Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Miroslav Kocúr: For God and Nation: Christian National Populism
Miroslav Kocúr because he perceived Cardinal Korec’s actions with respect to incumbent Prime Minister Robert Fico as a recurrence of what he had viewed as problematic back in the 1990s during joint meetings of Korec and Mečiar. Palkó called meetings between Cardinal Korec and Premier Fico unfortunate. At the same time, Palkó took a broader look at the performance of the Christian Democratic Movement (KDFI) that risked its popularity in return for consistent effort to promote Christian principles in politics and refused to kowtow to populism wrapped in a tricolour and a double cross. As an example, he cited the treaty on conscientious objection that was the immediate reason for calling early elections in 2006. According to Palkó, KDH members who advocated the treaty that was once viewed so important by the Catholic Church believe not only that their endeavour was futile but that it put them in a disadvantage before the 2006 elections. In this author’s opinion, Vladimír Palkó relatively precisely described Korec’s position on national issues. When so-called sovereignty of Slovakia was proclaimed in 1992, Korec attended celebrations at the Bratislava Castle; his participation at celebrations of St. Constantine and Methodius at the Devin Castle in 2008 was already mentioned. Palkó reproached Korec for failing to see that after 15 years, Slovakia is again ruled by communists. Palkó concluded by arguing that public interpretation of facts is equally important as facts themselves and pointing out that Korec’s public attitudes, his statements or silence, endorsement or opposition were watched very closely and had a strong information value. Palkó argued that the public was confused by the authority Cardinal Korec had earned by his courageous resistance to communist oppression. He evaluated Korec’s admiration of Vladimír Mečiar as the founder of independent Slovakia and his praise of restored understanding among highest constitutional officials following the most recent parliamentary elections as unfortunate. Palkó concluded his article by the following observation: “Slovak Christianity stands before a thorough discussion in which it will be necessary to utter even some unpleasant words peacefully. We cannot move further without it.”2’ A reaction by Cardinal Korec was extensive, self-defensive and reacted to Palko’s particular arguments and assertions. Quite surprisingly, it was not free of not very pleasant personal invectives ad hominem. On the other hand, the Cardinal’s reaction failed to explain his pandering to national social populism of Mečiar and Fico or his apparent sympathies to National Socialism of the wartime Slovak State. It seems that Korec’s response put an end to the effort to provoke a public debate on unpleasant issues, at least before the public’s eyes anyway. 240
