On 11 January, Croatia held the second round of its presidential election, with Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, backed by the opposition Croatian Democratic Union, narrowly beating incumbent President Ivo Josipović. Dimitar Bechev writes that with parliamentary elections scheduled for later in the year, the Croatian government led by Prime Minister Zoran Milanović now faces a challenge to hold on to power

Bechev, Dimitar

LSE Research Online

Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, Credit: Security & Defence Agenda (CC-BY-SA-3.0)13/01/2015Following a disappointing presidential election, Croatia’sgovernment now faces a challenge to hold on to powerblogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/01/13/following-a-disappointing-presidential-election-croatias-government-now-faces-a-challenge-to-hold-on-to-power/On 11 January, Croatia held the second round of its presidential election, with Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, backed by the opposition Croatian Democratic Union, narrowly beating incumbentPresident Ivo Josipović. Dimitar Bechev writes that with parliamentary elections scheduled for laterin the year, the Croatian government led by Prime Minister Zoran Milanović now faces a challengeto hold on to power.It was a nail biting evening in Croatia, high on political drama. As expected, the two competitors inthe presidential race, the incumbent Ivo Josipović and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, were running neckand neck. Initial exit polls gave Grabar-Kitarović the edge, but later on Josipović, backed by the ruling SocialDemocratic Party of Croatia (SDP), came forward. He soon saw his advantage narrowing down as results frompolling stations abroad were announced. It all ended with a photo ﬁnish, social media commentators noted, withGrabar-Kitarovic winning by 32,435 votes – a little less than 2 per cent of the overall vote. The president-elect,supported by the centre-right Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), garnered just over 50.7 per cent against the almost49.3 per cent for Josipović ,who conceded his defeat at 22:40 Zagreb time.Several points emerged from the election which areworth noting. First, the diaspora vote weighed inheavily, yet it did not quite decide the outcome. Up to90 per cent of Croatian citizens living abroad,including across the border in Herzegovina, have astrong preference for HDZ. They have supported theparty loyally since the days of Franjo Tudjman,Croatia’s nationalist leader credited for independencefrom Yugoslavia and also winning in 1995 the so-called Homeland War (Domovinski rat) againstseparatist Serbs. Yet, one should not overlook thefact that even without the diaspora (a term which sitsoddly with Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina in anycase) Grabar-Kitarović would have carried the day bya razor-blade thin margin of 1,989 votes.Second, Josipović bled support in coreconstituencies.Even in urban areas, which wouldtypically back the left-liberal candidates, Josipovićunderperformed. Compared to the presidentialelections of 2009-10 he lost an estimated 50,000 votes in the capital Zagreb. Meanwhile, HDZ improved its scorefrom the ﬁrst round, ﬁnishing a very close second. Grabar-Kitarović overtook Josipović in Split and Osijek aftertrailing behind. Out of the big cities, only Rijeka remained loyal to the now ex-president, but even there he hasperformed worse than in 2009-10 (50.4 per cent as opposed to 66.7 per cent in the previous election).Third, the campaign made a diﬀerence, but only to a point. Josipović led a lacklustre campaign, coming across asbookish and devoid of charisma. That is not necessarily a bad thing given Croatia’s turbulent past. Yet it wascertainly a problem given that he, ﬁguratively speaking, was forced to row against the tide. As observed by the old1/3Croatia hand Marcus Tanner, voters have punished the incumbent. Those who went for the radical activist IvanVilibor Sinčić, who ﬁnished third in the opening round with a respectable 16.4 per cent, did not come to Josipović’srescue. Instead they heeded the call to cast invalid ballots or did not make it to the polling stations. By contrast,Grabar-Kitarović succeeded in rallying the HDZ faithful by promising to “start where Franjo Tudjman stopped” (thepresidency hasn’t been in HDZ’s hands since 1999) while also projecting a folksy image (“I was taking care of cowson the family farm as a child”) and highlighting economic hardship and rising poverty to broaden her appeal and woocentrists.Finally, there was a strong turnout. Both the HDZ and the governing SDP seem to have done their best to mobilisetheir respective voters. More than 59 per cent made their way to the ballot boxes – the highest share in 15 years, asshown in the Chart below.Chart: Turnout in the second round of Croatian presidential elections (2000 – 2015)Note: This chart was generated using information from the Political Data Yearbook:Interactive (part of the European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook)available online at http://www.politicaldatayearbook.com/Chart.aspx/110/CroatiaIn comparison, just over 47.1 per cent voted in the ﬁrst round on 28 December, and just over 50.1 per cent in thesecond round in 2010. There were reports about huge queues in Herzegovina’s main city of Mostar – and thedeployment of special police to contain unrest. Both parties’ HQs were painfully aware of the narrow race andscrambled for each and every vote.What are the implications of the result?The outcome will give HDZ a badly needed boost ahead of the more important parliamentary polls at the end of thisyear. Grabar-Kitarović’s success contrasts with the party’s lacklustre performance in 2009-10, when its candidateAndrija Hebrang, a scion of a prominent political family, failed to make it past the ﬁrst round. It is also a breath offresh air given that Tomislav Karamarko, HDZ leader, has been consistently earning, according to surveys, theunenviable distinction of being the country’s most unpopular politician (Josipović has regularly been identiﬁed as themost popular politician).2/3As of 11 January, the centre-right opposition now has wind in its sails. Grabar-Kitarović could well use the presidencyto score points on behalf of HDZ, especially with regard to the struggling economy. Looking at some of the trends,Croatia, a member of the EU since July 2013, more closely resembles crisis-ridden Southern Europe, not the post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Its economy contracted for a sixth consecutive year in 2014.Kick-starting growth and tackling unemployment (which sits at 17.7 per cent nationally but is close to 50 per centamong the youth) is very much the task of the cabinet as Croatia is a parliamentary republic. The President mayhave lots of air time to sway votes while carrying no direct responsibility.There is also the prospect of in-ﬁghting within the SDP as Josipović challenges Prime Minister Zoran Milanović forthe leadership. Yet, HDZ’s ride to power won’t be smooth. A year is a long time in politics and one thing to watch willbe how smaller parties progress, including Sustainable Development for Croatia (ORaH – meaning ‘walnut’), anenvironmentalist party which did very strongly in the European Parliament elections in May last year. Sinčić’ssuccess suggests there is scope for newcomers, in the mould of Syriza or Podemos, challenging the party-politicalstatus quo.In foreign aﬀairs, where the President’s inﬂuence is more pronounced, there is concern that Grabar-Kitarović couldturn back the clock on rapprochement with Serbia and start playing hardball with Brussels to please the nationalistgrassroots. Such prospects cannot be overruled. It is not inconceivable that Zagreb makes Serbia’s accession talksto the EU more diﬃcult, or even vetoes certain chapters. Just as Slovenia did in the past towards Croatia.However, it is not likely that Grabar-Kitarović’s win will lead to Croatia mimicking its neighbour Hungary in pickingﬁghts with the EU. Her victory speech struck pro-Western notes, stressing relations with Germany as key. A formerambassador to Washington and until recently Assistant Secretary-General of NATO, she has good links with the US,too. All that is certainly reassuring as far as Croatia’s policy towards the countries of former Yugoslavia isconcerned. Rather than going back to Tudjman’s days, Zagreb will continue to be a constructive player in theBalkans.Please read our comments policy before commenting .Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, norof the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1A9JGf0 _________________________________About the authorDimitar Bechev – LSE, European InstituteDimitar Bechev is a Visiting Fellow at LSEE-Research on South East Europe in the LSE’s EuropeanInstitute. He also lectures in international politics at Soﬁa University and was formerly Director of theSoﬁa Oﬃce at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) where he covered Turkey andthe Western Balkans.3/3

Following a disappointing presidential election, Croatia’s government now faces a challenge to hold on to power

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online