictions

One of the highly prominent aspects of Slovak society is - despite a general secularisation trend in Western society - its religiosity. At least, having witnessed life in other countries, this given is quite striking, especially since it is in my eyes uncomfortably one-sided. 

In principle, I am open to people's diversity. Among my friends, there is hardly any major world religion, which is not represented. Living in a country where a different faith dominates has always been a reality and it has a certain charm as well. Keep you reminded of your own background. But when underlying currents are getting  out of hand, then it becomes  slightly disturbing

To a degree, I can find certain historic explanations. Slovakia's totalitarian past till 1989 explains a bit. And although this is often being used to explain the strong bond with the Catholic church, it is in my eyes not a satisfying argument at all. The truth is, that the influence of Slovak clergy may officially be detached from politics (a principle attributed to Locke, but traceable rather to Thomas Jefferson), the daily reality often shows that it is not necessarily clear.

Admittedly, one person's faith does to an extent influence his political thinking and performing. The clergy - and from their historical background, where they were to some extent literate and witnessing daily life in a time where aristocratic rulers had little interest in the fate of common man, it has perhaps created a specific tradition, where priests got political tendencies. 

Whereas a local priest Andrej Hlinka once propagated Slovak autonomy (already during the Austro-Hungarian domination, but equally during the first Czecho-Slovak Republic), another priest Jozef Tiso was leading a clerical-fascist puppet state during World War II. If it was a logical consequence of the Zeitgeist, I doubt it.

But coming to present day politics; an archbishop proclaiming that Tiso's state wasn't so bad after all, appeared perhaps in a few newspapers, but the archbishop remained an archbishop and lead his flock without any hindrance. (Imagine at how this would end if a German Bishop would dare to make such a similar statement). Interestingly, his successor now forbade him to ever come near the church or conduct masses, as a huge fraud is suspected. Seems that  ex-Archbishop Sokol was far from clean from other sides as well. One never stops to be amazed. In addition, another bishop last year explicitly criticised in his sermons one presidential candidate, which obviously lead to a preference shift in the final elections, as his views were broadly publicised in the media. In my view, utterly intolerable, but people meekly accept it.

What is a stark contrast, that the religiousness is always used into a certain direction: A European Court ruling to forbid catholic crucifixes in Italian public schools stirs totally unnecessary emotional debates in Slovakia, but when reminding people about very basic and simple christian values for the present day's politicians ("Thou shallst not steal", "Thou shallst not lie") in a time of the worst corruption in all Slovak's history, it suddenly is not an issue. When confronted, neither minister or prime minister have hardly ever admitted responsibility for any scandal. It's the fault of the others, the former cabinet, the journalists, the oposition, etc.

It seems that famous latin liturgical statements "mea culpa, mea ultima culpa" - a concept, which underlines man's humbling struggle with guilt - has vanished from the vocabulary of the people. Of the believing people, that is. Mr Fico's huge preferences - despite of all the stolen millions  of euros - is mainly attributed to the less critical electorate outside Bratislava that in effect would fall into that aforementioned category. To me, that is one of the gravest religious contradictions in Slovakia. But maybe, this is their version of the division between state and church. 

MS

Circus in town

The last two weeks have been a fairly quiet period. After a total chaos in January, where the Interior Minister as well as the Transportation Minister clearly failed to manage a serious crisis within their departments, it was followed by a soap opera performance, where the Prime Minister Fico successfully showed how a lawyer should never have behaved. Obviously, it did not bring him any Oscar and neither increased his political credibility. The storm suddenly calmed down, whereas now we enter the comedy stage.

While other governments are being controlled by weekly cabinet meetings, external audits by specially assigned state institutions, Slovakia's Prime Minister is conducting a repetitious ritual of visiting all individual Ministries, to check on his colleagues, whether they did their assignments. 

I am truly curious how this goes in practice; Fico arrives, the respective Minister ushers him into his luxurious ante-chambre, where his long legged personal assistant brings the aromatic freshly brewed coffee. Immediately to business - there's much to do. Fico asks, about the achieved goals, any specific highlights, any areas of concern. Goes on a guided tour to shake hands with nicely dressed and trimmed staff. Shakes hand, a few mobile-pics to be taken for the family, and then after some hours of intense briefing off they go to a press conference. 

Prime Minister Fico, with a nostalgic pathos of foregone times is generously hailing the achievements of another Ministry, which has truly fulfilled all its duties and goals. Even one case, a solemn "never before has this Ministry been managed as by the present Minister" as been pronounced. It reminds me slightly of teh Soviet-styled party monologues about fulfilling another 5-year-plan (while the whole economy was in complete shambles). I could not help but rolling in laughter, when seeing such pathetic non-information.

But apart from that, with our modern communications - where we shoot data through the virtual highways within fractions of a second to each other, why must a Prime Minister waste weeks of his time to go through this farce? And truly, there are enough serious problems, that should be addressed very urgently. 

Well, it is after all election time, and not only has the present government proven to be far remote from being a serious and a professional government, this simply adds up to the whole show: Circus has come to town!

MS

Return of the Pink Panther

Perhaps some of my readers will remember the mentioned comedy, where the clumsy chief-inspecteur Clouseau is about to solve a criminal case, with rather good luck (paired with a series of the usual slapstick mishaps) than a shrewd professional strategy. Such cumulation of stupidity is only possible in movies. So I thought until now.

Slovakia's Prime Minister Fico, when throwing mud at the opposition's alleged money-laundering scandal, bragged on organising a trip to Switzerland, to personally investigate alleged bank-accounts and connections in order to prove the opposition's guilt. A series of embarrassingly loud mouthed press conferences followed.

Interestingly enough, ever since Mr Fico has suddenly been suspiciously quiet. In my view, he should have been quiet from the very beginning; not only is it not-done for a Prime Minister to demonstrate financial allegations - which are about 10 years old - against his political opponents. One can imagine, the state has other organisations within the fiscal or economic investigative units to do so. Secondly, the opposition might or might not have been getting loans from POBox-companies, and this in essence is not immediately a criminal offence (given the legal conditions in 2000 it could even be understood, but that is a technicality). What is ironic about the whole matter is that Mr Fico's government has embezzled a multi-fold of millions in dodgy and far from transparent business.

To my knowledge, not only has a Prime Minister other priorities than to go and play a detective in a Swiss bank. According to a yesterday's newspaper web-article - which was the first after 2 weeks of silence - plans better contact with Switzerland - at least in the exchange of bank-information. Apparently, last Thursday, the Prime Minister spoke with Switzerland'w President Doris Leuthard. What do I think of it? I have doubts about the whole thing.

One, it can be hardly imagined, that by next week Fico will be granted full access to bank information. Two, the matter looks like a clear cover-up show, to create mist around his own scandals which outdo all previous governments plus an embarrassing stream of criticism from Brussels. After all, elections are ahead, and the money hungry ministers have a large interest in continuing their activities and stay away from justice - at all costs. Three, when skimming the Swiss newspapers (or any other authoritative financial periodical), one would expect this to be mentioned as well. That a President is discussion another Swiss bank secrecy related matter with a foreign politician would be officially a matter to mention, I would guess. So far, I have found none whatsoever. The last entry on the official pages of the Swiss Federal  Department of Home Affairs on an official visit by a Slovakia's Prime Minister are from 2008, a visit which was cancelled...

Another question which arises in my mind is, the mere fact, that the Swiss President is not formally the head of state - just a rotating one-year primus inter pares within her own department and specifically without any authority over other ministries. Ms Leuthard is leading the Ministry of Economic Affairs. In my view, banking falls usually under Finance. 

Compared to Fico, our dear and clumsy Clouseau suddenly looks like a serious and effective professional authority. But perhaps some fresh alpine air would do him some good, to get back to his senses. ... or perhaps not...

MS

Success in Slovakia

Slovakia is delirious; hardly have the Olympic Winter Games commenced, and a tiny country in the very heart of Europe has already earned two medals - Gold and Silver. How impressive! At least.... were it not, that the winner of these precious metals in fact is not Slovak at all, but Russian.

Personally, I must honestly admit, that I have not watched any Olympic event (not even the opening ceremony), but when listening to the radio while driving or clicking on the daily news on the internet, it is a fact that hardly can be overlooked. And I must further add, that I fully wish her all the medals she can get. 

What is ironic about the whole thing, is that earning Slovakia (the state?) medals seems an ultimate honour - for the Slovaks that is. The fact that the person is not of Slovak origins, seems on the onset irrelevant, but there is something else: Being a foreigner in general can pose some kind of barrier. 

Being a foreigner brands you as an outsider, who perhaps has some extra abilities which could pose a certain threat to Slovaks. Perhaps being more pragmatic, experiencing other cultures and thoughts, being more effective. Even to some Slovaks, having stayed outside, it may become a stigma. On top of it, there are certain jobs, which are by regulations closed to foreigners. The reasons are sometimes far too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

When looking from the other angle; Slovakia's government (and all ministers are pure Slovaks), have for more than 3 years clearly proven to be an absolute disaster. Not just for Slovakia's credibility, its PR abroad, but even deplete the state's treasury for the next generations to come. Even every measure taken by the government is receiving negative evaluation from Brussels. How come???

The hanging question mark is, whether Slovakia wouldn't be better of, if only Slovaks would admit that foreigners could have more possibilities in public life. They have in all fairness better records.

MS

Struggles for Identity

Currently we can simultaneously witness two most bizarre attempts to define a national identity. On the one hand - while I zap through my French channels - the "broad national debate" in France, while on the other hand on this very day, Mr Vollebaek of the OSCE is visiting Slovakia to have another closer look at Slovakia's attempt to safeguard its national language by a questionable Language Act. The identity-gods are playing an ironic game with us.

What both news-items have in common, is the fact, that both assumed objectives, as initiated by either governments, have been overtaken by less noble forces. Sarkozy's France, though a country which has relatively speaking been open to other cultural influences, having absorbed large numbers of immigrants from its former colonies, has had some turbulent events, where social unrest in the French banlieus have become a somewhat bad PR for the country. A sore open wound. The initial thought, to philosophically reflect on what makes a person having a certain 'nationality', is from an academic point of view interesting. The debate has suddenly moved into very dirty and polarised "we-against-the-immigrants" discussion. So badly, that monsieur le président has withdrawn his hands from the debate and passed the hot potato to his prime minister.

Slovakia's Language Act might seem a fairly innocent measure, to identify and determine when and where Slovak (read Slovak speaking citizens) have the right to communicate in their own language. Basically, it would be an open door, and one would ask, whether such a specific legislation is indeed necessary. In all frankness, I could imagine a few exceptional cases, which - in my humble view - would have been more easily solved in a different manner. The main problem is twofold; the implementation of this law has been forced down the throat without any open consultation of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia (a fact, which has quite cynically been confirmed by the president himself). Secondly, the interpretation of the law, has even caused within the responsible Ministry questionable discrepancies. As an objective onlooker, one gets rather the idea, that this law has become rather a tool to purposely provoke Hungarian-speakers, which understandably has thrown oil on the fire of the already tense Hungarian-Slovak relationship. In connection, with a coalition party that has initiated somewhat crypto-fascist laws, it can hardly be a surprise which direction this discussion goes.

Slovakia has still to learn a lot about civic society. But the aforementioned examples only show, that balancing on such dubious themes is rather damaging than contributing. Polarising their own society is the worst a government can do. Not only on a national scale.

MS

ltaneously

loading...

A drowning victim

Slovakia as a constitutional state has ceased to exist. A European country, a full member of the EU, the Euro-zone and the Schengen Area, has within 4 years become again a state, which does not meet many EU standards, as were stipulated as preconditions for its membership. One of the reasons has been a certain level of complacency brought along by - ironically enough - the very same membership.

Regardless of Slovakia's past, there is absolutely no excuse of the grave deterioration of basic democratic principles. It is one of my greatest concerns, however, that seeing serious breaches of standards only to be addressed by a blogging community, rather than a massive media attention be it from so-called watch-dogs or other institutes, of which one would expect such knowledge or tools. Politicians from the opposition sometimes keep quiet, because they might feel it would unnecessarily politicise the problem (oh? - a highly politicised judicial system and the police force is enough reason to address it politically as well), so called think tanks do not want to overly get involved into political discussion - avoiding to be accused of working for a certain political stream or specific party (why?), and journalists either do not identify it as a problem or fear being immediately sacked when bringing this into the open, or otherwise face huge compensations from the poor criticised politicians through pretty predictable court cases. It remains mysteriously hidden.

All in all, it is a spiral, that goes dangerously fast downwards and has crossed a certain limit. One argument being used - in my eyes incorrectly - is that society must solve these issues by itself. The broad public, however, is not fully aware of its rights, and nobody continuously reminding them, is hardly going to improve this position they are in. Education is the most neglected, and thus the one that should have played a role, which it simply cannot fulfil. 

Ever since the entry into the EU, most institutes that until than have been active in monitoring the democratisation processes, like e.g. the Helsinki Committee, have stopped their activities. Being in the EU seemed enough proof of compliancy. But equally, as passing your driving test is not a guarantee, that the driver will remain a responsible road user, a state with such a brittle tradition in democracy, should be monitored even the more. 

Still, there are some minor, some bigger, organisations dealing with these matters. As a relatively skilled internet user, I am quite able to search for any hidden files, texts, or whatever. Searching for materials on Slovakia's democratic ventures, is not the easiest job. For the average citizen, it is therefore a completely hidden area, for whom the whole discussion is more than only an academic one.

In my view, violating democratic principles, perhaps may be regarded as a political issue, equally they are of consequence to the whole civic society. The third sector, in such a case, should definitively not hide behind its so-called 'a-political' façade to imply a certain impartiality. They possess the institutionalised intellectual know-how, and from this it follows, that it is their civic duty per sé to jump into this discussion vacuum.

It reminds me of a canal, where someone fell into; a large group of people is standing around watching the victim drowning. Some discuss, whether to call the police, the ambulance or the fire department. The only way to help is for someone to jump. Now! 

Meanwhile, Slovakia is a drowning victim. When to act then? Now! Since passivity kills.

MS

loading...

Dobroslav Trnka - a dubious attorney

The political battle is getting dirtier but has advanced to another level. Yesterday's press conference by the General Prosecutor Mr Dobroslav Trnka informed the media the fact that the alleged moneylaundering case is to be investigated by the office. Good. At least, it appears.

There are two main things, which are quite remarkable, and those who are familiar with western law systems will certainly agree: Usually a General Prosecutor's office (or State Attorney) would immediately request investigation from the moment, when a serious suspiscion arises that a crime has been committed. It is especially therefore most bizarre, that after months, even years, of dodgy tenders, private property acquisition of politicians surpassing manifold their yearly allowances, and other clear cases of gross abuse of power, competencies and influence, the prosecutor has been passively silent. In fact: suspisciously too quiet.

While answering questions from the press (admittedly, some of the questions were embarrassingly irrelevant, but that about professionalism in journalism, as discussed in one of my previous blogs) - but here comes my second point: as we are apparently at the beginning of a (criminal) investigation, since when is a prosecutor allowed to affirm alleged speculations? As far as I know, this is (still) subject to the investigation, and a prosecutor may never incriminate any party. Even in Slovakia the presumption of innocence is applicable, and exactly by doing this, Mr Trnka has explicitly and seriously violated a professional ethic-principle. 

Slovakia has proven in the last few months, that an impartial judiciary system is non-existent, government is visibly corrupt, the police slowly slides into being a participant of political agitation, and now the state prosecutor breaches a moral code., making Mr Trnka a dubious figure. Democracy has died despite being within the EU.

MS

Fico's Paranoia

Today's (web) newspapers published a remarkable headline: Prime Minister worried being assassinated. According to Mr Fico himself, it is because of alleged moneylaundering evidence, which he has against his political opponent. Mud slinging is not the best way to convincingly lead politics. Lamenting about his life, is become a symptom, which is a prerogative of several dictators: Paranoia. Interestingly enough figures like Stalin and his Czecholsovak buddy Gottwald equally suffered from it.

What remains a question mark, why a prime minister is for the past few weeks is only committed to daily presenting a fraud suspiscion - would suffice to file a report to the proper authorities and the Prime Minister can dedicate his precious time to governing the country. His lamentation of fearing for his life, is to say the least, pathetically melo-dramatic. 

Concurrently, serious and equally scandalous mismanagement of some of his causes are slowly getting out of hand. While truck drivers demonstrated (which is their constitutional right), Mr Fico pathetically cried out into the cameras, that never before has democracy been threatened by anarchy. 

In addition, his frequent ranting at journalists, for reporting lies and false news in order to discredit government and the republic. One really starts to have grave concern, whether Mr Fico is truly mentally out of balance. 

Heavens have mercy on this country. For the repercussions might be serious enough.

MS

Low quality journalism - poor democratic awareness

The mere fact how a society functions - or should function - is not in the awareness of every citizen and should never be taken for granted. How this concept is instilled into the thinking of society is manifold. It can be either encouraged from within the family, taught in schools, and from external experiences like the functioning of politics in real life, some NGO institutions, eventually augmented with experiencing foreign governments in the event one has the advantage of living or having lived abroad. As long as the 'receptors' are properly trained to anaytically and open mindedly approach certain information, the citizen will remain critically balanced - regardless of a certain dose of personal preference, needless to say. In other words, when hearing critical news, allowing a critical reflection, even in the event it deals with one owns party. And not a priori refusing to accept the critic.

Against this background, a bare necessity is also a well balanced critical investigative journalism, as this can justifiably expose certain issues that could play an important issue in society generally. Slovakia seems to struggle with all the above. I would say even "heavily struggling". While the school system has been grossly neglected ever since - only to continue on cramming facts - families have undergone years of totalitarian rule, which causes them in general to be ranging from apathy, to being unfamiliar with democratic processes. NGOs fall into a certain category, where in my view, the broad public is hardly aware of them, their message is not fully understood (too academic?) or from the historical background they are considered a bit like a dissident club. The state of present day politics is unfortunately a reflection of these facts - having said that, there are some individual exceptions of course, yet they therefore seem to be a silent, invisible minority.

The front runners to give some break through could be only the journalists, as politicians still have a certain negative stigma - regardless of their own background - journalists are the profession that could independently and objectively become a thrusting force in supplementing the desperately needed knowledge.

Given the present situation, where political leaders are far from transparent and communicate in an highly unprofessional way with the media, any critical article on politics is immediately labelled as tabloid-press, paid by the oppositions to discredit the state, etc. A populist approach, but it seems effective, as many consumers take it to be true. But it must be equally said, that most journalists hardly do anything to convince their public.

Last night, I watched TA3 - a fairly neutral CNN-rendition and, unlike the public TV channel, which functions as a state propaganda funnel (imagine the BBC meekly forwarding governments propaganda without any comments) - interviewing the Prime Minister and one opposition member. Not simultaneously, since the Prime Minister refuses to discuss anything in front of the camera with an opposition leader (wonder why?). The situation is as follows: The Prime Minister (a lawyer by profession) accuses the opposition of serious money laundering practices, stating he has hard evidence. After his monologue, he leaves and the opposition leader is given time to explain. Indeed it must be admitted, there are perhaps a few weak spots, but given the historical background (this is a case, which goes back 10 years) it has to a certain level a rational explanation.

It comes down to the fact that the Prime Minister is threatening the opposition (while holding alleged evidence of a committed crime). Why does the Prime Minister threaten and not pass it on to the State Attorney - which in itself is a crime, becoming an accomplice - only to give a performance like a crime-watch presenter in a 3rd rated network? This game goes on for a while, but what is most striking is the totally direction-less anchorman, who simply does not ask the one-million dollar question. At the end of the item, viewers are perhaps more confused than before - which follows from the fierce discussions through Facebook and other forums.

Equally disturbing was the breach of the law by policemen, when demonstrating in front of the Parliament to support a political minister. As this had nothing to do with their own working conditions (for which they indeed do have a right to demonstrate) this falls clearly and unquestionably under political agitation. None of the reporters (as far as my zapping skills could establish) from any network, have ever mentioned this principle.

The lack of this awareness not only could lead to an unlimited and grave abuse of power, in fact it already has. In an age where information, internet and television are a powerful tool, journalists should be aware of their general responsibilities. Asking critical questions is not equal to political preferences, which is often believed so. But informing public regarding inconsistencies or anomalies - highlighting why something is an anomaly - would be the least that could improve society's understanding of the whole matter. For whatever reason journalism is not doing such - is it political pressure from above? is it inexperience? is it the lack of a certain courage? or pure ignorance? - the overall awareness of people will hardly improve. This will reflect in their electoral choices. Politics will slowly move into an unwanted direction.

MS