Croatia: Last Bastion For Political Third Way Emerging (?)


Andrej Plenkovic
Croatian Prime Minister
Photo: screenshot

Generally, political pragmatism holds in highest esteem and values reality over ideology. It’s recognition that while a politician’s first job is to get elected, the second job is to do what is right, to the extent that the politician can convince the people to support it. It is the recognition that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. It is the willingness to strike a compromise whereby as many people as possible get as much of what they want as possible. It is the willingness to work with others on common goals, regardless of differences on other goals. It is the recognition by political leadership and by voters that in a democracy no one ever gets their way on everything. Each parliamentary representative is an ingredient in the mix of government. Each may do their utmost to bend outcomes in their direction, but ultimately each has to recognise that the rest of the nation also has their representatives and has just as much claim as they have.

And it would seem that in Croatia this is not recognised for what it is (determination to carry on with governing the country, which should be seen as a normal and desirous pursuit of all politicians) by many people even though facets of political pragmatism have been unfolding before our eyes for quite a few months with the political crises that threatened yet another fall of government and yet another snap election within a mere six-month period.

Political pragmatism appears to have been the driving and determined force behind HDZ/Croatian Democratic Union (led by Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic) fight for survival at the top, in power and in government. For a democracy this is nothing abnormal and nothing unexpected where power at the top means the artery through which election platforms for governing the country flow and are solidified or attempted to be solidified through goals.

On Friday 9 June 2017 HDZ/Croatian Democratic Union made its final moves to secure its minority government and it has saved its bacon. By forming coalition with its ideological opponent HNS (Croatian People’s Party) and the staunchly divisive Italian and Serb minority representatives – it averted a government fall and second snap elections. In essence, snap elections would most likely do more damage than good simply because new elections also mean inability to realise the promises made at elections. Interruptions.

Right or conservatively oriented HDZ’s securing of its tenure as senior partner in a minority government with left oriented HNS has been dubbed an unnatural alliance especially by other right oriented political players and political parties as well as the deteriorating left oriented Social Democrats/SDP. Ideology, or rather its alleged flimsiness, it seems, has been the major bone around which criticism against HDZ’s moves have been directed. This ideology behind HDZ’s right-oriented critics is the one that places “Croatianness” at the pinnacle where all practical ties with former communist regime are rejected and abhorred.

The political reality (and, therefore, the path to achieving needed reforms that would set Croatia on a path to economic stability in particular) over the past year or so in Croatia has been that of living in a political era fraught with unprecedented gridlock and an inability to reach and/or live-out compromises within minority government coalitions. Politics in Croatia has through the last two decades devolved into ideological warfare as politicians butt heads over their drastically different but equally dogmatic philosophies on how to govern this country. The camps of ideology on how to govern in Croatia while numerous, hence the existence of some 150 political parties, have essentially been of two different kinds: the one (the right oriented one) that seeks sovereignty built on national democracy away from any former communist regime ties and the one that upholds as the most holy of governance practices and habits inherited from former communist regime (the left oriented one that likes to refer to itself – wrongly – as antifascist). While ideological warfare is no stranger to other and more developed democracies in Croatia it is more accentuated largely due to the fact that lustration and systematic shedding of inherited communist mindset and practices has not occurred in public administration, cultural, political parties and other avenues.

Ideology is a systematically coordinated and cognitively salient set of politically focused beliefs and a question is put here as to what role it should play in politics. In an ideal world (yes, I understand the irony), all lawmakers would be rational, pragmatic decision-makers capable of divorcing themselves from their personal opinions in favour of working to produce the best possible policies that provide the greatest net benefit to society. Instead of working within a narrow worldview that prescribes a set of one-size-fits-all policies regardless of their overall societal utility, these solons would craft unique solutions on a case-by-case basis in order to maximise benefits and minimise costs.

Ideological purism encourages dogmatism by reinforcing the idea that one’s principles are incontrovertibly true, and any view deviating from those principles is invariably false. This sort of absolutism has drastically negative implications on the multiparty/democratic political system. First, it polarises parliament to the point where its members fall victim to ingroup and outgroup biases, causing them to demonise any position that conflicts with their ideologies, and by association, any fellow members who hold such positions. Debates over legislation often devolve into a set of ad hominem attacks that can often work antithetically to the creation of sound policy. Second, it mitigates any ability for lawmakers to reach compromises because neither side will concede. Compromise becomes a sign of weakness because it creates the impression that those involved are not firm in their convictions and would rather betray their principles by selling themselves out for short-term political gain. This leads to obstructionism and gridlock, which complicates a government’s ability to act swiftly and decisively in times of crisis, all while dissolving the political middle ground.

Politics should be about working in the best interests of society, and that generally necessitates compromise. Political parties with differing ideologies will always exist and disagree with one another, but they should be competing in a race to the middle, not a race to the fringes. Borne out of this conception of politics is “syncretic politics” (a union of opposing principles), the idea that legislators should break from the traditional confines of the left-right political spectrum in favour of aggregating a set of solutions from both sides that work most advantageously for society.

This would be THE foundation for a “Third Way” or “Third political force” Croatia, like all two-party political climates, has been searching for, for more than a decade. Over the years the emergence of political parties and/or political movements such as Democratic Centre, HRAST, various splits and re-assemblies of Croatian parties of Right, Croatian Dawn, ORAH, MOST/Bridge – to name but a few – testifies to the fact that a “Third Way” has been an almost constant subject in the search for the right/needed political solution in Croatia.

So far there have been no champions of the Third Way in Croatia. All attempts have been relatively insignificant, short-lived or suffocated to political oblivion or insignificance brokered by one of the two major political parties. The major parties in their quest for power had, as a rule, created a “space for deletion” of the Third Way. The success of Third Way suffocation so far could well be ascribed to the ideologically narrow platform embraced by the failed Third Way political protagonists whose short-lived lives in essence fed on politically like-minded bands of cheer-squads that made little or no room to infiltrate or convince opponents or the undecided about the righteousness for Croatia of their platforms in order to expand on popularity. And so a certain hunger for a Third Way continues vigorously in various sectors of Croatian society – many questions of ideological nature and the place ideology should play in addressing and bettering society’s daily living reality remain unrequited.

Recent Western world political history has demonstrated that perceived champions of the Third Way can exist and can be successful. E.g., Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the USA had skilfully managed to combine ideas from both the left and the right to achieve reconciliation between opposing worldviews and formulate good policies. These political ThirdWays did good things but they neglected social solidarity and national cohesion. Obviously, disagreements are inevitable, but whenever they arise in parliament, lawmakers should work them out through horse-trading, smart concessions, and deal making in order to assuage both sides and solve societal problems. Admittedly, Croatia is a harder ideological nut to crack than what UK or USA might be because of its relatively recent communist past but it needs to be kept in mind that nothing is impossible when it comes to politics propped up by measures that make-up daily living reality that is in essence somewhat divorced from political ideology.

National cohesion is essential for Croatia otherwise the busiest route onwards is downwards when it comes to Croatian national interests, which by the way everyone talks about but rare are those who can name and point them out specifically – even though they are existent in one form or another contained within the Constitution.

I’m not saying that having a set political ideology is a bad thing when it comes to decision-making and passing legislation. In fact, it can be a very good, and sometimes necessary, thing. An overarching ideology can help standardise the way one calculates benefits to society by providing a targeted lens through which to view the world rather than an arbitrary method of assigning values to costs and benefits as one may see fit. For example, in economics, different schools of thought assign different values to efficiency and equity. Capitalists would argue that efficiency is a much greater benefit to society whereas Marxists would argue that equity should be society’s chief economic goal. Each side has a standardised worldview under which it operates, even if both sides have different interpretations of what is most important.

But don’t take this to mean that lawmakers (parliamentarians) should always work to promote whatever they view as most important regardless of other considerations. Ideology alone most rarely trumps rational decision-making; politicians’ worldviews should still operate within the framework of cost-benefit analysis, and in situations where adhering to an ideology would result in incurring a greater opportunity cost than deviating from it would, politicians should compromise their principles in favour of benefit maximisation.

Last week’s outcome favourable to HDZ’s continued lead in Croatia’s government is a case that may well serve as proof that staunch ideological purism (had HDZ stuck to those guns instead of striking alliances with political opposites or those that disagree with its ideology) is unfavourable politics and, had it worked towards the unknown of any new general elections it could have ceded control of government to other political camps that in essence hold no promise at this stage that reforms needed in the country would be achieved.

It is a blatant and often cruel reality that when one backs oneself into an ideological corner without room to maneuvre, it makes it more difficult to compromise and achieve ones goals for the betterment of society based on ideological premises. And as evil a word as “compromise” has become in the last several years, good government is about compromise. It is about people of different beliefs coming together. Whether HDZ will achieve this togetherness with its partners is yet to be seen even if both government partners – HDZ and HNS – promise a determined future solidarity with each other.

One could say that it’s the unrequited ideological stance that promotes full democracy and Croatian sovereignty, achieved through Homeland War sufferings and sacrifices, away from communist remnants, that have driven most past attempts at Third Way in politics and government.


Currently there is a political tide in Croatia channeling the creation of a new right-wing movement and a new political party that fits in various degrees this unrequited ideological stance. This political tide has become convincingly synonymous with three active politicians’ and members of parliament names: Bruna Esih, Zlatko Hasanbegovic and Zeljko Glasnovic. All three right wing, patriotically, conservative politics oriented.

From Left:
Zlatko Hasanbegovic, Bruna Esih, Zeljko Glasnovic
Photo: screenshot


Evidenced by various media coverages and social media outpours of support this new political movement or new political party in progress is seen by many supporters as that which will save Croatia from total obscurity and alienation of its original national goals in the creation of the modern and independent state of Croatia, thoroughly cleansed of communist mindsets and practices. This, of course, is not a new political reality nor sentiment; it is ingrained in the rather widespread quest for national Croatian democratic sovereignty. It is, though, amidst political crises in Croatia, seen by many as the last bastion for a Third Way that may have a chance of defending and solidifying the goals set in the beginning of Croatia’s secession from communist Yugoslavia. Whether the protagonists of this new Third Way will achieve the goals will, without doubt, depend on political pragmatism, on reaching out to the everyday reality that is multi-faceted and padded with a “garden variety” of ideological stepping stones.

The Third Way has almost become the subject of pamphlets – everywhere. As a political idea Third Way is at least as old as Eduard Bernstein’s bid in the last decade of the 19th century to detach the German Social Democrats from marxian communism by taking the parliamentary road. In 1959 the postwar German SPD did it again by ‘accepting’ capitalism.

Does the Third Way help relieve us of our present discontents? Or, to put that more concretely, are controls on international investment justified when, as the New York Times said way back on Sunday 20 September 1998, experts prepare to re-think systems as free flowing capital sinks nations? The Third Way is meant to be expunging from the domestic body politic. It is at this point that the intellectual weaknesses of the Third Way become obvious and hence, sinkage into oblivion or political insignificance experienced by previous Third Way attempts in Croatia.

I have always believed that politics is first and foremost about ideas. Without a powerful commitment to goals and values, governments are rudderless and ineffective, however large their majorities or small their minorities are. Furthermore, ideas need labels if they are to become popular and widely understood. The “Third Way” is, to my mind, the best label for the new politics which the progressive centre that embraces facets of both the right and the left.

The Third Way stands for a modernised social democracy, passionate in its commitment to social justice and the goals of a nation, but flexible, innovative and forward-looking in the means to achieve them. It is founded on the values which have guided progressive politics for more than a century – democracy, liberty, justice, mutual obligation as well as internationalism without which today’s economy would lose its legs. But it is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an old left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests.

My vision for Croatia is of a popular politics reconciling themes which in the past have wrongly been regarded as antagonistic – patriotism in particular; rights and responsibilities; the promotion of enterprise and the attack on poverty and discrimination. Croatia still has far to go to build the open, fair and prosperous society to which people aspire.

A successful Third Way is not an attempt to split the difference between right and left. It is about traditional values in a changed world. And it draws vitality from uniting the two streams to the levels that give it enough people-based validity to keep its goals running and in achievement mode. My political beliefs are rooted in a belief that we can only realise ourselves as individuals in a thriving civil society, comprising strong families and civic institutions buttressed by intelligent government. For most individuals to succeed, society must be strong. When society is weak, power and rewards go to the few not the many. Values are not absolute, and even the best can conflict. A Third Way’s mission should be to promote and reconcile the four values which are essential to a just society which maximises the freedom and potential of all our people – equal worth, opportunity for all, responsibility and community. After all, Croatia did fiercely fight its defensive Homeland War to achieve a democracy within which these four essential and core values would become the ingredients of the brand of democracy and freedom from communism it set its eyes ad determination upon. Equal opportunity in Croatia especially when it comes to employment is a far cry from the one effervescent in Western democracies and that fact alone, is an alarm bell that should be ringing in all ears as, for sure, it is the culprit of alarming injustice driven by communist era nepotism.

The question hovers in Croatia: can a Third Way, a Third political force succeed or not? Succeed in either capturing governmental rights or in remaining a political force that keeps a government on alert. Some, particularly guided by past experiences, will say no – it cannot succeed. Others, though, guided by possibilities and the reality of society’s needs on a national basis and possibilities that implementing the constitution means taking advantage and of the potential they offer to shape policy – will say yes. Presenting the latter in packages that appeal to people’s needs, that reverberate true is the key to any success, even a Third Way’s. Ina Vukic



Croatia: renewed cronyism under leftist government – extreme and brazen

Corruption, cronyism, and a general lack of transparency stymied meaningful economic reform, as well as much-needed foreign investment in Croatia during the past decade or so.

Much of the blame for corruption and cronyism has been directed towards Croatian Democratic Union/HDZ as it had up until December 2011 been in government for most of those years. Certainly the now ruling Kukuriku coalition (comprised of political parties that arose out of the former Communist League or former Communist party) has enjoyed a rich feast of electoral success on the back of reported HDZ cronyism and alleged corruption; it won majority seats in the Croatian parliament at December 2011 general elections.

The Croatian voters had demonstrated they were sick and tired of corruption and cronyism that particularly saw severe depletion and impoverishment of public companies, employment discrimination and severe lack of competitive non-politically and non-nepotistic opportunities run rife.

When former Prime Minister (HDZ) Ivo Sanader suddenly resigned his post (2006) and was subsequently arrested on an array of criminal corruption charges, there was an air of optimism in and outside Croatia. Bringing Sanader to criminal trials served as a catalyst that would help social and political transformation closer to what democracy should look like; be like.

Sanader and HDZ were often portrayed in foreign press has having dismantled the country’s democratic institutions.

But the reality is that destruction and dismantlement of Croatia’s democratic institutions has never been worse than what is happening right now, under the Social Democrats/SDP and Croatian Peoples Party/HNS.

Not only is Croatia’s leftist government practicing cronyism but also it has now taken it to the extreme. The embattled First Deputy Prime Minister Radimir Cacic is now pushing for changes to Constitutions of organisations (e.g. Environment Protection Fund) in order to create conditions for employment that fit the personal qualifications of a persons from Social Democratic Party (SDP) he wants to install into high positions.

Despite the fact that such positions already have professional incumbents Cacic says that he’s installing his people because he wants his people in important public companies who will not undermine him. Cacic and the government do not seem to know much about job accountability and how to ensure it without bringing politics into it.

What’s distressing is that Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic is in agreement with Cacic. This is shattering not only because of the ugly face of such brazen cronyism but because he himself recently sought Environment Minister Mirela Holy’s resignation for attempting to secure a job for the wife of an SDP member, and Milanovic should ensure that such zero tolerance of cronyism continues.

Croatian media and Croatian parliamentary opposition (including HDZ) rallying and criticisms against practices of cronyism (such as the latest ones by Cacic) is, sadly, only raising dust that may settle in discomfort but end up ineffective in attempts to rid Croatia of the stymying cronyism for some time yet.

European Commission’s April 2012 Monitoring Report on Croatia’s EU accession preparations concludes, on page 10,

In the field of social policy and employment, attention must be given to further legislative alignment in the fields of anti-discrimination and equal opportunities. Structural weaknesses of the labour market as well as further capacity-building of social partners and further strengthening of administrative capacity across all areas must also be addressed”.

Well, guess what?

It seems the SDP led government in Croatia is paying more attention to “legislative alignment in the fields of anti-discrimination and equal opportunities” – it is, just as Communists did in former Yugoslavia, aligning company Constitutions and bylaws to create conditions of employment that fit the personal characteristics of the specific individual they want to install into positions.

This is truly obscene! This is truly un-democratic. This is truly anti-equal-opportunity.

Having said this, it may, nevertheless, be argued that patronage politics (type of cronyism) is a phenomenon present in every political system, irrespective of the country, whether democratic or not. In fact, in some political systems, endorsement of patronage is an acceptable occurrence at the highest levels of government, where the ruling authorities are entitled to select their cabinet and department heads.

In relatively recent years many governments (e.g. United Kingdom, Canada …) have felt the need to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the political processes around public sector appointments. They have established transparent processes with a high degree of independence, if not also attention to ensuring merit-based appointments.

Milanovic, Cacic and the whole of the Croatia’s current government have been installing their politically suitable individuals on numerous Boards and into leadership of various companies. But now, they’re not talking about departmental Heads or most senior public servants, they’re installing politically suitable people throughout public organisations and companies.

Evidence shows that patronage systems (cronyism) “extending down the organizational chain are susceptible to incompetence, unprofessionalism and corruption” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008).

So nothing is really changing in Croatia when it comes to reducing opportunities for corruption, cronyism and incompetence. In fact, things are getting worse despite public, media and parliamentary opposition outcries.

A turnaround back to the oppressive and discriminatory employment tactics of communist Yugoslavia is more than visible – it’s becoming a brazen practice.

Instead of stamping it out, cronyism, it seems, will continue to affect every facet of government functionaries, every company or organisation where the government has shares or direct involvement, leading to gross inefficiencies in service delivery and increased corruption, most likely with private sector connivance with public officials to dupe government of taxes and revenues.

In the past week the government has succeeded in getting it’s bill through the parliament that will see names of individuals and companies with tax debts posted on publicly displayed lists (pillar of shame!) – except those who succeed in postponing the payment of their tax debt or have it struck out. One doesn’t need too much imagination to realise that conniving with politically installed public officials will run rife when it comes to tax evasion. It’ll happen elsewhere and the power of belonging to a political party will rule life and “decent” existence. The same as it did in communist Yugoslavia.

Cronyism and corruption stymied foreign investment before and it will, undoubtedly, continue to do so under this climate of extreme and brazen cronyism.

But then, the leftist government may not be worried about this – their arrogance could well be fed by a “sure” promise of EU development funding.

Croatia seems to be the “darling” of EU and NATO at the moment (probably due to Croatia’s geopolitical strategic position in influencing EU expansion into the rest of former Yugoslavia eastern states and therefore, lessening Russia’s influence in the region?) and, alarmingly, standards it needs to achieve in areas of EU accession monitoring may become compromised.

In March 2012, when Croatia’s leftist government was still in its honeymoon period, the very Radimir Cacic (who is also the Minister for Economy) expressed his position on the economic crisis:

Only jumping out of Socialism can pull us out of the crisis. I’m for the privatization of public companies because I think that Croatian politicians are very bad owners. Give them a toy and they will abuse it. With the privatization the companies will cease to be political and media marionettes”.

Now, in this July of 2012, not only are public companies in Croatia marionettes of the Social Democrats led government but also the people at large. The parliamentary opposition and the media must ensure that such trends are rooted out before it’s too late – before Croatian nation, once again, becomes a hostage to oppressive communism/socialism it lost thousands of lives to escape from. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Disclaimer, Terms and Conditions:

All content on “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is for informational purposes only. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is not responsible for and expressly disclaims all liability for the interpretations and subsequent reactions of visitors or commenters either to this site or its associate Twitter account, @IVukic or its Facebook account. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers and the writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The nature of information provided on this website may be transitional and, therefore, accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, exactitude, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed. This blog may contain hypertext links to other websites or webpages. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information on any other website or webpage. We do not endorse or accept any responsibility for any views expressed or products or services offered on outside sites, or the organisations sponsoring those sites, or the safety of linking to those sites. Comment Policy: Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with the subject in posts or other commentators. Personal or other criticism is acceptable as long as it is justified by facts, arguments or discussions of key issues. Comments that include profanity, offensive language and insults will be moderated.
%d bloggers like this: