“Those were the days”

1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse

The Constitution of the Slovak Republic has been seriously undermined during the last referendum. Untruth and ignorance in the name of a higher idea justified all means used. Higher interests defeat the sense of basic human rights. The Constitution guarantees basic rights, such as freedom of thought and conscience, regardless of political or other beliefs. Everyone has the right to publicly express his or her opinion. The Constitution also guarantees the citizens’ right to administer state power through their elected representatives or directly. Citizens have the right to participate in the administration of public affairs either directly or through the free election of their representatives.

2. Lack of democracy

Starting with the right to initiate a referendum, let us assume that you have a good idea on how to improve social life. Your idea gathers supporters, you have collected 350,000 signatures and the referendum is announced. Yet during the referendum process the original civic-initiative organisation does not have the right to be represented on the referendum committee, and it has no legal right to have access to public media budgeted by public taxes. This privilege is limited only to political parties in Slovakia (Act 564/92 on measures of referendum redemption). This nonsense is true.

3. No free competition

The existing referendum rules have predetermined the result of the Slovak referendum by favouring only the ‘Yes’ side. In referendums it is required that the government does not use the state budget in favour of one political party. In fair and democratic referendums no party should be favoured just because that party and its supporters happen to be in government. In fair referendums any public finances should be used for both sides on an equal footing. Yet we have seen how the ‘No’ side was heavily discriminated against and did not have the same rights as the ‘Yes’ side.

4. Misleading question

The referendum question should be clear on the issue. The Slovak referendum question “Are you in favour (not in favour) of EU membership?” did not describe what was really going on. Citizens have a right to be comprehensively informed about the referendum possibilities: there needs to be an unbiased projection about the consequences of a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ vote. Citizens have a right to receive and to disseminate information. Unfortunately, this is not allowed by the Referendum Act. It was proclaimed that it is not necessary to explain something to a minority with a different opinion and to give them any rights in this campaign.

5. Not enough time

There was a very short period of time in which to explain the referendum issue. The 12-day official campaign did not allow the possibility of informing citizens. In fact, some parliamentarians and government experts promised an additional information campaign after the referendum. There was no possibility to explain the whole EU issue to the people in an unbiased manner. The official campaign strategy had only two aims: mobilizing and supporting the ‘Yes’ side. Its aim was not to help the people decide through the supply of unbiased information, but just to obtain more ‘Yes’ votes.

The main role was played by advertising agencies, and not by political and civic organisations in pursuit of truth and genuine debate. Proposals for information campaigns and projects were refused. In fact, the one-sided information campaign in the Slovak referendum has caused a general loss of interest in direct democracy.

6. Non-binding referendum

Before the referendum took place, the Slovak Prime Minister officially announced a “back-door solution” if the overall turnout is lower than the 50% required by Slovak law. This had a huge negative influence on the will of the people to take part in a political battle that was declared lost (and won) in advance.

7. Foreign interference

In such EU referendums foreign representatives, such as those from the EU Commission or the European Parliament, should avoid campaigning to influence the results. Interference in Slovak internal affairs is a violation of law and goodwill. EU dignitaries and politicians from present Member States have broken this basic principle during their official visits in Slovakia.

8. Legislative disharmony

The current national legislation is not in conformity with Slovak international obligations and human rights guarantees. This caused us to file an appeal at the Constitutional Court and, subsequently, at the International Court of Human Rights. Success in these cases would help future referendums and citizen decision making, while relieving our conscience.

**9. Official campaign document digest*

a) Promised ethical principles

The highest standards of correctness Truth and help towards national public debate Freedom of speech respected Offer of all information necessary for decision-making in a democratic society (The government campaign created only dissatisfaction, not trust.)

b) Ideological and implementation disposition

To establish only one umbrella initiative that unites everyone into representing the single aim of having the Slovak Republic admitted into the EU. (Fortunately in this case only one umbrella organization was established, and that was on the No side. No ‘Yes’ umbrella organization appeared.)

c) Campaign truth

The pre-referendum campaign strategy was to maintain strong support for EU membership, as well as to maintain a high interest in the referendum so as to motivate enough citizens to vote and secure the participation of more than 50% of eligible voters. A positive result was deemed as one that secures 50% + 1 votes in favour of the Slovak Republic’s membership of the EU. (Clear controversy with commitments)

10. Basic statistics of referendum law violations

May 16, 2003: Day One 2:00 pm - Referendum started

10 appeals to take part in the referendum disseminated through the media (obligatory) 6 direct appeals for a ‘Yes’ vote 7 referendum districts publicly gave information about turnout 7:00 pm - First turnout estimate: around 13 %

7 referendum districts publicly reported turnout information 1 direct appeal for a ‘Yes’ vote (Trade Unionists) 1 municipality official publicly reported turnout information 10:00 pm - Second turnout estimate: 20 - 30 %

4 referendum districts publicly reported turnout information 2 appeals to take part in the referendum disseminated through media 1 great appeal by all party leaders for participation in referendum May 17, 2003: Day Two

4 requests for taking part in referendum disseminated through media (obligatory) 2 direct calls for ‘Yes’ vote 10:00 am - Third turnout estimate: 41.6 %

5 referendum districts publicly reported turnout information 1 appeal for taking part in referendum disseminated through media 1 direct call for a ‘Yes’ vote 12:00 noon - Fourth turnout estimate: 48.4 %

14 referendum districts publicly reported turnout information 1 municipality official publicly reported turnout information 2 direct calls for ‘Yes’ voting 1 great appeal for participation in referendum (three supreme leaders) 2:00 pm - Polling stations are closed

6:22 pm - Prime Minister announced referendum validity

8:41 pm - Preliminary result: 52.03% turnout

May 18, 2003: Day After 10:47 am - Final result: 52.15% turnout; 92.46 ‘Yes’ votes Moratorium finished

May 20, 2003 The Council for Broadcasting and Retransmission, an independent public institution for citizens rights on information, officially acknowledged that the campaign favoured the ‘Yes’ side, that it did not give any opportunity to supporters on the ‘No’ side, and that there was not enough transparency during the campaign.

Dr. Miloslav Hettes is President of AGORA, a Slovak Civic Association in Support of Direct Democracy

Address:
Sputnikova 37
821 02 Bratislava
Tel: +421 904192627
Website: www.priamademokracia.sk
E-mail: agora@nextra.sk