The author is a member of the PS
“The new Slovak government will pay attention to national self-confidence, strengthening sovereignty, statehood and healthy patriotism, respect for state symbols, national and cultural traditions… The government is interested in national culture being at the forefront of social interest, and therefore it will be provided with adequate support for its development… The Government will ensure systemic steps, projects and activities that will support the increase of national awareness and patriotism of the citizens of the Slovak Republic.”
“We will protect and support national cultural values and actively develop them as the essence and meaning of our statehood. The fact that the Slovak nation has become the most important inheritor of the Great Moravian and Cyril-Method tradition and culture of not only pan-Slavic, but also European dimensions obliges us to this attitude.
Almost 29 years separate these two very consistent quotes from the program statement of the Slovak government (PVV) in terms of content and form. The first is from the current program statement of the fourth government of Robert Fico, the second is from the PVV of the government of Vladimír Mečiar from 1994.
Judging by this document, but also by the statements of its representatives, the current government is really going back 30 years in culture. The understanding of the cultural domain of the state as “the culture of the Slovak people”, which should be “Slovak and no other” and especially not “mixing other cultures”, are the attitudes that dominated Slovak politics in the mid-1990s, when Mečiar’s government tried to establish itself through nationalism and artificial national cultural narratives.
It is clear from the statements of the Minister of Culture that the government does not perceive culture as a domain of free creation, but as a tool. A tool by which the government and the central body of state administration can achieve “national awareness”, “patriotism” or the dissemination of selected information. However, this is a deep mistake and a misunderstanding of the essence of culture and the creative human spirit. Only a true freedom, an open, diverse and colorful society can ultimately lead to the development of a quality culture, to the mitigation of polarization, to true pride in one’s country or true respect for the symbols that represent it.
So it seems that in the coming months and years, unfortunately, we can only expect big steps back in culture – from the idea of a modern European country, built on an inclusive culture, to the sweaty and complex nationalism and local pseudo-folklorism of the 90s.
Endangered public media
It can be seen from the first steps. The attempt to control RTVS through its re-division seems to be difficult to implement from the beginning of the implementation, so the government coalition has decided to control the television in a much simpler way for the time being – by radically cutting the budget. As part of the consolidation of public finances, it reduced the RTVS contribution from 0.17 to 0.12 percent of GDP without giving any reason.
To understand what is at issue here – less than a year ago, the previous government coalition approved a change in the financing of RTVS, during which it abolished concessionaire fees and replaced them with financing from the state budget. Even then, we warned that such a move puts public television in a much more dependent position vis-a-vis the government and weakens its public law status, since its financing will be the subject of annual negotiations on the state budget and the government can very easily influence and blackmail the television with its budget decisions.
It is important to remember this, because if it were not for this really ill-advised step, today the government of Robert Fico would have a little more difficulty with RTVS. However, she did not hesitate for a second and at the first possible opportunity she reduced the RTVS budget by almost a third compared to the planned amount for 2024. Radical budget cuts and vague promises of additional budget measures translate to – come to us, and if you listen, we’ll kindly throw something at you. This is precisely the reason why the financing of public media directly from the state budget is seen as problematic in Europe and why there is no other country that finances this media as a percentage of GDP.
When drawing up the state budget, the Ministry of Culture did nothing at all to reverse this situation, on the contrary, the minister presented it with a certain mischievous glee as being sufficient. Moreover, this is the only item in the budget of the Department of Culture that was radically cut in this way as part of the consolidation.
The real consequences of the proposed budget for the operation of RTVS can be fatal. The management of RTVS says that the most likely consequence will be the necessity to completely cancel the :Sport and :24 channels and leave only the statutory program services (Jednotka and Dvojka), as well as more massive layoffs of internal employees or stop all development projects.
It is obvious that the fight for RTVS, public media or the definition of quality and independent media and information channels will be an extremely important part of the fight for the rule of law not only in the coming year. It will be crucial that the governing coalition fails to dominate the media space as it plans to do, following the example of Hungary and Poland.
The effort to control the management of public funds
However, the government does not want to control only the public media, but also the public funds that finance the cultural sector today. The creation of these funds (AVF, FPU and KultMinor) is the greatest achievement of the reforms in the field of cultural policies. They are based on the so-called arm’s length principle, which is used for cultural funding everywhere in the developed world, as it allows the implementation of public policies without political interference in specific funding decisions. The state recognizes that it wants to fund culture and sets the framework for this funding, but transfers specific decisions from politicians to experts.
And that is probably the thorn in the side of the current leadership of the Ministry of Culture. It follows from the government’s legislative task plan, but especially from the ministry’s comments on this material, that the intention is to merge all funds into one and thus solve the appointment of new councils that manage these public institutions.
The real motive for these changes is therefore not only an attempt to control the funds that finance a large part of culture and art in Slovakia, but especially interference in the program structure or the structure of support activities, or the setting up of independent commissions. That would be, in the truest sense of the word, liquidating the essence of their functioning and returning not 30 years, but before 1989.
Today, public funds certainly need many improvements, simplification of complicated administration or increase in the volume of funds. However, they definitely do not need interference with their public law nature.
Preserving the independence of support funds will be another important battle that we will have to fight in culture. But I remember spending the night at the ministry during the time of Minister Hudec or “Christmas presents” for Minister Krajcer, and I am convinced that such attempts will definitely face strong and united resistance from the cultural sector, which has developed and established itself over the past 15 years thanks to the establishment of these funds.
Quotas for Slovak culture
In her New Year’s message, the minister stated that Slovak culture needs more “quotas”. It is not known what exactly he means by this, but the PVV also declares an effort to extend the quota system to Slovak creations as well as to the “presentation of Slovak artists in state institutions”.
Quotas (or balancing mechanisms to support domestic creation) are, of course, a legitimate mechanism to support the domestic market, especially in countries with minority markets in creative industries. However, they are used almost exclusively to support those parts of culture that have a clearly defined industrial cycle (music industry, film industry, etc.), because their purpose is to balance the disadvantages of the domestic market in global competition. Within the EU, they can only be used in a way that does not conflict with the rules of free movement of goods and people on the European labor market. That is why similar measures in other European countries are tied almost exclusively to the language and not to the nationality of the creator, and that is why the current Slovak arrangement for music quotas is also in conflict with European law, and their application in Slovakia is only possible thanks to the fact that none of the affected entities submitted complaint about this adjustment. (However, we know of a case from Ireland, where the commission decided on the illegitimacy of such defined quotas.)
We don’t know how the minister envisions “quotas” for Slovak art, but let’s take seriously the intention to take such measures in state cultural institutions. However, they are, by their very nature, set up to fulfill public functions that the market cannot provide and to present Slovak culture, so what the government hides under the name of “quotas” is actually just a godless attempt to rudely interfere with dramaturgy and artistic freedom these institutions. Moreover, it is again a difficult intention to realize, because individual institutions are established by different types of laws and articles of incorporation, and therefore a universal legal arrangement would be relatively complicated.
The quotas mentioned by the government are therefore just another name for restricting the artistic freedom of institutions, which the ministry can also try to achieve through various semi-formal pressures, for example when approving the budget. It is good that he informs us about this in advance, because we will also have to be careful about any interventions of this type in the coming year.
We could continue in this gloomy spirit for a long time and eventually mention what we probably won’t do this year. For example, to discuss the economic contribution of culture and the creative industry in connection with the need for new economic development or to introduce new economic, fiscal or other instruments to support the creative industry. We will not transform the cultural infrastructure and adapt it to the 21st century, we will not look for ways to bring culture into the daily life of the inhabitants of Slovakia. And we probably won’t learn from the minister how culture will contribute to a better, more peaceful and happier life for people in Slovakia, which the government has set as its main goal.
It is clearer than ever that Slovak culture is not in for a good year. The government coalition will try to control it, or trample it down and destroy it. Unfortunately, the path to a cultured and cultured country or a new political culture, based on expertise, adherence to democratic principles and a look into the future, is being postponed. The government wants to set us back at least 30 years.
Of course, they won’t succeed, just like Mečiar didn’t succeed 30 years ago. There are enough of us here who want a different Slovakia – cultural, modern and open. However, it will again – as many times before – require our concentrated effort, joint energy and time. However, democracy, culture and beauty are worth it, and not even the fourth Fico government can take them away from us.