In mid-January 2014 we undertook a research trip to Banská Bystrica surroundings to focus on implementation of law on social assistance in material need that will come into force in June 2014. We did not select the municipalities accidentally but with special attempt to cover places with low, average, and high electoral success of Marian Kolteba. Although our trip focused mainly on implementation of the social regulation with regard to Roma minority, we have tried to explore why Kotleba was so successful. To understand the local context of region, one has to understand local issues in greater context; what are the key issues discussed by locals, what impact the national politics has on local level, and how does the party enable internal discussion on sensitive topics. It is very important to consider the role of political party, in this case Smer. Do the mayors feel defended by their party; do they feel strong local identification; do they administrate the municipality or govern it?
In case of mayors from Smer, a deep misunderstanding of the current situation is evitable; from local policy level as well as institutional perspective. In their opinion, the party (Smer) is not responsible for the current situation and that they will be protected by the party. Although the government party is a key political player, they do not feel any responsibility.
The argumentation can be distinguished into following categories:
i) Focus on their municipality without broader perspective of regional or even national policy
However the mayors may successfully govern their municipalities, they lack the mid-term perspective of Kotleba success. They claim that they cannot pass through any act without cooperating with other political parties or it is not even possible to come into agreement about norms regulating Roma minority or EU funds. Therefore, they perceive the Kotleba’s success in short term perspective like he does not have any competences, or he does not have a significant influence on national policy. Even if both mayors lead their municipalities for more than one electoral period, they do not feel responsibility for the Smer’s defeat. This feeling is strongly connected to the fact that they are not able to define mobilizing issues in the region as Kotleba did in case of machinery factory in Detva (the factory should be probably demolished because of gold deposit).
ii) Failing role of administrative structure of self-governing regions
The local political representatives did not lean to cooperate with the self-governing regional administrative structure. It is evident that the regional identification is missing. Nonetheless, they do not understand why they should cooperate with the regional institution, because the ZMOS (Association of Cities and Municipalities in Slovakia) is their natural partner. Off the record, they mention that the Region (VUC) is simply useless institution. Frankly speaking, if the identifying element is missing and the competences are not clear enough, it is understandable that they feel confused about the role of self-governing regions. Nevertheless, they misunderstand or serve VUC as Kotleba’s PR tool for free is surprising. From practical point of view, the VUC are broadly used for cultural projects of small extend that would enable Kotleba rich scope of public activities. It is questioning to what extend will Kotleba influence the institutional design of VUC. If that happens, local mayors will have to cooperate with Kotleba for instance to be successful in project calls on cultural affairs as they did so far. As told off the record, they have non-formal relations with administrative staff that helps them to gain these projects. The misunderstanding of VUC’s role is a common phenomenon in regions with low level of (sub) regional identification. Therefore such a success is, at least in our opinion, easier to happen.
iii) Failing role of political parties on regional and local level
The third point is the role of political party structure in intra party communication on relevant policy issues or any kind of feedback on the electoral defeat. Frankly speaking, after undertaken interviews, one can easily get the impression that the Smer servers as a platform for transferring financial benefits for its own members. The regional party structure does not deal with implementation of problematical and complicated policies such as act on social assistance. The party members, we spoke to, do not feel any reason, why the regional functions as well as campaign should be changed. Even if they tell that especially young generation voted for Kotleba as a kind of revolt, they do not feel responsibility for that. Although popularity of governing party is still high, the communication government policies do not meet with public understanding; even not in traditional social democratic region. Nevertheless, Smer mayors still have a possibility how to at least communicate the political issues.
Independent mayor
This is not the case of independent mayor without this institutional support. The mayor, we interviewed, is the perfect example for this case. As interviewed mayor said, the VUC representatives are same thieves as in the national policy especially those from Smer. To get a complex picture, the PM Robert Fico claimed that he was asked to evaluate two same projects, the one that was conducted by Smer member would be better. Although it is party-membership based claiming, it shows how the distrust in the institutional as well as political setting. Therefore, the ZMOS is only institution with whom the independent mayors can consult their problematic issues.
The case of interviewed independent mayor shows the possible prevention against the rise of manipulation as well extremism. It is the strong local identification and governing instead of administrating of municipalities. The mentioned mayor develops the municipality to be the place to life in as well as to visit. He introduces projects to support the touristic industry like local traditions, small festivals etc. What is more important is the fact, that he perceives the Kotleba activities and a serious threat to democracy on regional as well national level. As he mentioned, the political parties did not perform to represent the people, but their own interests like in case of machinery factory in Detva.
To look on the selected cases in broader context, one can conclude as follows: this point of view is independent from the party membership. Two basic steps should be done to avoid a rise of further Kotleba popularity:
i) Local identification with the municipality and understanding people’s interests
ii) Recognizing the reasons of Kotleba’s success on regional level with the impact on national policy