Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic – Croatia, the War, and the Future

Croatia: In The Quandary Of Voting For A “Lesser of Two Evils”

December 28, 2019 by inavukic 24 Comments

Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic (L) Zoran Milanovic (R)Photo: Pixsell

Voting is a matter of morality. It cannot be done without considering others as well as our own self. Voting often involves agonising moral trade-offs, agonising over the need to suppress one’s own political, ideological, economic ideals if one is to vote for one and not for the other. Decision to abstain from voting also is a moral matter that takes away the burden of complicity in the wrongdoing or wrong outcomes driven by the candidate we voted for because he/she is seen as a lesser evil than the other.

Hundreds of thousands of Croatia’s voters, who voted for Miroslav Skoro in the first round of Presidential elections, appear to be finding that if they vote in the second round they will need to vote for “a lesser of two evils”. The first round of Presidential election on 22 December has produced the result by which former and by many accounts ineffective Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic (Social Democrat, former communist, “left wing”) and Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic (current “right wing” HDZ/Croatian Democratic Union backed incumbent whose work in her first mandate has bitterly disappointed multitudes and, hence, led to an unusually swift spiral rise [but not to the heights that would get him across the line] of her “right-wing” opponent Miroslav Skoro, who in his campaign asked HDZ voters to defect from HDZ and join him but, conspicuously, failed to ask the same of the Social Democrat Party/SDP members!) are set for an electoral duel on 5 January 2020, when the second and final round of these presidential elections are on. Those who are appalled by both the former communist left-wing echelons (backing Milanovic) and those appalled by the Croatian Democratic Union/HDZ right-wing echelons in government and who are backing Grabar Kitarovic are evidently now on edge to see which way Skoro voters will go on 5 January. In fact blatant calls for their vote are seeping through the media and political campaigns. Many of the so-called Skoro voters are now describing themselves, particularly in social media, as being placed in the situation of having to vote for a lesser of two evils and find themselves venting their agony and bitterness in public.

I guess, moral philosophy can help with the answers to problems of this kind. It can be permissible to vote for the lesser evil. But, without exception, if one does so, there is moral “small print” to follow. This, especially when it comes to how one acts afterwards towards those whom one’s vote has disregarded or who was judged as a bigger evil. No doubt, opting for the lesser evil leaves a moral residue. One can’t just make a choice and move on as if all is OK. It’s not OK. Morally one feels one has compromised oneself, and one’s real choice – one feels cheated and incomplete and, to a great extent morally and politically unclean. When voting for the lesser of two evils one feels the loss of power of conviction and heartfelt dedication.

“If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” — Winston Churchill. In Churchill’s estimation, Stalin was less evil than Hitler. Hence, the Allied Forces’ friendship with the Soviets: a marriage of convenience formed in Hell. Can it then be said that the Allied forces by the act of alliance with communist Stalin carry on their shoulders the heavy burden of the consequence of such alliance, which consequence saw the millions of victims of communist crimes denied the respect and acknowledgement they deserve?

A significant multitude of Croatian voters (over 400,000 voters at least, who voted for Skoro – and this in terms of the size of the Croatian electorate is a significant number) are now faced with the so-called lesser of two evils dilemma. Both Presidential candidates are evidently seen by them as lousy, in essence unacceptable and damaging to the Croatian national state and the values it fought for during the 1990’s Homeland War and, yet, they are made to feel that they are bound to vote in the January 2020 second round of elections; they’re frequently told that if they don’t vote they can’t complain! What a quandary to be in. On the other hand, the more politically adventurous (and perhaps brave) will say that free people get to complain whether they vote or not. After all, both the government and presidential offices are paid for largely from the taxpayer money and complaining can actually be quite cathartic, even clear the way for new political inroads, a third option as many in a two-party predominance would say.

Presidency is deeply personal, because the role is ubiquitous; the president is or is seen as he/she should be the leader, the father/the mother, the spiritual leader of a nation with a defined destiny. Hence, given the quandary Croatian voters find themselves in, while some will vote for what (who) they perceive as the lesser evil, I think that many will not turn out for voting on 5 January because the ballot paper does not include “None of the above” option (the preference they morally chose at the first round on 22 December).

As in many countries, in Croatia there is no legal duty to vote. One turns out to vote because one feels or knows that their vote does make a difference when a candidate for election actually represents that moral value, that national value and track record for which they themselves stand. But whether one is reasonable in choosing to vote for the lesser of the two evils, is not the same as being legally, duty-bound to vote.

In the Christian tradition and Western morality, it cannot really be said that “lesser of the two evils” is a moral doctrine, even if it does sound a lot like the doctrine (or principle) of double effect. The doctrine of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. Even St Thomas Aquinas set forth the doctrine of double effect as permissible under the above “rules” so it is no wonder that Christians in Croatia may find themselves in a quandary as the one they are in at this stage of presidential elections run; some may feel that it is permissible to vote for a lesser of the two evils. Most, however, will find it an impossible task to see that any good is likely to come out from their vote for a lesser of the two evils. The candidates’ track record is their objective measuring stick, and it simply does not stack up to much.

And while I can’t speak for everyone, I know Christians are not exactly given the green light to “choose” any kind of evil. If one does choose it is entirely a burden upon their own personal morality.

Then one often comes across the worn-out argument that not voting constitutes a dereliction of one’s duty towards the common good. But experience tells us that common good is not always advanced by voting.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term “catch-22” perhaps it can also be explained this way: Say the president of the country you belong to tells lies or defends both the good and the bad politics of the past. He or she says things that are demonstrably impossible to understand or believe. A lot.

Now say you’re an ethical person who does not tolerate lies or double standards well. All this lying is a problem. All the double standards are a problem. Control of the media is a problem for you – it reports the lies and the double standards and even attempts to provide some objective facts to back this up, make it look credible.

The more the media report the lies, the more the president lies. And if you didn’t report the lies, he/she would say his/her lies are true because nobody reported them as lies.

And so, observing the rhetoric, the calls for votes in the second round of voting, the calls to change one’s initial and first preference for a president when his/her candidate has not made it in the first round, the calls to switch loyalty because one or the other presidents will, if elected, be a disaster, the dilemma, the anger expressed by multitudes of Croatian voters in the past week one can conclude that the system and political undercurrents in Croatia have produced two undesirable candidates for great many, either of which will advance an ultra vires agenda in office. Can it then truly be said that anyone (who is dissatisfied with both candidates) has a moral duty to pick one of them? Ina Vukic

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: abstaining from voting, Croatia, Croatian Presidential Elections 2019, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, Miroslav Skoro, voting for a lesser of two evils, Zoran Milanovic

Croatia: Winning Votes Requires A “Cluster-Bomb” Approach

December 14, 2019 by inavukic 24 Comments

Croatian Presidential Candidates 2019

The imminent Presidential elections in Croatia set for 22 December 2019 are shaping up as a three-horse race, possibly a four-horse race, despite there being 11 candidates who qualified for the running. According to polls three frontrunners are Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic (the current incumbent backed by the struggling in popularity stakes ruling political party HDZ/Croatian Democratic Union whose popularity has plummeted with apocalyptic speed in the past couple of years), Miroslav Skoro (a well-known figure in Croatia as long-standing popular musician, former member of Croatian Democratic Union with a seat in 2008 Croatian Parliament, businessman with a Doctorate in Economics who is running as an independent candidate with an expressed intention to topple the current HDZ-led government after he wins office, asking the party’s many members to defect and vote for him) and Zoran Milanovic (former Prime Minister, Social Democrat, with an atrocious record in leading the government of the country, which led to his demise as the leader of his own party in late 2016). The fourth candidate that keeps popping up as having a fairly good chance of winning is Mislav Kolakusic (a lawyer and former court judge who has become known as a politician with his platform to rid Croatia of corruption even though he provides no real or detailed solutions as to how he would free Croatia from that heavy plague).

All in all, all candidates promise big things of changes coming if they win, however, one needs to take a step back in order to see that some changes being promised are not possible under the current powers of the President of the country! But they are all trying to compete who is a bigger and better Tudjmanist!

Miroslav Skoro is the only candidate seeking to increase the president’s powers because he also thinks that the president with current constitutional powers cannot bring change to a society that is seeking change. Presidential powers that Tudjman had were cut and made almost impotent when it comes to leading the nation to the needed transformation from communism into democracy. The president of the republic is elected directly by popular vote for a period of five years and is limited to two terms.

The 1990 constitution originally granted the president very broad powers; the president could dismiss the prime minister, who was nominally responsible to both the parliament and the president but was actually directly dependent on the president. Constitutional amendments in 2000, under the leadership of former communists Stjepan Mesic (then president) and Ivica Racan (the prime minister) reduced the importance of the president of the country, who thenceforth served solely as head of state, and increased the power of the parliament and of the prime minister, who assumed the role of head of government. The president continues to nominate the prime minister, but the parliament must confirm the appointment. With a majority in today’s parliament being former communists, still refusing to denounce the criminal former communist regime, one needs to wonder whether Skoro’s plans to bring about such significant change will end up nothing more than electoral rhetoric. Certainly, it’s difficult to see at this stage that he has the necessary political and practical knowhow support to be able to achieve the turnaround. While Skoro enjoys support of a number of sovereignist political parties and individual politicians of note, the seeking of voter defection should have been directed at all the culprits (both HDZ and SDP) for the critical economic and democratic state Croatia is currently in. Any other approach, singling out one and not the other, would seem to validate an idea that double standards in national politics are acceptable; and they are not. Both HDZ and SDP are almost equally responsible for the current state that cries for change so that mass emigration of valuable workforce, prevalence of corruption and nepotism in public administration and public companies could be stopped or slowed down.

In other words, nothing short of lustration and decommunisation will do! To achieve this voter defection from HDZ and SDP is needed in great numbers.

On Sunday 8 December, at his campaign launch in the large concert hall Lisinski in Zagreb, Miroslav Skoro, whose election slogan is “Now or Never”, declared that he would be the next president of Croatia, and would resume and inherit Franjo Tudjman’s policy, claiming that “today’s HDZ has nothing to do with the HDZ from the time of that first Croatian president”.

That claim angered the incumbent President of HDZ, current Prime Minister, Andrej Plenkovic, and other relatively highly positioned HDZ members, who claim they are the only heirs to Tudjman. “Today’s HDZ is firmly on the path outlined by Tudjman,” President Grabar-Kitarovic said, also, on Tuesday 11 December while visiting Veliko Trgovisce, Tudjman’s birthplace.

Franjo Tudjman led Croatia into independence and that task was a national effort that took enormous sacrifice, dedication and collaboration with Tudjman’s leadership in creating an independent state from multitudes – individuals who were and those who were not members of Tudjman’s HDZ political party as well as other political parties. Hence, it is nothing short of stupidity, disrespect, repulsion and arrogance for Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic and HDZ to claim that “HDZ is the only heir to Tudjman”! The fact is that the entire independence fighting movement and its strong participators are the only heirs to Tudjman and that movement was widespread during the Homeland War of the 1990’s and continues to be widespread today. It was not only members of HDZ that fought for an independent Croatia but, indeed, many others outside HDZ “walls”.

The Social Democratic candidate, former prime minister Zoran Milanovic, has also showed respect and consideration for Tudjman in his campaign. “He was ready to spend time in prison for Croatia… He was not often right, but, in important things at the time, he was right – and many Croatian citizens recognised that,” Milanovic told N1 television on Tuesday 10 December.

This competition as to which one is a better Tudjmanist while in many respects may not be taken seriously by various groups and individuals, may indeed be seen by many others as a strong turning point when the period of de-Tudjmanisation of Croatia (commenced a couple of decades ago under the ormer communists’ pursuits to falsely criminalise Croatian Homeland War and, hence, the legitimacy of its independence struggle) is experiencing an end. And real values, those of full democracy and freedom, are elevated to the point of real progress.

Psychology of voters is basically aligned with psychology of individual and personal choices either on basis of political ideology or personal welfare interests or both. To get enough voters to defect their usual voting preferences is an exercise that is deep, personal and must provide visible benefits for all who may decide to defect from being loyal to one political party for decades. Indeed, if the major changes needed for Croatia are to be successful then defection is needed not only from HDZ echelons but also from SDP (Social Democrats) ones.

Winning someone’s vote in modern democratic societies requires a kind of cluster-bomb approach on the part of political parties. With communication these days (and mainstream media being controlled by major parties) being such a multi-faceted thing, and the opinion polls so either tight or non-dependable, every method — from leaflet dropping, social media to the old-fashioned landline phone — must be harnessed by any candidate serious about breaking the stale mould of voter behaviour that has seen Croatia floating in perpetual bickering and recriminations. The message for the need for change has been put out there but skills for managing that change require much more than any of the candidates have left the impression of possessing or being able to organise. And voters need both the message and the how, otherwise voter behaviour is unlikely to change to an impactful degree for the nation. If anything, these presidential election campaigns have made it clear that Croatia desperately needs changes – changes away from old communist mindset and that is in my view a great thing. The voters should, therefore, give their vote to the one who has the biggest determination for changes and, hence, the biggest likelihood in at least commencing with the changes if not achieving them during the next presidential mandate. Ina Vukic

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Andrej Plenković, Croatia, Croatian Presidential Elections 2019, de-Tudjmanisation, decommunisation, Dr Franjo Tudjman, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, lustration, Miroslav Skoro, Misla Kolakusic, voter defection, Zoran Milaanovic

Throwing A Hat Into The Ring For Croatia’s Presidency

August 18, 2019 by inavukic 17 Comments

Presidential candidates for Presidency of Croatia 2019

In a political environment Croatia is finding itself these days, where anything seems possible – where major political parties of either centre, right and left ideological persuasion (who have held governments either in their own right or as minority-governments) are seeing alarming falls in popularity as well as acceleration of infighting within the political parties; where new political parties or movements are popping out of the grassroot public ground like mushrooms after autumn rains; where independent candidates for general or presidential elections pop out of their relative political anonymity randomly like Jack-in-a-box – it seems just about everyone in the country wants to run for the president (elections due late December 2019). So far there are 11 candidates who have announced their candidature and even a fairly conservative list of potential candidates stretches beyond a dozen names as more Pantovcak (Office of the President of Croatia) hopefuls are likely to swell the already ridiculously large and politically erratic and rather politically amorphous heap of candidates.

At this stage of building-up momentum to official election campaigns that start once the official list of candidates is published it is difficult to gauge which individual that has announced his/her candidature is “the real deal” for Croatia and which candidate is just trying to raise their public profile to be utilised at 2020 general elections or is actually serious about running for president. Some perhaps don’t even know where their testing of the waters will lead; for some it is like the proverbial throwing one’s hat in the ring and come what may!

Typically, having strong credentials and success as leader (either in branches of executive government, in strong political parties or movements, having a leading role in active and successful military defence of country, or the corporate or large organisations world and the like) is, one would agree, a good steppingstone to the presidency of one’s country. Being a Mayor of a city or town, being a political activist either as part of specific causes associations or as an individual, being an office-bearer in a political party led by others would not under such standards for a good presidency be considered a key qualification for the presidency.

But there is nothing typical about Croatia 2019! Croatia has a long way to go in lining its socio-political main artery with the values and aims that drove the 1990’s Homeland War and the country’s absolute secession from communism (Yugoslavia). To achieve this the president of the country must, besides above mentioned qualifications of a leader, possess personal virtues, morality, commensurate with the said values and aims, otherwise the state of perpetual widespread claims that Croatia is not yet free and independent despite its military victory in Homeland War against the Serb aggressor is likely to result in the typical for Croatia actually being the typical of the EU and not the Croatian people who fought for and shed their blood for independence.

And so, together with possessing good qualifications for the presidency, it is widely maintained throughout the developed democracies that a president of a country must possess and must have demonstrated high personal virtue – morality – that is tightly in tune with the people and the direction a country must take in order to be a good place for all the citizens to live in. While some may disagree with the view that moral virtue is important for presidency one would find it difficult in disagreeing with the view that president whose decisions are not grounded in the right sort of ethical values may be less well-equipped to respond well – and, more importantly, might be frighteningly unpredictable in his or her responses. Political ethicists have emphasised the ways in which democracies can fall apart in the absence of personal virtue. Conservative thinkers throughout developed democracies, in particular, have argued that political institutions can only function when all those who participate within them are capable of compromise and of self-government. Rules, to put it simply, don’t work unless people governed by those rules care about them and voluntarily choose to abide by them.

A true or dedicated leader with high moral values is likely to pay particular attention to the values and mission that have been established in the foundation of the country he/she leads. In Croatia’s case the foundation values, which were underpinned by Franjo Tudjman’s vision of reconciliation between all foes (particularly WWII communists and anti-communists), may be summarised as defending the sovereignty of and democracy in a national Croatian state (made up of Croats as vast majority) and among Croatian people wherever they lived. Tudjman died in December 1999, a mere year after the Homeland War officially ended, and had not lived long enough to complete the task set out in the beginning, when secession from communist Yugoslavia was whole-heartedly supported by 94% of democratic votes at referendum on same issue. And hence, from year 2000, the tables started turning against the very idea of a Croatian democratic and sovereign state as former communists including those who rejected independence movement in the first place or never spent a day on the battlefields for Croatia or never made any type of contribution towards it, increasingly occupied key positions of power. That is, former communist mindset and habits of corruption and nepotism continued thriving as more and more former communists held onto power or were injected into powerful positions on grounds of political suitability. This would have been the ground rather easily cultivated since the very Constitution of the Republic of Croatia lists WWII antifascists (communists) as parts of the foundation for independent Croatia! Yet WWII antifascists fought to keep Croatia within the borders of Yugoslavia, against which multitudes of Croats died and fought against for decades upon decades.

And so we come to this day and the political environment in Croatia where it is imperative for the progress of democracy and living standards to shed decisively the remnants in legislation and public administration and practice all that defined the communist Yugoslavia regime. But the leaders of Croatia in positions of power fail miserably in condemning the totalitarian communist regime of the past while condemning the WWII Ustasha regime. At times the lunacy in this is painfully transparent: it’s as though the same leaders hold the view that by condemning the communist regime (which purged hundreds of thousands innocent Croats) they would be seen as some kind of historical revisionists who are on the trail of minimising the crimes that are said to have been committed by the WWII Independent State of Croatia. And yet, if one asks the people of today one would find that majority believe both regimes should be condemned or brushed off with the same brush when it comes to victims; all victims should be recognised as such and Croatia to open a new slate for a healthy future. But no, this is not of interest particularly to the hordes aligning themselves with the justifiers of communist crimes in particular (given that crimes pinned to the Ustashi regime have been and continue to be addressed openly if not politically twisted).

Among the current candidates who have their eyes set on future presidency there are three individuals whose platforms, opinions, reactions etc. are constantly present in the mainstream and other media like a revolving door that slaps important national issues into a ridiculous circus so that the people never really get a grip on what and how an individual candidate will fix things for a country on steep economic and demographic decline and how the values of the Homeland War will again be brought into the national focus.

The three candidates that are receiving most media attention are Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic (current president), Zoran Milanovic (former Prime Minister, former League of Communists operative and former leader of Social Democratic Party) and Miroslav Skoro (a popular musician and singer, a businessman, former member of parliament and diplomat from the HDZ/Croatian Democratic Union Party from which he has estranged himself as member in recent years). Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic continues to appear as a personality whose opinions on important matters are adjusted to the audience she is addressing at any one moment; she talks of returning Croatia to the values set by the first president of Croatia Franjo Tudjman and yet fails to spell those values out or lay out the plan of action, at least roughly. Zoran Milanovic is hotting-up the waters for continued animosities and recriminations between former communists and former anti-communists, leaning favourably to the former communist beat; nothing good for Croatia can come out of this just as nothing good came out from his Prime Ministership out of which he exited with a shattering political demise within his own party. Miroslav Skoro for the time being reminds one of the “Lone Ranger” except for the fact that he appears as actually having no strong convictions regarding the credence of the values of Homeland War and may like the above two play for all teams (left and right and centre). None of these candidates give the impression that the crisis Croatia has been in for the past few years (economic, demographic, ideological…) has sunk in. None of them offer any concrete steps they would undertake as president to fix things. As for the other candidates so far in the race there is a mixture of the above but all, without exception, want to “save Croatia!”. It’s time Croatia stops acting as a victim, which it was, and starts decisively implementing the values of the Homeland War, which by the way, are succinctly contained in Franjo Tudjman’s 30 May 1990 speech at the Inaugural Assembly of Croatian Parliament in which he listed the crucial tasks to be done in order for a democratic and independent state of Croatia to function! Nothing else or different will save Croatia! Ina Vukic