In Croatia, Only Implicit National Consensus is Possible

The news that the Hungarian parliament has adopted a constitutional amendment prohibiting foreigners from purchasing agricultural land in that country deserves special attention in Croatia. Northern neighbors consider this decision historic, although they are aware that it could ‘trigger a conflict with the European Union’.

Without delving into the actual feasibility of this constitutional change (specifically addressed in our section ‘News and Contexts’), this move by the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán could be useful for consideration by the Croatian government.
More experienced coaches in team sports know that there are situations where it is necessary to deliberately provoke a conflict with a ‘third party’ in order to homogenize a currently divided, losing team. The coach first tries to motivate those he has sent onto the field. When that fails, he attempts substitutions. If that also does not yield results, in special situations where the outcome is truly crucial and every risk must be taken, the coach begins to argue with the referee.

Consensus is a utopia I have witnessed at least a dozen situations where such an approach (the coach received a ‘technical foul’, was on the verge of ejection) awakened the team, homogenized it, and the result was a turnaround.
Interest in the Hungarian impetus and the memory of the coaching trick are the result of yet another phase of invoking national consensus in Croatia. This culminated at the transition from 2012 to 2013. It would be nice if in Croatia, with the awareness that the crisis is deep and painful cuts are necessary, some sort of social agreement could be made on how to emerge from the overall recession. Unfortunately, all those who invoke national consensus are utopians.
There is no prospect for a classic national consensus. Only an implicit one is possible. And it is achieved when the government has an original and feasible recipe. When it becomes evident that a certain prime minister and his ministers know what they are doing and that their moves form a coherent whole – then the opponents will quiet down. They will never acknowledge success to the ruling party, but the mere fact that the opposition, unions, employers, or some fifth party do not have radical reactions to changes will signify national consensus.
An important part of the credibility of any government is motivating the ‘subjects’. Even if this, as in the Hungarian case with land (and previously with the bank tax), means troubles with the referee, i.e., the European Union. The Croatian government can afford such measures (e.g., measures to protect domestic industry and similar) after July 1, when it becomes a member of the EU.

Common struggle? In his New Year’s message on YouTube, Prime Minister Zoran Milanović told his ‘subjects’ that in 2013 we ‘will have to work a lot, be together, and fight together for things to get better’. I understand that this may be a purely opportunistic message from the prime minister (a continuation of the well-known: ‘If we work well, things will be good for us’), but ‘common struggle’ can indeed have a deeper meaning. It is difficult to motivate the broadest layers of citizens with the need to initiate reforms. True leaders must prove themselves by finding the chord that will positively resonate with the majority of interest groups. Of course, this is a slippery slope. At one time, Ivo Sanader would sharpen the border issue with Slovenia before every election. This is an example of a misguided attempt at homogenization.
In the Hungarian case, if well managed, the protection of one’s own fields gives the government the right to take steps to extract maximum benefit from preserved heritage for the national economy. This requires measures for maximum incorporation of domestic agricultural products into goods produced by the Hungarian food industry. If this measure had been adopted by the Croatian government, there would still be a significant action that domestic hotels must have at least 80 percent of their offerings from domestic raw materials… In short, economic nationalism is a good instrument for informal national consensus.
Unfortunately, the Croatian government is still not convincing. Strategic directions change frequently. There is no single convincing mantra that will be repeated by everyone, from the prime minister to the last assistant minister, at every appearance. The first one, about state investments, burst like a balloon, and a new convincing one has not been devised.
The situation in the country is more serious than what is publicly assessed in the Banski Dvori. It is not surprising that there are already groups preparing to ‘slightly direct’ possible spontaneous protests. The least productive would be to achieve national consensus by taking to the streets.