3.1. Right-Wing Extremism
It is logical to start with the topic of Nazism and fascism as threats to Slovakia, as the SNU was led against the regime of the Slovak State and its subjugation to Nazi Germany. Celebrations of SNU’s anniversary are therefore led in the spirit of anti-Nazism and anti-fascism, not only in relation to the historical events of the Second World War, but also to the Slovak political party system. Slovakia has had an almost constant experience with the presence of extreme-right parties in its parliament since the fall of communism. The Slovak National Party, long led by Ján Slota, has almost always been a part of the parliament (with the exception of 2002–2006 and 2010–2012) (see
Kluknavská and Smolík 2016) and in some cases was the ruling party. However, in 2016, the extreme-right scene took on a new dimension thanks to the parliamentary success of the neo-Nazi People’s Party Our Slovakia linked to Marian Kotleba. The success of this party is based on changes within the Slovak party system (
Hynčica 2019). In 2013, Kotleba won the second round of the election for head of the regional self-government of the Banská Bystrica Region (
Buček and Plešivčák 2017;
Mikuš et al. 2016), and his party gained more than 8% of the vote in 2016, giving them a total of 14 mandates in the Slovak Parliament. The celebrations that took place a year later significantly reacted not only to Kotleba’s year-old parliamentary success, but also to the upcoming local government elections in 2017. References focusing on the danger that Kotleba and (neo-)Nazism and (neo-)fascism in general pose had already appeared earlier.
The basis of the majority of speeches throughout individual years is the adoration of SNU, the explicit stance against fascism and Nazism, and the explicit or implicit stance against the Slovak State as the bearer of this ideology. Similar statements could be found among all speakers. At the same time, reference to WWII, fallen partisan heroes, and speeches of the oft-mentioned self-sacrifice of the Slovak nation are shifted from the past to the present and used within the contemporary political struggle.
In 2015, speeches on a general level were aimed against the threat of Nazism, while Marian Kotleba was not explicitly mentioned. These references (of which there were less in comparison to the following years) were focused not only on the protection of the legacy of SNU, on which doubt was being cast by the extreme right, but also on the social danger of the existence of an extreme right. For example, the chairman of the National Council Peter Pellegrini said the following during the 2015 celebrations: “We cannot allow the toleration of Nazis. We cannot agree to guards marching through our streets, beating people up”. By saying this, he thus framed the (neo-)Nazis as a source of direct physical threat to the population.
A far more vehement appeal against the extreme right resounded in 2016 after Kotleba’s success in parliament elections, although Kotleba was not directly mentioned in this year but rather through certain allusions. The situation was expressed succinctly by Pavel Sečkář, chairman of the Slovak Union of Anti-Fascist Fighters: “After the elections for parliament, the shaved heads that were giving the Nazi salute in the streets are now lounging in the benches of parliament”. In his speech, President Andrej Kiska also touched upon the topic as he searched for political parallels between the time of the uprising and the present: participants in the uprising overcame political, ideological and religious differences and agreed that freedom and racial and religious equality are the more important values. According to Kiska, these values also apply to contemporary Slovak society and it is important to actively defend them. It is not possible to associate oneself with the legacy of SNU and at the same time tolerate the idea that SNU was a “stain” on Slovak history. We can consider this to be a clear stance against Kotleba’s perception of SNU and the Slovak State. Robert Fico also spoke in a similar spirit when, in reaction to election results, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that a number of political entities had chosen hatred as their program.
In relation to stances against (neo-)Nazism and (neo-)fascism, doubtlessly the most interesting celebrations took place in 2017, shortly before elections to regional government and the realistic threat that Kotleba would defend his mandate and leadership of the region. President Kiska’s speech contained a strong anti-Kotleba message: “It is not enough to commemorate and make speeches while the posthumous sons of fascism are roaming the streets. When a fascist won, it was a shock for Banská Bystrica. When he entered the parliament, it was an even greater shock. We are trying to come to terms with this and react to the fascists. What hatred is hidden behind their smiles and green shirts. Their only contribution to the public debate has been the spread of hatred. They know how to intimidate and bully; they do not know how to administer public affairs”. He also framed the topic in the context of the upcoming regional elections: “We will stand up to evil and drive the fascists out of the Banská Bystrica Region. Kotleba sees the beginning of SNU as the darkest day in Slovak history, and his only contribution has been to spread hatred. Region by region, we must not give up our beautiful country to fascists. We do not have to fight with weapons in our hands, and we do not have to be heroes. It is enough to be true citizens, participate in democratic elections and choose a non-fascist candidate. There are more of us and we can defeat them, and we can draw courage from those who stood up to evil in incomparably worse conditions.” During this appeal, he deftly instrumentalized the past—taking part in elections at present and voting against fascists is a certain analogy to the anti-fascist struggle of the participants in SNU.
Mobilization rhetoric was also used by the chairman of the Slovak National Party and chairman of the National Council Andrej Danko, who called upon voters to “remove the Nazis from the region”. Prime Minister Fico, who linked the current threat of (neo-)Nazism with the legacy of the Slovak State, spoke in a similar spirit: “[We all know] what Slovakia looked like at the time when the Slovak State existed as one of Hitler’s underlings. Life was calm here, but Nazis and guard members were walking around, and Slovaks were participating. And next door [to the site of the celebrations] is a building that is once again being called “Na stráž” [a salute used during the Slovak State by Slovak Nazis, that can be translated as “On guard”], and we have the feeling that this is ok. […] Freedom of speech doesn’t mean giving the Nazi salute, chanting “Na stráž“, and so forth. I am calling upon law enforcement to take action”.
The celebrations of 2018 took place in a much less confrontational spirit. Clear reference to Kotleba was made again by Pellegrini, who called voters of the extreme right, who were doubting the legacy of SNU, people who had no respect for history and belonged in the “ash heap of history”. At the same time, he thanked residents of the region for coming together in the 2017 elections and creating a “small SNU” by driving out Kotleba from his function as the head of the region and thus protecting the legacy of SNU. In 2019, however, a stronger warning of the threat of present extremism could be observed. Andrej Danko claimed that it was a disgrace that “people who are distorting history, putting on fascist uniforms and enjoying the trust of citizens are in politics” and by doing so implicitly referred to Kotleba’s party. Prime Minister Pellegrini also took a stance against far-right extremism, pointing out propaganda and calls for violence that were spread via social networks. He pointed to the trend of transforming and reducing extremist rhetoric—at present, right-wing extremists are hiding behind values of conservatism and traditionalism. In 2020, several mentions were made of subduing contemporary extremism with regard to showing respect for fallen fighters and participants in SNU.
Present right-wing extremism was thus framed across years and actors as a security risk in various regards (
Buzan et al. 1997). Firstly, it is a physical threat to the population, which was explicitly mentioned in analyzed speeches (“
guards marching through our streets, beating people up”). In these words, the speakers were pointing to the phenomenon of creating paramilitary groups that are symptomatic of this form of extremism. However, this does not necessarily entail paramilitary units such as the Czech National Militia or the Hungarian Guard Movement; in the Slovak political context, they may be embodied in a distinctly more banal example—groups of LSNS members in party t-shirts who decided voluntarily to patrol Slovak trains. By doing so, they also disrupted the authority of the state’s institutions, as they attempted to break the Weberian monopoly of state power to carry out physical violence and justice. At the same time, right-wing extremism is presented as a threat to the democratic order and the constitutionality of the Slovak state. As Slovak political identity is seen as anti-fascist in individual speeches thanks to the legacy of SNU, contemporary right-wing extremism is also understood as a danger to the nation’s identity.
Despite the fact that fascism and Nazism (or right-wing extremism) are portrayed by a number of speakers as a threat (and a relatively fundamental one targeting different aspects of the operation of the state and society), they are not a reference object of the process of securitization, as calls for action exceeding the framework of standard politics are not taking place (
Buzan et al. 1997). On the contrary, the dominant and requested solution presented by individual actors was linked to a call for standard democratic procedures, primarily the need to come together in elections and defeat the extremists. On the other hand, such framing of extremism fully corresponds to the creation of moral panic (
Cohen 2011). The phenomenon of right-wing extremism was one of the most frequented topics that can be explained by several arguments. Firstly, the participating actors perceived the right-wing extremism as a most imminent threat to the sustainability of security in Slovakia. Secondly, this was amplified by the situation with (neo-)Nazi politician Kotleba mentioned above. Thirdly, the creating of moral panic around right-wing extremism suits well the general framework created around the SNU legacy narrative. The avoidance of securitization of right-wing extremism and creating moral panic around it can serve as an illustration that the participating actors were asserting standard political countermeasures (unlike the topic of migration; see below).
3.2. Migration
The topic of migration tends to be a frequent subject of securitization (
Bourbeau 2011;
Krotký 2019), and the context of Slovak politics is not an exception (
Androvičová 2015). Negative references about migrants within Slovak politics were strongly evident before elections in 2016, but the fundamental breaking point had already come in the summer of 2015 (
Žúborová and Borárosová 2017, p. 10), when both a worsening in the media’s picture of refugeeism and the strengthening of negative statements on the part of politicians, primarily Prime Minister Robert Fico, could be observed. Slovakia mostly avoided the wave of migration, which was reflected in the vague statements made by politicians shortly after the so-called migration crisis broke out. These statements were mostly in the line of “it’s the EU’s problem, not Slovakia’s”. In 2015 and 2016, however, a “defensive discourse” appeared, framing migration as a security threat for Slovakia. This manifested itself in a change in the Smer party’s primary slogan, which shifted from its original “Smer works for Slovakia” to “Smer is protecting Slovakia” (
Žúborová and Borárosová 2017, p. 8). Fico, head of the Smer party, was the most respected politician speaking about migration in the media at the time. The negative framing of migrants became the political mainstream, while President Kiska was an exception. Prime Minister Fico went the farthest in saying that the secret service should monitor all Muslims on Slovakia’s territory (
Žúborová and Borárosová 2017).
In regard to the fact that existing research placed the breaking point for the negative framing of migration in the summer of 2015, this approach manifested itself in the SNU celebrations in the same year. It is also interesting that, with the exception of occasional mention, the topic did not appear in speeches in other years (2016–2020). In 2015, however, almost all speakers (although in different ways) expressed their views concerning migration, and migration became the central theme of the celebrations. Robert Fico profiled himself as the fiercest opponent of migration, which corresponds to the aforementioned research (
Žúborová and Borárosová 2017).
Fico devoted a significant portion of his speech to the topic of migration, beginning with SNU, continuing on about the security threat posed by immigrants, and returning to SNU. According to Fico, fascism was a threat that Slovakia stood up to thanks to SNU—now there is a new threat—the threat of migration—and it is necessary for Slovakia to stand up to this threat too and not to disappoint SNU’s legacy. In the prime minister’s words, the situation of refugees is regrettable, but “we”, i.e., Slovaks and Europeans in general, must also be protected. Therefore, it is not possible to risk European security in order to save refugees. The creation of this “us” (Slovaks, Europeans) versus “them” (migrants) dichotomy can be seen as a basic categorization in the narrative of (in)security; at the same time, it is one of the basic categories of populist strategy (
Knight 1998, p. 223). As Fico went on: “
Let’s not pretend that we don’t see the people’s fear. They are afraid, not only in Slovakia, but in all of Europe. Let’s not pretend that we don’t see the causes of this phenomenon, and let’s not pretend that we’re able to solve this problem by welcoming everyone with open arms, regardless of whether they’re economic schemers or people who need protection for their lives, health and family”. In Fico’s words, Slovakia did not take part in the bombing of Syria or Libya and thus did not take part in their destabilization. Therefore, he cannot be reprimanded for not helping refugees, as he does not carry the blame for the state that their homes are now in. Although it is necessary to differentiate between individuals who are arriving because of finances and individuals who are fleeing war, Slovakia is not required to help either group. Fico took a stance against the local opponents of this opinion as “
pseudo-humanists welcoming refugees”. “
Europe is facing an uncontrolled influx of refugees from various parts of the world. European politics has completely failed in terms of migration, [… uncontrolled]
immigration can destroy Slovakia and Europe […],
Let us be honest—we’re not able to integrate our own Roma citizens, of which there are hundreds of thousands. How can we integrate people who are in a completely different place in terms of their life and religion? […]
If the idea of quotas reappears, we will once again refuse it”. He added that Christians are able to integrate, which is, however, in contradiction with his previous statement about problems with integrating Romas, who by vast majority are Roman Catholic. In his conclusion, Fico shifted from migration and returned to SNU, deftly utilizing its legacy: “
We must protect traditions, values and democracy, and if we can’t protect them sufficiently from immigrants, elections will be won by fascists and Nazis, who will take on this problem in a completely different way. The people whom the Slovak National Uprising was lead against would win”. The other speakers either dealt with migration only marginally, from a different perspective, or not at all.
It is possible to say that the securitization issues identified by the analysis do not represent the dominant broad shared discourse of the SNU celebrations narrative. On the other hand, we can highlight the fact that the main securitizing actor was Prime Minister Robert Fico. Since the phenomenon of migration was securitized mainly by the prime minister, the relevance of it remains intact (despite the fact that the securitization of migration does not stand as a leitmotif of the SNU celebrations narrative. If we take a closer look at the framing of migration by Robert Fico, we can see it as a securitized phenomenon, which is evident both from the intensity of the given threat’s portrayal and the repertoire of suggested solutions exceeding standard politics (e.g., the idea that the secret services should monitor all Muslims in Slovakia) and legal norms (the refusal of quotas to redistribute migrants exceeds legal norms on an EU level). The threat to Slovakia by migration is evident on several levels—the first is an economic threat (i.e., “economic migrants” who will harm the state’s economy via their presence), threats stemming from a “threat to culture or social cohesion” (
Czajka 2014;
Mukhin 2015;
Lægard 2010) due to cultural differentness and the impossibility of integrating (alleged) newcomers, and of course a physical threat (“migrants are potential terrorists”). The last line of endangerment can strengthen extremist tendencies in society (“if we aren’t against migration, people will vote for Kotleba”).
3.3. Russia and the European Union
The last reference objects that we will deal with are the significant players in European politics (and beyond), i.e., the EU and Russia, and the relationship between Slovakia’s security and these actors. We have decided to include the EU and Russia into one chapter, as the speeches of the analyzed actors (primarily Robert Fico, who gave this topic, just like migration, the most attention) frequently contained negative framing of one actor and the positive framing of another. The topic of the EU and Russia was emphasized most strongly in 2015 and 2016, primarily in relation to the so-called migration crisis, and also the EU’s attitude towards Russia.
In his speech in 2015, chairman of the National Council Pellegrini defined three significant security threats that Europe and Slovakia must take into consideration—Russian foreign policy activities, war in Ukraine, and migration. However, he did not specify in greater detail how exactly they represent a threat, how to deal with it, etc. Russia, however, is clearly labelled a threat source (even a two-fold threat, as Russia is also the actor of war in the Ukraine).
Fico spoke in much more detail about the security connotations of Slovakia’s relationship towards the EU and Russia. “The Slovak National Uprising is a pearl that people of every nation and state would be proud of. This pearl allows us to speak the truth”. According to Fico, one of these truths is that Czechoslovakia was sold out by the West in Munich. By saying this, he began his stance against the West, which continued throughout his whole speech and culminated in criticism of the EU in connection with its migration policy and the danger that migrants are said to pose to the EU: “Europe is facing an uncontrolled influx of migrants from various parts of the world. European politics has completely failed in terms of migration […] If the idea of quotas reappears, we will once again refuse it”. He added to this stance against the EU by claiming to be aware of the fact that there were numerous representatives of European countries in the audience who, as he hoped, would pass on the message to their governments and to Brussels. Uncontrolled “immigration can destroy Slovakia and Europe”. Therefore, no one can force upon anyone else the obligatory acceptance of refugees. “The country has the right to choose who they want to accept and in what number”. Thus, in Fico’s words, the EU’s policy clearly presents a risk for the sustainability of Slovakia’s security, primarily due to migration policy, but also due to escalations in relations with Russia.
In 2016, Fico made a symbolic connection to his previous speech to a certain degree when he claimed he was worried that some representatives of Slovak and European policy are looking for an enemy to whom they could pass on all their problems. He emphasized that he was refusing any antipathy in Russian–Slovak affairs and the pinning of causes of all problems on Russia. At the same time, it was clear in his speech that the figure framing Russia in such a way was the European Union. Fico also warned of a possible escalation of conflict between Europe and Russia (explicitly mentioning former British Prime Minister May, who admitted her willingness to use nuclear weapons if necessary). The Soviet Union took the lion’s share of defeating Nazism, and it is not possible to make an enemy out of Russia. Robert Fico was thus the only speaker in 2015 (rather implicitly) and 2016 (strongly explicitly) to defend an alliance with Russia on one hand and take a stance against the EU on the other.
If we summarize the relationship of both speakers towards both these actors of European politics and their framing as a threat, we find two narratives. The first is the labelling of Russia as an unspecified threat, and the second is the EU labelled as a threat by Robert Fico. The reason for viewing the EU in this manner is its migration policy. The EU is thus an actor that indirectly threatens Slovakia by supporting a direct source of Slovakia’s endangerment, i.e., migration, which is securitized by Fico in his following speeches. At the same time, we cannot claim that Robert Fico has made the EU into an object of securitization; however, his argumentation does fulfill the attributes of the creation of moral panic. Pellegrini’s labelling of Russia as a threat was a brief and vague statement without implications, and, therefore, we can consider it to be neither moral panic nor securitization. As you can see above, the speeches related to the EU and Russia are marginal in comparison to the speeches related to the right-wing extremism and migration. Nevertheless, the EU and Russia were mentioned by two state representatives holding crucial functions within the political system—we decided to mention this for completeness.