Hungary is teetering on the brink of full-blown autocracy, while Slovakia is experiencing a populist turn, though it remains doubtful that a single government can inflict the kind of institutional damage seen in Hungary, said Péter Krekó, director of the Political Capital Institute in Budapest, told Euractiv Slovakia.
Krekó, a political scientist, spoke to Euractiv Slovakia about his expertise in Hungary and was asked about the risk of Slovakia taking a similar turn.
He said that “Hungary could be characterised as a hybrid regime,” which is not yet a full-fledged autocracy but not a full democracy either.
“In Hungary, Orbán first needed to secure a constitutional majority, which he successfully did. That enabled him to transform the entire institutional system. But these significant structural changes required a lengthy process of 14 years to fully implement,” he said, suggesting that the same cannot be expected from Fico despite being re-elected as prime minister for the fourth time – albeit not consecutively – last year.
“I think one government itself cannot do the damage to the institutional system that has been done in Hungary,” he argued concerning Fico’s coalition government, which consists of three parties.
Fico situation different to Orban’s grip
For him, Hungary’s significantly limited freedom of speech gives the government a considerable advantage in the political arena. This results in elections that, although technically free, are fundamentally unfair. The country has evolved into what he terms an “informational autocracy,” where dissenting voices are suppressed through media manipulation.
While Kréko also acknowledged the “populist turn” in Hungary, he noted the lack of systemic threat in Slovakia’s current political climate, adding that while Fico may try to follow similar strategies when it comes to institutional takeovers, Kréko “sees more differences than similarities” between the two countries.
Orbán has approached it “in a more systemic and profound way, passing numerous cardinal laws and changing the constitutional system”.
“In Slovakia, as far as I know, it has not happened yet,” he added.
Asked about reports that the EU is considering freezing EU funds to Slovakia for rule of law violations, Kréko believes this shows that “the EU’s survival instinct is stronger than previously thought” and also notes that the EU is now making an effort to act more quickly compared to its earlier approach to Orbán or Kaczyński in Poland.
“I’m hopeful that these steps by the EU can keep Fico in a normal path and slow down the de-dde-democratisationcess in Slovakia,” Krekó added.
Different stance on EU funds
Krekó also noted key differences between Fico and Orbán, notably their stance on EU funds.
“I do think that if Fico ultimately has to choose between EU funds and a more illiberal governing style, he might likely opt for the EU funds,” he said, adding that in “Orban’s case, he is increasingly choosing more democratic backsliding over EU funds, even though these funds have also benefited his clientele.”
He also pointed to their different approach in matters of foreign policy.
Fico’s rhetoric is much harsher than the reality of his actions in this regard,” he said, citing the example that the Slovak government has not seriously considered vetoing any EU Council decisions to support Ukraine or condemn Russia, while “Orban did it repeatedly, and tried to pull Fico over to his side.”
Advice to citizens
Asked how Slovak citizens and civil society can prevent Fico’s government from emulating Orbán, Krekó stressed the crucial role of free and independent media.
“What enabled Orbán to win so many consecutive elections was a systematic takeover of the media space,” he said, adding that if the state failed to support independent media, citizens should do so instead.
“Because if the media space is being overtaken by pro-government individuals or oligarchs, it can become so distorted that it prevents citizens from making free and informed decisions,” he added.
(Natália Silenská | Euractiv.sk)
Source: euractiv.com
