J'accuse Slovak style

Whilst being an EU member country, Slovakia has the infamous reputation of not only failing some required reforms, but after accession to the EU, Brussels' disinterest to further monitor the reforms has provided non-democratic minded elements to gain full control over essential functions of the state. Zuzana Wienk, Program Director of the Alliance Fair Play in Slovakia, has written a splendid article in the SME daily. Especially for those, not able to read Slovak, I would like to post her article in English on my blog.

The article, which I fully agree with, has been written by Zuzana Wienk on the eve of Judge Juraj Majchrák's funeral, a signatory of the initiative of judges "For an Open Justice", who has tragically passed away on 14th April 2011.

In case you buy the state? NB: courts, prosecutors and politics included in the price

The Slovak Judiciary gained independence too early and society gave it to them much too naively. Elsewhere, the judiciary first went through a cleansing and the autonomy for the courts so far were not yet applied fully.

Today, Judge Juraj  Majchrák is being buried. His condition worsened considerably in recent years. During those years, he faced several attacks, three disciplinary procedures, a proposal of stripping him his judge’s robe.

In 2010, they buried Judge Marta Lauková. She filed a complaint as the President of the Court wanted to influence her court's decision. Followed by various types of coercion and job discomfort, worsening health, hospitalisation, death.

Whilst in a critical state of health, the Judicial Council withdrew the surcharge of her sickness benefits. Despite the fatal outcome of her health condition,  Court President Kožíková insist that Judge Lauková’s incapacity was purpose-built.

Victims of inactivity

In recent years, without sufficient evidence or despite apparent liberating evidence were disciplinary convicted judges BabjakBenešová, Kandera, Kuchtová, Mojš, Růžička, Sojka, Urban. Others were either harassed or accused or even tried based on purely fabricated reasons  (Dubovcová, Gavalec, Glezgová, Hrnčiar, Majchrák, Paluda).

These people can be regarded as victims of injustice, of practices in the judiciary, and therefore the victims of the actions or the inactions of certain persons. Many of them live in isolation with  health problems, under various forms of absurd pressure (annulling vacations, cancelling business trips, work at home, barring their participation in educational activities, moving their offices, moving their agenda beyond their many years of specialisation, public slander of judicial forums ... ).

Prostitutes of  power

Why did the disciplinary courts and courts become prostitutes of power and instruments of injustice? Why must these persecutions be so harsh and even finally even contribute to fatalities? Why is it necessary to resort to almost inhuman hyenism? I can only offer such an explanation:

The state and its institutions have been bought and tamed by organised economic-power groups, who do not stop for anything. They need to milk budgets as far as possible. They need to cover their crimes and economic malversation. From the Judiciary they created an organisation that brings them with their decisions tremendous  profits at the expense of the law and public interest. If anyone dares to stand in their way, who wants to defend the law and justice, they destroyed his life, his dignity, arrange for his persecution, they will turn him into a beggar. The reprisals are the harder, the more money is at stake or when criticism of the conditions becomes louder.

This concentrated and organized evil has allies at all political levels and in all political camps. It is difficult to assess/demonstrate whether the politicians actively participate in this game. Constantly, we see emerging scandals related to political party financing, implying at least a considerable  risk that they  may directly benefit from it.

The Head of this Culture

This culture within the judiciary has its Highest  Representative - Stefan Harabin. As justice minister, HZDS nominee and President of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council he had a major impact on specific personnel nominations, decisions and the wording of the laws.

The milieu in which he developed and established this culture, gained his inspiration and political support he absorbed for many years within the Meciarist HZDS, followed by the government of Robert Fico (2006-2010), and now has been directly adopted by the strongest opposition party (SMER-SD) including his entire agenda.

In the public arena SMER began firstly providing free space for the HZDS and its candidate for the implementation of their goals, continued silently and ignoring serious problems and later even actively agitated against the immunity of judges. In this matter, the President of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary Lord Thomas in a letter Harabin wrote:

"It is very difficult to justify the judge's immunity against prosecution under ordinary criminal  law of the State, if the judge violates these laws, whether in performing their duties, or in private.

In line with this, the attitudes of most of the European Union countries is that if a judge violates the criminal law, (s)he should be prosecuted at the initiative of an independent state prosecutor before an ordinary court of law."

A turning point became that the political involvement moved into a more open and audible fight against legal changes in the judiciary, which could bring the cleansing and the limitation of the absolute autocracy, with which Stefan Harabin and the Judicial Council is ruling. Robert Fico speaks of a political controlling of justice, although justice ministers in the Czech Republic, Austria and other democratic countries have far more competencies than were suggested in Slovakia.

Judges in those countries, whilst they rightly fight for strengthening of guarantees of independence, no one denies the democratic character of these countries. Independence without accountability, wise and lawful decisions and openness cannot be an-end-in-itself mantra. Finding a balance and preventing abuse of the judiciary is not undemocratic, but highly necessary.

Premature and naively

Experts in public forums openly admit that Slovakia has submitted to the judges the independence and too early and very naively. Elsewhere, they first cleansed the judiciary and the government has so far not transferred autonomy to the courts completely. There are even countries, where the judges’ entrusted mandate for life was implemented only gradually, e.g. as a slow extension of his term.

In Slovakia, we have essential experience with that the secret ballot for the General Prosecutor has proven to be become a room for difficult to defend business practices backstage, which to the citizens it is perfidious and unfair. Members, who cast the ballot as a mandate from these citizens,  in a secret ballot are completely uncontrollable and unpredictable.

If a member of parliament is committed to fight corruption, the voter is entitled to know whether his vote on personnel matters reflects compliancy with this agenda. Should he vote in a secret ballot, (s)he can shamelessly deceive the citizens, and becoming an easy prey for backstage players. Why is not  this form of pandering and its impacts objected by the strongest opposition party? Why is it even opposing against the disclosure of contracts on the Internet not becoming only a toothless glory?

It is interesting to carefully note as to what issues the opposition is investing its energy, but also which problems it lets go silently. After a thorough analysis of topics and presented arguments, or even argumentation of excuses, on cannot help the feeling, that that the concord of SMER and Stefan Harabin seem harmoniously. But to whom is this harmony doing good?

A Question of the Country’s Character

It is no secret that to date Slovakia has had no senior politician or a public official faced criminal charges and held responsible for the manipulated and overpriced tenders, tunnelling of state budget, corruption, political finance and dishonest abuse of power. The organization, in which the author of this text operates, was itself repeatedly witnessed reprehensible inaction of police and prosecutors in sensitive political cases.

It is almost certain that without changes to the management of the General Prosecutor and its methods of operation, this trend will continue. It is obvious that the Judiciary in Slovakia is failing at all levels. Not only by their staged fabricated disciplinary proceedings, which have spread fear and suppressed to any idea of resistance or public criticism.

There are many unfair judgments that rape the law or use its legal possibilities. In public discussions,  testimonies  describing the widespread corruption and its specific methods can be heard. Foreign investors and representatives openly say that in Slovak courts, one cannot rely on legality, justice and enforcement of the law.

Politicians who cover the backstage electoral game, the existing status quo and the personnel management of the Prosecutor’s Officerial or Judiciary  are directly involved in creating a fertile ground for organised crime, which is ruling this state. When dealing with changes with the Prosecution and the Judiciary, it is a question of the country’s character.

Slovakia now undergoing a struggle whether the state and its institutions will free themselves from being a vassal,  as imposed by a group with mafia structures and dishonourable financial intentions. Anyone, who resists these  changes, contributes to this evil is also directly responsible, even for its victims.

Zuzana Wienk,
Program Director of the Allliance Fair Play, Slovakia

Playing with Fire

In order to considerably curb unnecessary expenses, a director of the Košice Tax Authority halted an over-priced rent contract set up during the previous government and solved it by opting for a cheaper one. 

So far so good one would say. Were it not that the cheaper contract appeared to be a construction which de facto was having ties to people close to the ruling SDKU party (not to mention a dodgy Cyprus based company, which is a no-go for politics).

Slovakia, partly a bit overly-sensitive to corruption scandals thanks to former prime minister Fico and friends, was crying out their disbelief and prime minister Radičová was put in a fairly unpleasant position. 

The current situation is thus, that Finance Minister Mikloš opposed Radičová by refusing to sack his tax director and Radičová now caught in a power struggle behind the SDKU stage.

What is sad about the whole matter; in order to bring new, cleaner, decent, more transparent politics to Slovakia has become an embarrassing farce, in which the coalition from the very beginning has failed to effectively communicate, and being stuck in a situation, where the majority feels gravely disappointed.

Mikloš is definitively playing with fire, and the most probable outcome of the whole mess might be the return of the dreaded politbureau chief Fico. For what? Was it worth it?

Too much is at stake, but the damage - even if the coalition would continue - is immense. The other option, I dare not to think of.

Open Letter to Anna Záborská

This is a reaction to Ms Anna Záborská's open letter. Even though addressed to Oľga Pietruchová, I felt nevertheless an urge to step into the discussion as well, as I feel more than uncomfortable about the continuous superficial reasoning, which in effect sends completely wrong signals into society as a whole. As Slovak Member of the European Parliament for the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH), your 'prominent role' requires however a slightly more prudent approach to matters:

With your open letter you respond to Ms Pietruchová's article in concurrence with your earlier press statement (13th April) as published on your website, that the 'EU should not tolerate the unjust persecution of christians in some if its member states'. In this matter, even I myself have addressed to you a correspondence, to point you to the fact, that your assumptions which you state in your press statement - as both Germany and Great Britain were to persecute persons for their christian believes - are unfortunately taken out of context, and a dangerous demagogic rhetoric, which evoke unwanted discussions in society.

The mere fact, that you opened your statement by referring to the totalitarian 1950s, I was more than dismayed to read such a historical hoax. The very cases you refer to (a baptist family of Kazakh origin in Germany refusing to send their children to school, or a British hotel owner denying lodging for a homosexual couple) have in no possible sense similarities or parallels with the stalinist era persecutions, and you know that more than well. The said people in Germany e.g. would have had many more (legal) alternatives, and therefore their religious believes or practices have in no way been limited at all. 

I am more than grieved by such a cheap comparison, in which you seem to wish to appeal to the sense of pity of the masses in order for a few individuals made into 'quasi martyrs' who withheld their children from universal pedagogic standards  by refusing them to be send to school (as opposed to submitting them to uncontrollable indoctrination by individual parents) - which is a rule of law applicable to every citizen - or who discriminate and support intolerant conduct of others, just because they 'appeal to their christian convictions (as opposed to practice tolerance - just as your Bible teaches you).

Ms Záborská, keeping in mind, that our European civil society has more than a tolerant place for believers as you are, it would be civil from your side, to accept that large groups of people adhere to other convictions and that acceptable laws should be obeyed. Thus taking things completely out of context is a very dangerous game in politics. In both your press release a couple of days ago as well as your letter to Ms Pietruchová, you clearly walk on very thin ice, not only have you consciously mislead your readers (perhaps you have not properly read the German original sources. /sic/) but equally your reasoning is rather ill construed: contradicting, inconsistent and most of all incomplete. Further legal details of the mentioned cases by you as well as other ramifications of your somewhat misconception are systematically elaborated by Ms Pietruchová's open letter.

My discomfort is however from a more holistic point of view; since I see much danger in your performance: Therefore, I hope that such a resentful political faux pas, in order to - in my view - almost hysterically appeal to unhealthy underbelly sentiments of certain masses, could be refrained from in future. We may perhaps not agree on certain religious doctrines, but using half truths is first of all a bad argument. By sticking to true facts instead of false emotions it can avoid much unnecessary and painful polarisation between groups of people and avoid fueling damaging prejudices.


Although I am quite skilled in online applications, I wonder one thing; why is it, that your 13th April-statement is only published in Slovak and with absolutely no equivalent in English, German or French at all?
I must admit to say, that this reeks of pure demagogy. Slovak demagogy that is.

Thank you,

Michael Srba

Integrity through Transparency

Current Slovakia's Justice minister Lucia Žitňanská has the ungratifying task to partly clean up the image of the justice system as a whole; a process that has been initiated by the former Duzrinda governments, but somewhat un-done by the blessings of Fico and his comrades. The question is; where to start first? Feels like moving Mount Everest with a hand spade.

The government has, however,  implemented a fairly essential measure to start with; the making public of court verdicts. Firstly, let me assure my foreign readers that this is not a hoax. Indeed in Slovakia - contrary to other democratic countries - has known the practice of not disclosing court decisions. Whereas this is considered a natural requirements for a western judiciary, Mr Harabin himself populistically declared this to be another tool of the present government to intimidate judges and to politicise the judiciary. Until today, I am still eager to find a law  professional to explain to me with rational arguments what the logic is of Mr Harabin's statement, unless - and that could be easily deducted - Mr Harabin has ulterior and much darker motives. Unfortunately, his weak credibility is only reinforced by such an illogical view.

Because of the brittle political equilibrium, and a rather effectively populist opposition, many measures must be carefully weighed. In addition, the formal measures themselves, do not always guarantee the change within the human factor itself. Likewise, a red-rimmed sign with a 50, will not make all drivers stick to the maximum speed - unless there are controls; either uniformed or nowadays with cameras. And it is indeed such a control on the judiciary, which give the public a tool to understand the judiciary (let's be fair; also to see the quality behind those, who do their work well, and indeed to filter out the ones, who have a less flattering output) as well to the judges themselves to compare their work. In business we talk about benchmarking.

By means of this partly self-reflection but above all by public control - which is, as said earlier, fairly common in all other democratic countries - the move towards a more professional and stable system, building up its integrity from within and mending the damaged image.

As we approach the date the law comes into effect (1st May), I am more than eager to see the discussions and the dynamics of exposing both the good as well as the less good... Let's all be on top of it.

Governance and Accountability: A Perception Problem?

On frequent occasions - if not daily, I get into intricate discussions with partners, especially when giving an analysis of the status quo of Slovak society and it has struck me, that in particular definitions like governance or accountability need further to be elaborated. The striking fact fact is, that linguistically there are no precise equivalents of the said definitions. One deduces them to merely 'responsibility', but this term in my view has somewhat a vague implication.

Since my own knowledge of Slovak and Czech is fairly advanced, I can therefore sense that these terms are not always fully grasped by my respective discussion partners; leaving as if a gaping difference of understanding of the matter. So noticeably the definition transfer of accountability or governance to the listener is too incomplete. 

A further reason to strengthen this finding - and I would like to refer to (former) HMA Michael Roberts, who in his 10th December 2011 speech at the Slovak Ministry of Justice elegantly summed up the major problems from Slovakia's recent past;

.....
1)    Many of the most striking examples of corruption we know about concern public sector tenders;
2)    The sums of money involved frequently run to millions of Euro;
3)    Some of those public sector tenders use money from EU structural and cohesion funds, ie money that came originally from other European taxpayers;
4)    Despite screaming press headlines, those implicated have been very slow to accept political responsibility for misspent taxpayers’ money.   Resignations have been grudging and late.  A culture of accountability for the way taxpayers’ money is spent is sadly lacking;
5)    There have been no significant criminal convictions for corrupt use of public money whilst I have been serving in Slovakia;
6)    Slovak law and the institutional framework that upholds the law – including the Office of Public Procurement, the Police, the Office of the State Prosecutor, and the Judiciary – do not seem up to the task of investigating and pursuing wrong-doers so as secure criminal convictions.
7)    Last but not least, public opinion is overwhelmingly cynical about the prospects for putting right this state of affairs.   
........

(end of quote)

The abysmal gap between the committed crimes and the passivity - including the cynicism of the majority - is perhaps the proof, that the realisation of "someone being accountible" is lacking. Merely shrugging shoulder with "that's what politicians do" is not initiating any rigorous investigation. To the contrary.

The acceptance of corruption, often attributed to a traditional phenomenon, is not so much the problem of not seeing any wrong; it's exactly of not understanding the implications of being accountable. Down to earthly put: To cough up the damage. It is not so much how one perceives the status, rather the linguistic nuance of the words "accountability" and "governance" not being simply 'responsibility". Without this awareness, governance will remain a half-hollow concept, which indeed has little foundation in Slovakia.

(with special thanks to Ambassador of the United Kingdom Mr. Michael Roberts, who, during his office in Bratislava has been outspoken on critical issues, giving those brave individuals fighting corruption and injustice a boost in their efforts)

Fico's blog

Slovakia's former prime-minister Robert Fico has opened a blogging-account with one of the critical newspaper sites - the very newspaper, which he harshly criticised in the past and labeled as being hyenas. But, as an individual he obviously has this right, so let's have peace with that. Blogging is a current global trend, and has become a truly effective tool to spread one's opinion. Prominent politicians do, as well as corporate managers up to the teenager next door.

Fico's blog has perhaps caused more irritation than interest, as the first article, where comrade Robert elaborates his serious objections against a public ballot - a bill that was passed by parliament this week - to nominate the next general prosecutor; a job, which has been rather controversial in the past few years. Not only agitating that the current government has "broken the neck of democracy", the very mere fact, that the author himself, has grossly trampled on democratic principles and allowed shameless looting of public means makes this presentation a nasty bitter taste.

In principle, the fact that a non secret ballot might be undemocratic - based on the assumption, that anonymity would prevent e.g. peer pressure, intimidation or blackmailing - normally would be plausible, provided that the democratic processes are traditionally well established. In our current case, where up to date on almost a daily basis scandalous tunneling and missteps of the appear on the surface, the involved parties  have a major interest finding a candidate, who should probably be open to somewhat leniency towards the culprits. I use to call it: being corrupt. 

In this light, a secret ballot (in fact multiple rounds) has proven rather an obstacle instead of moving forward. The several rounds of new candidates - almost resulting in the resignation of prime minister Radičová - were not only revealing the (as could be expected) the panic among the former masters, but sensing equally a high risks within the present coalition itself.

Despite the ludicrous attempt of the former prime minister Fico to again portray himself as a more than messianic defender of the nation (when having allowed the worst scandals), a  lawyer (when having performed miserably in the past) to pump his logic into the critical readers' minds, we must however admit one thing: Mr Fico has a tremendous impertinence bordering courage, that given the fact, where Fico himself creating in the past maximum havoc to justice thanks to his subservient buddies of former general procurator Trnka and mafia-friend-judge-minister-and-then-judge-again Harabin; where Slovakia's standing has been thwarted back into the dark years of Meciarism - and is now howling and crying over democracy.

And whereas in a civilised society, all discourses should take place for the sake of argument, it is especially this unheard of impertinence of a ruthless absolutist kleptoman-regent, is disqualifying him from any serious discussion. He is wailing now over what he seriously damaged in the past 4 years. But the tragedy is, that his populist rhetoric is unfortunately far more powerful, than the shy and clumsy PR of the present government to reply to him.

Disciplinary court... or mock trials

As an observer monitoring the developments in the Slovak judiciary, I tend to visit - together with NGO activists, Western diplomats and journalists, among others - disciplinary hearings, in order to get a real feel of how the justice system is functioning. In democratic societies, disciplinary actions are taken in extremely specific cases, where a judge would commit gross offenses against his professional and/or ethical position in society.

Slovakia perhaps has a peculiar unhealthy wish for the nostalgic times, in which the stalinist show trials want to be relived. Tragically not in a artistic film, rather in a real life setting, where the judges are accused of obstruction of their duties - for example - where the root cause usually is a critical view point against unprofessional practices coming from the president of the superior court of the Slovak Republic, Mr Harabin.

Not only has this Mr Harabin had proven amicable connections to a convicted drug mafia criminal - wanted by Interpol (a fact, he even didn't deny), but has slyly applied loopholes in legislation to amass not only greasy bonuses but also appointing people into positions, they are hardly worthy. Simply, too much power - too much abuse.

Being critical against all this, can cost judges severe limitations; banning them from entering their office - being de facto stripped off their duties and not able to exercise their profession (not to mention the implications following). Equally, addressing a letter to the President of the Republic, appearing on television, and the like.

A judges role, on the one hand being an impartial, above the parties authority to exercise his legal function, has perhaps equally an ethical moral responsibility towards the whole public; especially because of his intellectual oversight and judicial skills. Yet losing his job, limiting the prospects for his(her) own family is a pressure to curb the judges or to subject them to nonsensical trials.

Having visited a few disciplinary court sessions myself, one cannot but wonder, how a couple of persons are willingly supporting such blackmailing practice as obviously instructed by Mr Harabin.

Today, 6th April 2011, judge JUDr Juraj Babjak (pictured) - one of the signitaries of the movement "For an Open Justice"; judges who could no longer remain silent - has been subjected to a mock trial, cheaply orchestrated from above, where he was found guilty of obstruction (a vague term, since one of previous witnesses (a judge himself!) answered questions by the defense proving having hardly any knowledge of the law, or being completely disinterested in procedural matters - giving this verdict a cynical twist). 

This is, unfortunately, not an isolated case; thanks to the willingly cooperative super-swift appointment (hastily only within a few hours after being nominated) by President Gašparovč, Mr Harabin's tentacles are (still) long. It is only the more these mistrials get into the open, the less these practices will get room to occur. Injustice will thrive, when the just remain silent. These methods give room for corruption, partial justice, in which certain interest groups - and not in the least place a number of politicians - escape the arm of justice. And this cannot and should not be kept quiet.

Wishing JUDr Babjak (as well as his supportive and brave colleagues) all the best in his appeal.  

(will be continued)