Croatia: Accession to the EU - A Time for Change?
bloody war whose consequences still determine the quality of the social transition across the Western Balkans.
The Croatian Political Landscape Although Croatia is soon to become a first Western Balkan member of the EU, excitement and enthusiasm are somehow missing from the recognition of this historic moment. Parallel to the spiral fall of the EU into its multiple crises, Croatia dives deeply into its own crisis of democratic legitimacy and economic sustainability, positioning its future place closer to unfortunate destinies of EU Member States like Greece or Hungary. The austerity measures introduced by the current government further diminished public confidence in institutions while the legitimacy of political parties quickly erodes. This article discusses the future of the European Union through the lenses of a new Member State and its specific perspectives – experience of selfgovernance and post-war reconstruction – which makes for a quite unique case in the larger European family. The article is based on the conclusions of a debate organised by the Green European Foundation and Heinrich Böll Foundation, entitled "Accession to the EU - A Time for Change?", held in Zagreb on the 26th of October 2012. The author of this article, Vedran Horvat, is the director of the Zagreb office of the Heinrich Boell Foundation.
The European social model, which attracted Croatia for its guarantee of prosperity and high quality life, is on the defence Europe wide, while the democratic quality of decisions again loses out in the name of swift reactions to the crisis. What is even more striking is that the discourse on the political consolidation of the EU as a federation appears to most Croatian citizens as a déjà vu. Due to the re-nationalisation that is emerging across Europe, this is often compared with the very period that preceded the dissolution of Yugoslavia, which ended in a
The political landscape in Croatia is marked by the dominant role and influence of the conservative party – the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) that has been in power for most of the 20 years of Croatian independence since the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The founding of this party was closely linked both with the gaining of Croatian sovereignty and fighting the war, as well as with blurry privatisations linked to criminal activities, the exclusion of ethnic minorities, political violence, and war crimes. However, after the modernisation of the party in the early 2000's and under the leadership of Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, the HDZ became the strongest advocate for the EU accession and it has led this process. After the resignation of Sanader, his successor Jadranka Kosor, although successful in some of her initiatives, failed to gain full recognition and free reign within the patriarchal party structure. The party therefore experienced a heavy loss in 2011 against a coalition led by Social Democrats. The latter have been in government only two times before, in both cases mainly using the lack of popularity of the HDZ, rather than bringing forward an own vision. The Social Democrats have also been linked with the paradox of a 'leftists' party that is afraid and unable to prosecute war crimes or protect ethnic minorities. On the contrary, they deregulated the labour market in early 2000's and currently they are pushing through austerity measures, as well as the privatisation of public goods and services and the commercialisation of the higher education system. Apart from these two parties that significantly polarise and mark the political debate in the country, there are a few smaller parties worth mentioning. The Croatian People's Party (HNS) is a liberal party mostly focused on an extreme neoliberal economic agenda. In the last parliamentary elections, the Croatian Labour Party entered parliament and it is now positioned as the third or fourth biggest Croatian party. It is a party marked by a strong left-wing populist discourse. Neither extreme right, nor extreme left parties are represented in parliament. Green parties have so far not managed to gain legitimacy and public support and to ensure the political representation of their voters. There is however a strong green civil society in Croatia.
Croatia: Accession to the EU - A Time for Change?
Over the last decade, all parties agreed that Croatia's accession to the EU is a national strategic objective and they acted accordingly. This explains why from the very start of the accession negotiations up to the referenda in early 2012 the European project has been perceived as a party owned or elite driven project, whereas opposition and criticism towards the EU membership originated from the civil society or non-parliamentary parties. Therefore, strong anti-party sentiments could also lead to EU scepticism. Currently, there are still no parties that directly oppose EU membership although more critical voices can be heard now from the Labour Party and HDZ. Now, less than a year from its full membership, the view from within the next Member State at the doorsteps of the Union is rather specific. In January 2012 Croatian citizens voted for the European future; however the low turn out, coupled with 30% 'NO' votes have been indicators that EU membership is perceived as a dividing line in society. It is thus a challenging and difficult task for emerging social and political forces close to green values (or the green political movement) to transform this division into opportunities that will come along with the membership and transform alleged losers of accession into winners. The referendum results do leave a third of the population critical or even opposed to the EU and this group represents a silent opposition to the European project even without a spokesperson or current political representation. If this development would take a more concrete lead in the future it would represent a source of instability in the post-accession phase. There are, however, stronger and stronger sentiments in a part of society that opposes the enhancement and recognition of minority rights, more and more resulting in homophobia and hate speech in favour of ethnic homogenisation. These are the risks that obviously have to be addressed in a systematic manner disabling the potential reversibility or a backlash to the legacy of the 1990's, now evoked by the radical right. With the debate organised by the Green European Foundation and Heinrich Böll Foundation, we aimed to open a discussion on the Future of the European Union through the lenses of a new member country and its specific perspectives – experience of self-governance and post-war reconstruction – which makes for a quite unique case in the larger European family. The departure point for the debate were two legs of potential progress – the state of democratisation and the state of economic/social affairs – with the aim to discover to which extent the European Union plays or can play role in the near future.
2
Key issues discussed Political perspectives of EU accession July 2013 will see the accession of Croatia as the 28th Member State to the EU. As a country joining the EU in the midst of crisis, Croatia is by chance in a symbolic position to give positive impetus for the whole European project to continue to develop and grow further. The most recent monitoring report of the European Commission on Croatia delivered mixed results, provoking some European and German politicians (like Norbert Lammert in October 2012) to voice concern over Croatia’s capability to continue with the necessary reforms before its envisioned accession date. Although these statements have already been set straight by the German government, they left a bitter aftertaste, and pointed to the question of the country’s readiness to join the EU. These positions do not necessarily stand alone in the European political and public sphere, but in a process a European political consensus has been established that Croatia’s accession is to give a positive signal to the rest of the region, although further enlargement seems at this moment to be almost impossible. On the other hand, the political decision of the EU to agree on the accession date does not take away the EU’s responsibility of disclosing the malfunctioning. In the first part of the discussion, titled ‘Democratic crisis in Croatia and in the EU – from representation to participation’ attended by the eminent liberal intellectual Žarko Puhovski; Juan Behrend, GEF board member; and Srećko Horvat, a young leftist intellectual, different views were presented on the Future of Europe from an accession country’s perspective. Although critical observations made by local and European speakers were at times conflicting, all speakers did find some common points in their analyses. The specific experience related to the 90’s and the EU’s role in the war in ex-Yugoslavia, the experience of selfgovernance and its beneficial impacts , the uneasy and tumultuous negotiation process for EU accession indeed demonstrated substantial frustration with Croatia’s peripheral position as an acceding country. Paradoxically enough, the historic moment of Croatia’s accession to the EU corresponds to the most unpopular time for enlargement and a revival of re-nationalisation in the EU. The departure point in the debate was the general political consensus between existing political parties on EU membership as a strategic goal which was directly
Croatia: Accession to the EU - A Time for Change?
linked with the crisis of representative democracy noting that the EU accession is an elite driven process which is confronted with a massive discontent of citizens. Having governments that still do not fully meet the standards of transparency or do not clearly communicate the beneficial impacts of the EU accession, citizens are usually left to link the European project with the interest of a small elite while they fail to recognise and trust the positive impacts of EU membership. This makes the current moment of entrance in the EU substantially different to the previous experiences in 2004 or 2007 when the crisis was still not on the horizon and the further enlargement perspectives had not been dismissed. The huge accumulation of centralised power in the European Commission was an issue of debate, as an obstacle to deepening European democracy. Furthermore, the possibility that centralisation of power is personalised by ‘’Merkozy’’ structures, has been criticised as implying a lack of controlling mechanisms at the European level. Calling for further development of democracy Puhovski argued for the introduction of deliberative democracy forms as constituent elements of decision making at European level which is still evidently underdeveloped around Europe wide. In his closing words, Puhovski reminded that experience with self-governance practices originating from the Yugoslav period (in former Yugoslavia, citizens had high level of autonomy in deciding over local budgets and priorities in their neighbourhoods and political participation at local level was very wide-spread) can be an extremely important contribution of Croatia to the further development of the participative dimension of democracy in the EU. Giving a European dimension to the discussion, Juan Behrend noted that the European Union is a new animal which has still not developed instruments for transnational democracy. Even so, it is a destination that many aspire to reach and participate in a peaceful life which is to date the biggest achievement of the European project. Behrend noted that the EU should continue in the direction of increasing solidarity between North and South - this should be the backbone of revival for the European democracy on the basis of more equity and fairness. Given the return to the logic of national states and the re-nationalisation of European policies, he urged for creating a transnational global governance system which would also ensure democratic control over the global financial system and reduce the domination of markets. How to delimitate and decouple the European debate from being stuck in the capitalist logic is certainly a challenge for Greens, he noted.
3
Srećko Horvat noted that the Croatian referendum was another symptom of this democratic deficit of the EU, as it did take place after all the negotiation chapters with the EU were settled with its one and only reason being to give legitimacy to all the steps preceding the accession (application to membership, opening of negotiations). The consent to accept the EU membership as the only option for the future was therefore artificial in his view, and related to a deep democratic crisis in both Croatia and the EU, not necessarily to the European perspectives of Croatian citizens. Unfortunately, the road to the EU accession has been closely linked with PR campaigning and providing of selective information, instead of true discussions and the real involvement of citizens in taking the ownership of deciding over their European future. Authorities perceived such debates as something that would slow down if not challenge the European project as a whole. European membership is deeply mystified in our society, Horvat noted, saying that the European future is often linked with misleading notions of ‘utopian society’ as stated by Žarko Puhovski. The existence of corruption, the detrimental impacts of flexicurity and the invisible “war” between the rich and poor are all ugly faces of Europe which should have also been discussed before accession, Horvat noted.
The economic crisis - an opportunity for turnover? The discussions over the lack of information surrounding EU accession and the lack of democratic control over the financial/banking system that monopolised the first half of the debate proved to be a solid introduction to the second part of the event that focused on the economic crisis in Europe and its spill over to Croatia. The session was attended by Paul Stubbs from the Economics Institute in Zagreb, Ana Maria Boromisa from the Institute for International Relations and by Bruno Rossman, Austrian Green Member of Parliament. This discussion quickly identified common ground with the previous discussion on the democratic crisis, as the lack of participation of citizens related to economic and growth policies were the key points of debate. As moderator Sandra Benčić noted, Croatian citizens are overwhelmed by the impression that decisions over economic development are far beyond their influence and that they are excluded from this process. With the crisis this discontent found a growing number of supporters and the real challenge is whether the EU will play any major role in involving citizens in these debates.
Croatia: Accession to the EU - A Time for Change?
Very soon after the start of the economic and financial crisis in Europe, Croatia entered into a dark phase of its own economy that also had adverse impacts on the reform orientation and reduced economic policy to rigid austerity measures combined with the deregulation of the labour market, the reduction of social rights and with attracting big investments meant to substitute the lack of a sound and coherent economic policy. Being in recession Croatia is facing a considerably high public and external debt and a constant unemployment rate of about 20%. In addition, state involvement in the economy within the current circumstances is detrimental and inefficient, although many citizens would like to maintain state control. Education and health care are were the first in line to suffer cuts given the austerity measures, even though they are underpining conditions for the country's long term prosperity. Paul Stubbs noted that it is of great importance that the Greens are among the very few actors that point to social policy within the EU as a part of the solution to the crisis and not as a cause of the problem, which is the dominant perception. ‘’It is particularly important, I think, to address the social dimension of the crisis in the Croatian context where, although little has actually changed on the ground, the centre-left coalition government appears more open than its predecessors to neo-liberal ideas and, thus, in favour of a weakened, marketised, sub-contracted, and punitive 'social', albeit allied with a continued deeply rooted clientelism and conservative familiarism.’’ Stubbs noted that there is still a possibility to articulate a set of winnable demands around social rights, social inclusion and social protection, at global, regional, national and local scales which would allow for an alliance between reformist and more radical forces. He has taken the example of the UK where social policy is being reduced to the idea of 'doing more with less' in a 'big society' composed of volunteers, workfare or prison fare conscripts, and a new class of social innovators, social investors and social entrepreneurs as if putting the word social in front of key free market concepts renders them less problematic. ‘’It is not that social innovation should be opposed; but what could be a useful addition to a base of fundamental social rights is being used as a substitute for them increasingly, introducing a trendbased rather than needs- or rights-based approach’’, he said. Stubbs argued that ‘’in this age of 'evidence-based policies' those countries who have been hit hardest by the crisis – or better to say whose old and newly created poor has been hit hardest - are precisely those countries
4
like Greece, which have no Minimum Income Guarantee; those like Italy, Spain, and Portugal who have very limited schemes because “the extended family will offer support“; or those like Romania, Latvia, Estonia, and Slovakia where Minimum Income is highly conditional if not downright punitive and whose new growth is contributing to rising inequalities and is unsustainable (again).” In a broader sense, he explained, ‘’nothing short of a holistic re-linkage of the economic, the ecological and the social, much as is attempted in the Green New Deal, is needed. This has to combine sustainable production with new forms of taxation and revenue raising, to make possible real and meaningful redistribution plus innovative responses to so-called new risks which render nation-state traditional welfare state solutions suboptimal: such as migration, the oppression of minorities, erosion of meaningful participation, the rise of gendered transnational care chains, and so on. The 2008 Green Vision for a Social Europe also, rightly, emphasised the importance of Services of General Interest and the need to fight against so-called ‘trade creep’ where the creation of free markets in services is fuelling the privatisation and commercialisation of essential services, including health and education’’. For Croatia, and Croatia in the EU, we need to find the way out of the clientelistic social policy marked as it is by sub-optimal welfare parallelisms between state and nonstate actors and between national, regional and local level provision, Stubbs noted. We need to remind ourselves that the EU itself is in danger of losing its place as offering alternative visions of societal organisation based on social rights, collective responsibility, social solidarity, social cohesion and social equity within an integration agenda but that this can, and must, be changed so that Another (Social) Europe Is Possible. Some residues in this social Europe could be recognised in Austria as described by Bruno Rossman, Green MP who provided an illustrative view of how Austria successfully survived the heavy hits of the crisis in its very neighbourhood. He stressed that social and economic issues are closely interlinked with the core competence fields of the Green political family, which as a whole still has a need to explore and exhibit this linkages more strongly. ‘’Demonstrating solidarity with the rest of Europe is essential at this moment for defining a sustainable future of Europe as we envision it’’, Rossman noted. He agreed with Juan Behrend’s statement in the first session that systemic regulation and control over the financial system is to be urgently
Croatia: Accession to the EU - A Time for Change?
established. Having in mind the close linkages between Croatia and Austria, his statements regarding a neighbour country that is successfully coping with the crisis did have a strong echo. Ana Maria Boromisa noted that recoveries from crises are not only slow and uneven, but often subject to episodes of renewed weaknesses. ''The European Commission describes the 2008-09 period as a Great Recession followed by a sovereign-debt crisis, high oil prices and decelerating world output in the second half of 2011. Recovery is very gradual for the EU economy as a whole, characterised by growth below potential over most of the forecast horizon, insufficient employment dynamics and persistent growth differentials among Members States.“ Boromisa further showed that the development of the energy sector was recognised as one of the recovery measures and as a possible tool to foster growth in Croatia. Renewable energy is of course an affordable, reliable, acceptable and available energy supply, which is a precondition for the consolidation of the economic recovery and of strengthening growth potential. However, these measures have not been implemented – some of them are still being considered, e.g. which model of electricity market would best serve Croatian interests. ''Every moment is a good time to change towards more sustainability and the EU accession is one such moment for Croatia. It is certainly a sobering moment, and I hope that the policy makers will be able to change their “policy taking”to a policy making perspective, and that sooner or later we will hear that somebody has proposed something to the EU and it has been accepted. The EU is not an exclusive club anymore, and joining it does not mean transformation and improvement “per se“. It is an opportunity, and it's up to everybody to choose whether to grab it or not.
5
Local communities with vision and ideas will probably benefit, because they are most likely to find partners and supporters of their endeavours. They will not be left alone anymore, and that is the dimension of the EU that provides comfort'', Boromisa stated.
Conclusions Both sessions pointed to the very expectations from the EU which citizens have in relation to the quality of democracy and economic recovery. Having in mind the specific moment of Croatia’s joining the EU amidst the sovereign debt crisis in the EU and the implicit overwhelming feeling of ‘boarding the Titanic’ as the dominating impression at this moment, the rationale behind the pro-European perspective is based on the expectation that within the EU there will be more opportunities to strengthen the local level of policy making on the principle of subsidiarity and that from the European level we will be able to gain more support for citizen initiatives that improve governance and social conditions. The conclusion of both panel debates in the event was that Croatians still suffer from severe exclusion from decision making processes which remain closed, exclusive and non transparent. There were also hopes – justified or not –that the EU membership can play a major role in co-creating a more social, more sustainable and more democratic Europe with the other 27 countries. Decoupling the economic model from democratic procedures therefore remains one of the greatest challenges to be addressed by progressive and green political forces in the EU and in Croatia.
The article was written by Vedran Horvat, director of the Zagreb office of the Heinrich Boell Stiftung. © Green European Foundation The views expressed in this article are those of the authors’ alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Green European Foundation. With support of the European Parliament. Green European Foundation asbl 1, rue du Fort Elisabeth 1463 Luxembourg Brussels Office: 15 rue d’Arlon, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 2 234 65 70 - Fax: +32 2 234 65 79 E - mail: info@gef.eu - Web: www.gef.eu