Натисніть сюди, щоб переглянути матеріали українською /
Click here to view the materials in Ukrainian
Croatia: Political Evolution and Relations with the EU
Apart from negotiating its EU membership and being the frontrunner in South-Eastern Europe, Croatia has been a full member of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) since 2008. Its geographical position affords it possibilities to play a “bridging” role between Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. Croatia welcomed the different components of the reformed Barcelona Process, particularly the opening up towards all coastal Mediterranean countries, including those on the Adriatic, the strengthening of the political relationship, the stronger “ownership” of the process, the cooperation on equal footing and the greater visibility of the relationship through big regional and sub-regional projects. The pooling of efforts and resources will hopefully contribute to dealing with common problems and challenges in the Mediterranean region. In March 2009, the Croatian Parliament expressed its intention to join the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA). Croatia already benefits from EU funds for transport, the environment and civil protection in the Mediterranean. The Croatian network for Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, coordinated by the National Foundation for Civil Society Development, is one of the fastest growing national networks in the Anna Lindh Foundation. Croatian academic society took part in developing the joint strategy “Mediterranean 2020.”
The year 2009 was supposed to be a crucial one for concluding Croatia’s negotiations on EU membership. However, it was a year of internal political transformations, characterised by unexpected changes in the government, the impact of the economic recession, the fight against corruption, the continuation of negotiations with the EU and presidential elections.
Europeanisation of Governance Practice
In Croatia the year 2009 was strongly marked by changes in the government. Croatia’s Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, the former leader of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), unexpectedly resigned on 1 July in the middle of his second term. He was first elected in 2003 and was re-elected in November 2007. Sanader’s resignation came as a total surprise for the country and international observers, and he left questions about the reasons for his decision completely open. His work had previously been well-regarded in the EU, where he had good reputation, but in the final months of his political career, and particularly after his resignation, his name was linked to several corruption scandals in the country. The timing of his resignation was extremely bad – the economic situation in the country was unfavourable with clearly visible spill-over effects from the global crisis, while the negotiations with the EU were blocked. Having once been a political winner (his government began the accession negotiations with the EU in 2005 and led the country into NATO in early 2009), he become a political loser overnight.
Sanader was succeeded as Prime Minister on 6 July by his former deputy Jadranka Kosor, also from the HDZ party. The new Prime Minister soon proved to be a strong leader, determined to maintain Croatia’s commitment to EU accession and efficiently tackling corruption, the economic recession, relations with Slovenia and the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Kosor has deepened a series of reforms and launched investigations into state-owned firms. Sanader’s resignation does not seem to have marked a definitive intention to withdraw from active politics. On the contrary, his come-back bid in early 2010, seen as an attempt to interfere with the government and leading party activities, resulted in his exclusion from the party, where he had held the position of honorary president since his resignation in July.
The new Prime Minister Kosor has given impetus to the Europeanisation of governance practice, showing strong political will and support for the fight against corruption and organised crime. Investigations on high-level corruption have been initiated, and several highly positioned managers and officials have been detained. The Deputy Prime Minister in charge of economic policy has resigned, and the immunity of certain former politicians has been lifted. The total number of corruption cases investigated so far has increased and the legislative framework has been improved. Several cases with state-owned companies in particular, including Podravka, Croatian Motorways, INA (the national oil company) and others, could be mentioned as examples. However, much remains to be done to foster a culture of political accountability for corruption at all levels.
It should be mentioned, by way of example, that according to the Global Corruption Report 2009 published by Transparency International, Croatia ranked 62 out of 180 countries, with a score of 4.1. The scores, ranging from 0 (totally corrupt) to 10 (no corruption), show how a country compares to others in the index and indicate the perceived level of public-sector corruption in a country. In 2009, Croatia scored lower than in 2008 (4.4), meaning there is a need for more efficient implementation of reforms in public administration (where public procurement remains the main source of actual and potential corruption) and the judiciary.
The country is heavily indebted, with an external debt of more than 80% of GDP. However, in spite of these negative trends, its macroeconomic stability has been preserved. Croatian political analysts forecast that a slow economic recovery may begin at the end of the year
In late autumn Croatia was the scene of hard-fought presidential campaigns. The highly-educated, pro-Europe, Social Democrat law professor and classical music composer Ivo Josipović won the Croatian presidential elections on 10 January 2010. Josipović campaigned under the slogan “Justice for Croatia,” focused on the fight against corruption and won with the support of over 60% of the voters. The newly elected President Josipović is expected to forge an efficient alliance for reform with the Prime Minister, which could help to achieve the critical mass between the two strongest parties required to bridge their different interests. While most of the executive power, especially on economic issues, lies with the Prime Minister, the President has control over the armed forces and co-creates foreign policy with the government. He is moreover responsible for the overall functioning of the state governance system through coordination and oversight of the work of state authorities.