Slovak elections today. News is that the populist, centre-left Smer has won, but that it might not be able to form a government.
There's even talk (on
Bloomberg, for example) of the possibility that instead, loser Dzurinda could cobble together a follow-up government that includes not just the christian-democrats, liberals and Hungarians that make up the current government, but Vladimir Meciar's HZDS as well.
Meciar is the nationalist populist who governed Slovakia rather autocratically in a coalition with the far right and the far left through much of the 90s. But now, having dropped to a mere 10% or so, he is apparently considered the lesser danger, compared to what is described as Smer's populist promises.
This is where I go on a digression. I dont know much about Smer, yet - the party only emerged after the time when I watched Slovak politics closely. My digression, instead, primarily concerns a beef I have with Anglo/American media, though it should end up sketching the Slovak election result from two perspectives as well.
---------------------------
Read, first, what
Reuters writes.
Leftist ahead of PM's party in Slovak election is the headline.
"A leftist party vowing to roll back reforms won an election in Slovakia on Saturday, but the reformist prime minister could yet stay in power if he joins forces with other centre-right parties, an exit poll showed".
"Vowing to roll back reforms" - that sounds drastic. A serious setback? And it's a "leftist" vowing so, contrasted with the "reformist" prime minister; for the centre-ground observer it's immediately clear who the good guy is. "Reformist" always sounds progressive and sensible.
"Smer leader Robert Fico has promised to reverse Dzurinda's internationally-lauded welfare and tax reforms, saying they were too painful for ordinary people and that only the rich were benefiting from Slovakia's economic boom."
Reverse "internationally-lauded welfare and tax reforms", this really does sound bad. I mean, welfare and tax reforms are a good thing, to most observers, in this age of globalisation. Especially if it's not actually specified what they were.
"Dzurinda has vowed to adopt the euro single currency in 2009. Economic analysts say Fico's policies could delay euro zone entry although he has pledged to respect the target."
This Fico looks like he will put all of Slovakia's perspectives of economic progress at risk. Is this a new Meciar? Slovakia was indeed a mess before Dzurinda came to power, when Meciar ruled over a corrupted, intolerant regime.
"One of Fico's options may be to turn to centre-right parties, but they are not his natural allies and reject his wholesale criticism of Dzurinda's policies."
Again, the impression that emanates from phrases like "his wholesale criticism of Dzurinda's policies" is one of a drastic reverse of a "centre-right" ("centre" suggesting moderation) course. (Of unspecified policies).
The article closes off with, "Dzurinda has won plaudits abroad for taking the nation of 5.4 million people into the EU and NATO and setting it on track for euro zone membership, but his partners have often criticised him for what they call a dictatorial streak."
Dzurinda, the conclusion here is, has despite individual flaws taken Slovakia on a centrist, steady and prosperous course to EU standards ... and Fico is endangering it all!
---------------------------
OK. Now for another article, from the Swiss
Basler Zeitung:
Prognose: Opposition gewinnt slowakische Parlamentswahl. (Dont think I have to translate that.)
"According to first voter polls, the social-democratic opposition party Smer has emerged as the winner from the Slovak parliamentary elections."
So far, so unalarming.
"According to a [..] first prognosis, the party Smer-Socialdemocracy, led by Robert Fico" has 26,7%. "The christian-liberal SDKU of Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda" only got 13,6%.
Socialdemocratic opposition vs christian-liberal government. Nothing remarkable there either, that's your regular centre-field players in Europe.
"Susprisingly strong was the performance of the extreme-right Slovak National Party SNS", which got 11,8%.
Now
there's a real danger. The SNS was part of Meciar's far-left/far-right government, has a tradition of xenophobic rhetorical outbursts and skinhead supporters, and claims a heritage that goes back to the country's WW2 fascist puppet-regime. Not mentioned in the other story.
The swing to the opposition takes place against the "backdrop of popular discontent. Though it's true that economic growth in the past year was 6,1%, the Slovaks nevertheless earn, on average, around 450 Euro per month. No country in Europe has a larger discrepancy between wages and economic growth."
Sounds like a hard-to-establish (and unsourced) statistic there, but 450 euro a month is indeed a pittance - and that's the average, lots of people on less as well. Easy enough to see why people would be impatient.
"Dzurindas coalition government of three Christian-Democratic parties and a liberal party has attracted international attention with business-friendly reforms. Because of rising costs of living and radical social budget cuts the reform politics however remained unloved among the population."
Note - in this article, it is Dzurinda's government that was "radical". Moreover, this article actually specifies a little of what the reforms that Fico wants to reverse actually encompassed:
"His party announced, in its election program, that it would change the current 19% flat tax into a progressive system, stop privatisations, and introduce a minimal wage."
Ah yes. So thats what we're talking about. A 19%
flat tax; that's an ultraliberal dream, practically unique to Europe. It's not exactly centre-ground or EU standard. And introduce a minimal wage, how dare he? (Hungary has one).
"Since he founded his party in December 1999, Fico counts as a voice for the unsatisfied and those who have been handed the short end of the stick [Zukurzgekommenen] in the country."
Well, after reading these two articles, I'd say, good for him.
---------------------------
See what my problem with the cookie-cutter Anglo reporting is? It's all cut from the same cloth, the same preconceived division of roles: "reformers" (ie, Western, pro-EU, reasonable, open-minded) versus those who want to "reverse reforms", populists or "leftists" (who put the whole straight and sensible path to Eurozone eligibility at risk).
All of this sketched in evocative phrases and without much actual specification of concrete policies that are proponed or opposed - let alone of how the policies in question would actually compare to those in the countries currently already
in the Eurozone.
To buttress this perspective, take as your main quoted expert, for example - as the Bloomberg article does - "an economist at Danske Bank A/S in Copenhagen", and you arrive at the prevalent reporting in English-language media that routinely equates "investor interest" with common sense, and criticism of neoliberal market policies as dangerous populism.
