Click here to view the materials in English
Croatia: Political Evolution and Relations with the EU
In addition to its EU accession negotiations and its leadership role in Southeast Europe, Croatia has been a full member of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) since 2008. Its geographical location enables it to serve as a “bridge” between Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean. Croatia welcomes the various components of the reformed Barcelona Process, in particular its openness to all Mediterranean coastal countries, including those in the Adriatic region; the strengthening of political relations; the enhancement of “ownership” of the process; cooperation on an equal footing, and greater visibility of relations through major regional and subregional projects. We hope that pooling our efforts and resources will help address 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 funding for transportation, environmental protection, and civil protection in the Mediterranean. The Croatian Euro-Mediterranean Cooperation Network, coordinated by the National Foundation for the Development of Civil Society, is one of the fastest-growing national networks of the Anna Lindh Foundation. The Croatian academic community participated in the development of the joint “Mediterranean 2020” strategy.
The year 2009 was supposed to be decisive for the conclusion of Croatia’s EU accession negotiations. However, it was a year of domestic political upheaval, marked by unexpected changes in the government, the impact of the economic recession, the fight against corruption, the continuation of negotiations with the EU, and the presidential election.
The Europeanization of Management Practices
The year 2009 in Croatia was marked by changes in the government. Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, the former leader of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), unexpectedly resigned on July 1 in the middle of his second term. He was first elected in 2003 and re-elected in November 2007. Sanader’s resignation came as a complete surprise to the country and international observers, and he left the reasons for his decision entirely unclear. His work had previously been well regarded in the EU, where he enjoyed a good reputation, but in the final months of his political career—and especially after his resignation—his name was linked to several corruption scandals in the country. The timing of his resignation was extremely unfortunate—the country’s economic situation was dire, with the effects of the global crisis clearly visible, and negotiations with the EU had stalled. Once a political winner (his government launched EU accession negotiations in 2005 and led the country into NATO in early 2009), he turned into a political loser overnight.
On July 6, Sanadera was replaced as prime minister by his former deputy, Jadranka Kosor, also a member of the HDZ party. The new prime minister quickly established herself as a strong leader, determined to maintain Croatia’s course toward EU accession and to effectively combat corruption, the economic recession, relations with Slovenia, and ongoing negotiations with the EU. Kosor deepened a number of reforms and launched investigations into state-owned enterprises. Sanader’s resignation did not appear to signify a definitive intention to leave active politics. On the contrary, his attempt to return in early 2010—seen as an attempt to interfere with the government’s work and the party’s leadership—led to his expulsion from the party, where he had served as honorary president since his resignation in July.
The new Prime Minister, Kosor, has given new impetus to the Europeanization of governance practices, demonstrating strong political will and support for the fight against corruption and organized crime. Investigations into high-level corruption have been launched, and several high-ranking executives and officials have been detained. The Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economic policy has resigned, and the immunity of some former politicians has been lifted. The total number of corruption cases under investigation has increased, and the legislative framework has been improved. Examples include several cases involving state-owned companies, notably Podravka, Croatian Motorways, INA (the national oil company), and others. However, much remains to be done to foster a culture of political accountability for corruption at all levels.
For example, it should be noted that according to the 2009 Global Corruption Report published by Transparency International, Croatia ranked 62nd out of 180 countries, with a score of 4.1. Scores ranging from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (not corrupt) show how a country compares to others in the index and indicate the perceived level of corruption in the country’s public sector. In 2009, Croatia received a lower score than in 2008 (4.4), indicating the need for more effective implementation of reforms in the area of public administration (where public procurement remains a major source of actual and potential corruption) and in the judicial system.
The country has a large debt burden, with external debt exceeding 80% of GDP. However, despite these negative trends, macroeconomic stability remains intact. Croatian political scientists predict that a slow economic recovery may begin toward the end of the year.
In late fall, Croatia became the scene of a fiercely contested presidential campaign. Ivo Josipović, a highly educated, pro-European, social-democratic law professor and classical music composer, won the presidential election on January 10, 2010. Josipović ran his campaign under the slogan “Justice for Croatia,” focusing on the fight against corruption, and won with the support of over 60% of voters. Newly elected President Josipović is expected to form an effective alliance with the prime minister to carry out reforms, which could help achieve the critical mass between the two strongest parties needed to reconcile their differing interests. Although most executive power, particularly regarding economic matters, rests with the Prime Minister, the President controls the armed forces and, together with the government, formulates foreign policy. In addition, he is responsible for the overall functioning of the system of public administration by coordinating and overseeing the work of government agencies.