FREE FORUM: HERE TODAY, BUT WHAT ABOUT TOMORROW?

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRATISLAVA 000486

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/15/2012
TAGS: PGOV ECON LO
SUBJECT: FREE FORUM: HERE TODAY, BUT WHAT ABOUT TOMORROW?


Classified By: Ambassador Rodolphe M. Vallee for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d
).


1. (C) Summary: One key unknown of the June 17 elections is
whether Zuzana Martinakova's Free Forum (SF) will obtain the
necessary five percent of votes to enter parliament. The
"one-woman party" has attracted socially liberal voters
looking to fill the void left by ANO. Martinakova's message
of support for health, education, and softer social reforms
has wide appeal, as does her promise of "good manners" in
politics. Unfortunately for SF, a recent intra-party dispute
proved that its politicians are just as ill-mannered as the
rest, and poll numbers have dropped significantly. The last
surveys may be very influential in convincing potential
voters that SF still has a chance, or that they should not
waste their votes. If SF does manage to get into parliament,
it could be a key deal-maker in the post-election
horse-trading. It could either join Smer or help enable PM
Dzurinda resurrect a four-party center-right coalition. End
summary.

A Brief History
--------------


2. (C) Slobodne Forum was born when several SDKU members, led
by deposed Minister of Defense Ivan Simko, defected after the
autumn 2003 "Skupinka" affair. Simko's vision for the party
was to mirror the SDKU reform agenda, but to bring democratic
principles back into the politics, under his own leadership
of course. He was therefore shocked when the small group of
SF members chose Zuzana Martinakova as its new leader, by
just one vote. (Note: SF members have since told us that
Simko's uninspired speech at the party convention persuaded
them he was not a good leader. End note.) Martinakova, a
journalist by profession, had been Simko's protege. Since
she took over SF, it has been widely said that there are two
puppet-masters behind her every move: husband Marian Bednar
(an MOD advisor during Simko's tenure who now works as a
defense advisor to President Gasparovic) and Vladislav
Chlipala (a former Slovak Intelligence Service Director in
Kosice, who has the reputation among Kosice natives as a
"weird" guy who is more a lone operator than a team player).


SF Agenda and Campaign: The One-Woman Party
--------------


3. (C) Poloffs met with SF MP Lubica Navratilova, and
Ambassador hosted a lunch for Martinakova, Chlipala, and MP
Jozef Hurban, to discuss the SF platform and campaign plans.
All explained that SF appealed to urban, middle class
professionals and small entrepeneurs. These voters generally
favored the Dzurinda government's reform agenda but wanted to
"soften" economic reforms to make them more palatable for
ordinary people. On foreign policy, SF leaders assured us
they did not differ from SDKU. With Martinakova's
non-controversial public messages in support of education,
health care, and gentle social reform, Free Forum was
considered an "acceptable" party for any potential coalition.
Her main public criticism was Mikulas Dzurinda's political
style, and her main vow was to bring good manners back into
public life. Privately, Dzurinda and Martinakova loath each
other, distrust exceeed only by Bednar's hatred of Dzurinda.
The strategy that set SF apart was its determination that
Martinakova should be the only public face of the party.

The "Liberal" Void
--------------


4. (C) Pollsters estimate that since Pavol Rusko left the
government in disgrace and his Alliance of a New Citizen
(ANO) party disintegrated, the eight to ten percent of
Slovaks that favor a free-market fiscal policy but a more
progressive social policy are looking for a new home. Some
of them were drawn toward Smer, others to SDKU, but most saw
SF as a good alternative. It was the dissolution of ANO that
bumped SF's poll numbers over the five percent mark, going as
high as eight percent in some surveys. However, the socially
liberal image is somewhat misleading; according to ANO MP Eva
Cerna, Martinakova opposed legislation that would have made
it easier to obtain an abortion, resisted meetings with
women's groups, and refused to join a women's caucus in
parliament. When the Ambassador asked if SF had a more
socially liberal bent than SDKU, Chlipala rushed to assure
him that Martinakova was "a Catholic woman."


5. (C) There had been rumors since the beginning of the year
of a possible merger between SF and ANO. Just a few weeks
before parliamentary elections, Chlipala (in the name of
Martinakova) convinced a large group of ANO members in Banska
Bystrica to join SF. Although local SF organizers were
opposed to this "hostile takeover by Rusko," they were
shunted aside. MP Branislav Opaterny (a former ANO member
who served as State Secretary at the ministry of economy, and
brother of the local SF chief) protested that the party
leader who promised to apply democratic principles in
politics was breaking her vow. Subsequently, Martinakova
removed him from the candidate list (another breach of party
procedure). The nasty war of words in the press destroyed
the "good manners" image of the party, called into question
Martinakova's skills as a leader, and caused an immediate
erosion in the poll numbers. A disillusioned Opaterny
recently told us that he originally hoped SF would get seven
percent of the vote. Now he expected around four percent,
and "five percent would be a miracle."

Martinakova's Weaknesses
--------------


6. (C) We had been trying to meet with Martinakova since SF
was formed. On a half-dozen occasions she canceled at the
last minute, and stood us up several times more. We took
some consolation in hearing that other embassies had similar
experiences. SDKU campaign chief Kamil Homola, who worked as
her assistant during the 2002 campaign, once told us she was
lazy; when handed a demanding campaign schedule she would ask
"Do we really have to do all of this?" Navratilova told us
that building a new political party was hard work, and
Martinakova was simply too busy to meet with diplomats. SF
foreign policy advisor Ivo Lancaric (who may be on the outs,
since we met him with Opaterny) told us Martinakova was
insecure and didn't want to meet with diplomats until she had
studied what to say on foreign affairs. Opaterny said it was
all a game; Martinakova wanted to give the image of a busy
woman in high demand, thinking it would win her more respect.
We believe that only the personal invervention of the former
and current Ambassadors to the U.S., Martin Butora and
Rastislav Kacer, both of whom are friends and advisors to
Martinakova, finally convinced her to accept the Ambassador's
invitation to lunch. Once there, she was poised, friendly,
and open, leaving a favorable impression.


7. (C) While initially supportive of the "One-woman" campaign
strategy, Opaterny now says party members believe it was a
big mistake. He described the SF headquarters as a cemetary;
while other parties are full of energy and campaign spirit,
SF's paid office workers sit idly at their desks. Lancaric
expressed tremendous frustration at Martinakova's management
style. He said that as a journalist, she worked
independently writing reports, but had no leadership
experience. She did not know how to inspire a team, she was
jealous of her colleagues, and when she was unhappy she
kicked desks and yelled at people. They both described
Chlipala as an absolute gatekeeper, who plans her every word.
No one can meet with Martinakova without his presence. They
said his former experience as an intelligence officer makes
him a master of manipulating facts and creating conspiracy
theories, and that he aspires to head the SIS if SF enters
the next government.

Free Forum: Hovering on the Edge
--------------


8. (C) Free Forum's program is friendly to U.S. goals in
Slovakia, despite the strange behavior of Martinakova and
Chlipala. If the party receives enough votes to make it into
Parliament, it could have a slight moderating effect on Smer,
or boost the chances of a return to power by a center-right
coalition. The question is: Will SF get five percent? The
last polls published before elections had the potential to be
very influential on SF's potential voters, who are generally
educated, thinking people. The problem is that one showed SF
with 4.6 percent support and the other showed 6 percent.
Voters must now make the difficult decision of taking a risk
and voting for the party, or choosing not to throw away their
votes. In the latter scenario, SDKU would hope to pick up a
significant portion. If SF comes close but misses the
cut-off, its votes will effectively be divided among the
parties that enter paliament in proportion to the overall
percentage they received, thereby benefitting frontrunner
Smer even more.
VALLEE