Connect with us

Europe

(In)dependence of Media in Central Europe –Case of Slovenia

Published

on

The Press Freedom Index is an annual ranking of countries compiled and published by Reporters Without Borders based upon the organization’s assessment of the countries’ press freedom records in the previous year. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations, and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. Reporters Without Borders notes that the index only deals with press freedom and does not measure the quality of journalism nor does it look at human rights violations in general.

According to this index Slovenia ranks 34th out of 180 countries analyzed in 2014. In the 2002 – 2007 era, Slovenia was ranked much higher. During those years, Slovenia was allways among the top 20 countries in the world, the highest rankings coming in the years 2005, and 2006, when Slovenia was ranked 9th, and 10th. In 2008 Slovenia ranked 30th in the world, and in 2010 achieved the worst ranking since being part of the analysiss – 46th. Since then Slovenia has been ranked somwhere in the mid-thirties.

One of the problems of media independence in Slovenia stemms from the structure of ownership in leading Slovenian media houses, specially if we take a look at the newspapers. Before we venture into this quagmire we have to take a closer look at Slovenia after it´s independence.

Despite leaving the socialist model behind, and embracing the more liberal, or capitalist, western model of economy and society, Slovenian economy is still predominantly owned by the state. The tranzition process has not ended yet. Many public officials active today, were members of the League of Communists of Slovenia, or Yugoslavia. These individuals are managing, and forming, the political, economical, and social realities in Slovenia, most often in a way that suits their own interests. They represent the hidden center of power in Slovenian society that has been pooling it´s strength since 1945. This is partly made possible by the fact, that the state still owns an important part of Slovenian economy – telecommunications, the energy sector, banks, and insurance companies being the icing on the cake of state ownership managed by para-state funds. The before mentioned structure of ownership of Slovenian press is a mirror image of the ownership of Slovenian economy. As para-state funds own, and manage, an important part of Slovenian economy, the same is true for Slovenian press.

Links between state owned businesses, tycoons, corruption, and crime, exist. The tycoons leading the so called “second wave” of privatization in Slovenia (the first wave happened in the beginning of the 90-ties, the second in the era 2004-2008) were just a branch of political elites whose roots date back to the communist – socialist period. During the second wave of privatization the leading newspaper houses (DELO, Dnevnik, Večer) in Slovenia were included in the division of the spoils by the political elites. The situation would be even worse were it not for the foreign owned media such as the daily Finance, which is owned 100% by foreign (Swedish) capital. Since the second wave of privatization was led by tycoons endorsed by the political elites, they and their companies became the owners of the majority of the Slovenian press. These structures, whose roots stem from the former system, and which had successfully integrated themselves in the “new” political elites in Slovenia do not allow the divestment of the state (except of course in the case of tycoons endorsed by them), which is logical, as such a course would lead to their loss of power.    

So Slovenia found itself in a situation where newspapers were owned by breweries! Due to the fact that the model of privatization in the 2004-2008 period was not economically sound (because of criminal and corrupt practices made possible by political connections of Slovenian tycoons) these newspapers became the collateral damage of the division of spoils by the Slovenian elites. As they were seen as a useful tool for the power structures that govern Slovenia they became a chip in a high-stakes game for political, economical, and social control of the country, with the ambition of safeguarding the comrade-capitalism framework set up by the hidden centers of power after Slovenian independence.

All these shocks, manifested through changes in the ownership structure, caused serious consequences on the Slovenian newspaper landscape. When the Slovenian Competition Protection Agency found that the daily DELO can not maintain ownership of another daily (Večer), the powers that be decided, that it should not be sold to a strategic owner (a foreign press house) but rather to owners with no experience in running newspapers, and with suspicious credit lines with state owned banks.  

The media have an important role in Slovenia, as anywhere else. They can be the co-creators of a free, and informed, society, and they can contribute to more transparency, honesty, and rule of law. They should be a tool for the benefit of all, not just for the privileged elites. In Slovenia newspapers are trying to be an actor in the political arena, stepping into the field of political parties. In this context the profession of a journalist is getting exceedingly difficult. Transfers form one editorial board to another are not uncommon, and due to the turbulences in Slovenian economy the social security of journalist leaves a lot to be desired. Because of connections between the political elites, tycoons, and state owned industries independence of journalists is more of a buzzword than reality.

In the neighbouring Croatia, Stjepan Mesić began his term as the President of the Republic of Croatia in the year 2000. Immediately after his term of office began, he received a public letter from a group of generals of the Croatian army, in which they outlined their political ideas and urged President Mesić to alter some of his policies. President Mesić reacted by deactivating the generals, practically forcing them into retirement. The problem was not that some people had a political agenda. The problem was that the people who had a political agenda were generals of the Croatian army. His message was: if you want to excercise your political agenda, you should de-commission yourselves, form a political party (or join one) and compete at the elections. However, you can not pursue a political agenda, and participate in the political arena, as generals of the army. The same could be said for journalist, and media in general in Slovenia. Media need to follow politics, and inform the general public on the happenings in the political arena. They should be critical of poitical elites, analysing their actions, and outcomes of these actions, their motives, etc. However there is a line between being a factor in politics, and being an actor in them. Media are, and should be, a factor in politics. But should individuals within them have the desire to become an actor, they should (like the generals in Croatia) be told to either form a political party, or join one, and compete in the elections.    

In order for Slovenian press landscape to change for the better a new economical structure must emerge. As long as our newspapers are managed by breweries and state-owned banks there will be no true independence and professionalism in the written media. Private, and not state, ownership is the key. Newspapers have to keep their role in the political process in the country but not as tools of the elites with a vested interest, but as a tool of the general public with the ambition of pushing politics onto a higher more transparent, and law-abiding level in the interest of all citizens in accordance with the lofty standards of the fourth estate.  

This text is exclusively prepared for the III International Conference Russia–Europe, Vienna, Austria (28 October 2014).

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

Italy steps up political activities in the Mediterranean

Published

on

The Mediterranean serves as a platform for Rome’s geopolitical efforts in the region which are aimed at creating a powerful configuration of strength that would leave the three main vectors of Italy’s foreign policy – the southern (directed at North Africa), the western (directed at the Atlantic) and the eastern (directed at the Balkans) – open and easy of access.

The Gibraltar, the Bosporus, the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait – the world’s busiest transport arteries –  acquire a particular strategic importance for Italy as a Mediterranean power.

The so-called geopolitical theory of “extended Mediterranean” was devised recently to justify Italy’s right to secure its presence in these regions . This theory is designed to put an end to the narrow perception of the Mediterranean Region as a space bounded by access to the sea and, accordingly, with a limited role of Italy.

Rome has conceptually “expanded” the Mediterranean at the expense of the adjacent Atlantic and land areas, having included the Sahel, the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. Thereby, Italy has assumed a “greater” geopolitical role in the region as a country whose economic stability depends on the stability of the territories adjacent to the Mediterranean region.

First of all, this refers to troubled countries, such as Libya, Algeria and Tunisia, which supply Italy with gas. Italy’s intention to politically establish itself in the Sahel as part of the “expanded Mediterranean” was dictated by the desire to create a controlled space in the rear of Libya, Tunisia and Algeria to prevent their further destabilization.

Italy is among the top six EU countries with highly developed sea trade. According to Eurostat, in 2016 this figure was 61% (of which 66.6% were imports and 55.9% were exports). By this indicator, Italy loses to Portugal (81%), Cyprus (80%), Greece (77%), Spain (74%) and Malta (67%). None of Italian ports is included in the ten busiest EU trade harbors. The Italian authorities intend to change this situation.

Under the EU parameters, maritime trade accounts for 51% of overall trade, of which 53% is export and 48% is import. 19% of the global sea traffic and 30% of oil haulage pass through the Mediterranean Sea (an increase of 120% over the past 16 years). 65% of all energy resources are delivered to Europe by the Mediterranean. As these indicators tend to show an upward trend, Italy is set on  ensuring a more pronounced economic and political presence in the Mediterranean .

Given the situation, the Italian diplomacy face the following agenda in the region:

– to promote an equal distribution of power among top players in the Mediterranean in order to avoid any imbalance, be it in favor of countries that have no binding agreements or strategic cooperation agreements with Rome, or in favor of states whose political, military and economic potential is equal to that of Italy (France, Spain), or exceeds it (Germany);

– strengthen the political and economic presence of Italy in areas designated as the “extended Mediterranean”, thereby ensuring the participation of the Italian fleet in international anti-piracy missions;

to promote the peaceful settlement of current conflicts in the region (Syria, Iran, the Cyprus problem) with a view to prevent a buildup of other countries’ military presence within Italy’s strategic interest zone;

– to promote the diversification of energy supplies with due regard for Italy’s 77% dependence on external supplies, to initiate the development of gas and oil fields in Libya, Algeria, Egypt (Rome plans to invest € 175 billion in the development of the energy sector and related environmental projects by 2030.)

– to contribute to the transformation of Italy, located at the junction of sea routes from North Africa, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, into a leading transport and distribution hub of oil and gas exports and imports for the EU ;

– to prevent the weakening of Italy’s positions in the EU in case of the strengthening of the Berlin-Paris axis, which will not be easy to achieve amid the emerging conflict between Brussels and Rome over the Italian budget.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Europe

Le Pen’s under-plot for the French President

Mohammad Ghaderi

Published

on

The President of the French National Rally political party, Marin Le Pen, is trying to take little stances on the new protests in her country. Some French politicians have accused her of interfering in the recent protests in favor of the French National Rally. Meanwhile, many analysts believe that, ultimately, the outcome of Macron’s removal from power will be the presence of far-right nationalists (led by Le Pen) at the Elysees Palace.

 In any case, Marin Le Pen and the French National Rally continue to make lots of propaganda in their country’s political and social atmosphere. It should be acknowledged that the recent protests in France have doubled their chance to win the public vote, and he has greatly encouraged Le Pen and her entourage to win the European parliamentary election which is to be held in June.

In 2014, the French National Rally was able to shine exceptionally well in the European parliamentary elections and overcome other French political parties. In the 2017 general election, Le Pen was able to reach the final round of the presidential competitions for the first time since the establishment of the French National Rally. However, at that time, Le Pen couldn’t act against the broad opposition of the Socialist and Conservative parties. But the equation seems to have changed now!

Polls conducted in France suggested a decline in the popularity of Emmanuel Macron as the country’s president. This is while only 18 months has passed since Macron’s presence at Elysee Palace. Under such circumstances, Le Pen and her companions will naturally try to change the French citizen’s mind to the benefit of the French National Rally.

 This is a very good time indeed, as many of the French citizens no longer trust Macron and his promises for making economic, social reforms in France. Le Pen and the senior members of the French National Rally, argue that the Socialist and Conservative Parties won’t be able to redefine themselves in the near future, given the crisis that has stuck the two traditional French parties.

 The removal of Socialist and Conservative candidates in the 2017 general election, was well indicating the political and social isolation of these two traditional parties in French society. As a result, French citizens should once again choose between Macron and Le Pen. Le Pen believes that indicating a new face in France political scene as an independent politician is not possible under the current situation, and that’s because the bitter experience of Macron’s presence at the Elysée Palace prevents the formation of such a phenomenon.

 Le Pen is now trying to remove Macron from power through holding an early elections; “It is necessary to implement proportional representation and dissolve the National Assembly in order to hold new proportional elections”.

 Simultaneously, she attempts to attract the attention of French citizens to herself as France’s next president.

“We believe that the way out of the crisis is essentially political. This decision excludes any use of violence that only adds chaos to adversity,” Le Pen said in a letter published on the party’s website.

Le Pen also emphasized that the political solution to the recent crisis depended on the French officials, while uttering that French President Emmanuel Macron “is deprived of sympathy for the people, constrained by arrogance and indifference of the elites.”

It is not clear, however, that Le Pen’s calculations would all come true. The French National Rally President opened a special account on Macron’s former supporters to change their minds, and as a result, their votes to her benefit! This is while some of these votes may turn into silent votes or white votes.

 Also, it’s quite possible that France political atmosphere in 2017, would once again repeat in 2022, or during the country’s possible early elections. In this case, to right-wing extremists of French National Rally are going to lose the elections again. Therefore, Le Pen is really cautious about her positions right now, though she believes that Macron’s incapability provided the ground for her political and social success in Paris.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Europe

Will there be another referendum over Brexit?

Published

on

Brexit continues to be an implicit term in the Britain’s political equations. Complicating the process of the British withdrawal from the European Union is a joint measure taken by the British government and European authorities.

At the same time, the British government, with its widespread negative propaganda against the Brexit, is seeking to re-arrange a referendum. In other words, the European authorities are trying to direct the public opinion about the Brexit.

Recently, some western news sources are speaking of an issue called “repeating the Brexit referendum”, and name it as a possible option! An option that had been previously denied by British authorities, including Theresa May, the Prime Minister of the country. According to the France news agency, regarding the increasing doubt about the British Prime Minister’s efforts to conclude an agreement with the United Europe, the possibility of holding a second referendum on Brexit has multiplied.

This source has also announced that there are major obstacles on the way of confirming this agreement between Theresa May and European leaders, which has, in turn, intensified this trend. The existence of legal complexities in this agreement made its implementation difficult for both sides.  Meanwhile, it is possible that the members of the parliament will vote in favor of Theresa May’s decision.

Although it seems that Theresa May is trying to convince legislators to give a positive vote to this agreement, not only members of the Labor Party, but also some members of the Conservative Party are opposing it. The MPs argue that the Brexit is basically contrary to the interests of the UK.

Meanwhile, supporters of the “People’s Vote” campaign, who are now very active in England, believe that the parliament’s negative vote will pave the way for a new referendum on the Brexit. This issue is no way contrary to the demands of Theresa May and the Conservative Party, but it’s secretly supported by them. The negative propaganda of the Theresa May’s government against the Brexit since 2016 is known to everyone. After the British citizens voted to leave the European Union in 2016, the two Labor and Conservative parties (as UK’s two traditional parties) tried their best to change the general vote on this issue. The active role played by people like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair can well indicate the dissatisfaction among British authorities over the Brexit.

Supporters of the People’s Vote campaign are currently trying to convince the public for holding a new referendum on Brexit. “The People’s Vote campaign seeks to ensure that the government’s Brexit deal is put before the country in a public vote so that we can decide if a decision that will affect our lives for generations makes the country better or worse off. Good deal or bad deal, it’s definitely a big deal – and that’s why it should be put to a People’s Vote”, that’s how the campaign’s supporters define their goal.

Proponents of this campaign believe that the parliament’s negative vote to May’s plan is the best opportunity to hold another referendum. On the other hand, Theresa May doesn’t intend to violate the people’s vote in the 2016 referendum explicitly, so she tries to appear to be opposed to a new referendum, but she set the game in a way that it will eventually lead to the UK’s remain as part of the European Union.

Labor Party officials led by Jeremy Corbin have also agreed to vote again on the Brexit, and have officially backed this issue. The fact that Britain’s two rival parties have come to an agreement on holding a new referendum has provided the ground for its ultimate realization.

First published in our partner MNA

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy