SLOVAKIA BEFORE ELECTIONS 2006 � CITIZENS� VIEWS

Zora Bútorová, Oľga Gyárfá�ová, Vladimír Krivý and Marián Vel�ic

www.ivo.sk

SOCIO-POLITICAL CLIMATE BEFORE ELECTIONS 2006

Between April 13 and 25, 2004, the Insti-tute for Public Affairs conducted a sur-vey that mapped the social and political climate in Slovakia before the upcoming 2006 parliamentary elections as well as basic patterns of electoral behaviour.

How does the public perceive the direction in which the Slovak society is heading? Is the Slovak society heading in the right or wrong direction? This key �evaluation ques-tion� that examines past developments but simultaneously anticipates future ones, split respondents almost evenly, as 46% of them answered positively and 50% negatively (please see Graph 1). This ratio of views should not be taken for granted. Compared to previous two parliamentary elections, citizens� perception continues to improve; before the 1998 parliamentary elections, the ratio of positive and negative responses was

The data were gathered by the FOCUS agency through its network of trained interviewers from a representative sam-ple of 1,242 Slovak citizens older than 18, using the method of face-to-face in-terviews. The survey was supported by the Open Society Foundation.

46

35

46

29282532

47

20

5059

48

66646659

34

69

0102030405060708090

100

V.98 I.99 III.00 IX.01 VI.02 XI.03 XI.04 IX.05 IV.06

right direction wrong direction

Graph 1: �Do you believe that the Slovak society is heading in the right or in the wrong direction?�

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Policy Documentation Center

20%:69% while four years later it was 28%:64%. Citizens� opinions regarding the overall di-rection of Slovakia�s development are sig-nificantly determined by their social pro-file. Particularly satisfied are people with higher education; people with qualified jobs; younger people; people who do not suffer from material shortage; finally, peo-ple who identify themselves as members of the higher middle or even the middle class.

positively view Slovakia�s development di-rection. Even more such respondents (32%) sympathize with �hardcore� opposition par-ties (i.e. SNS, Smer-DS, KSS, and ĽS-HZDS). The remainder comprises voters of other parties, undecided voters and non-voters. When taking a look from the reversed per-spective, we see that Slovakia�s overall de-velopment is viewed positively by most sup-porters of the SDKÚ-DS (88%), KDH (68%),

1822

4243

5560

68

8880

64

5656

353729

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SDKÚ-DS KDH SF SMK Smer-SD SNS ĽS-HZDS KSS

Right direction Wrong direction

Graph 2: �Do you think that the Slovak society is heading in the right or wrong direction?� (breakdown by political parties� supporters)

Positive perception of Slovakia�s general development is closely interconnected to unambiguous endorsement of Slovakia�s EU membership. The category of respondents with positive views of the country�s overall development lis much more numerous than the cate-gory of those who trust the incumbent Mi-kulá� Dzurinda administration (for quite a long time, their total share has been lower than 25%) or those who favourably evaluate its performance (of all respondents who said they were satisfied with Slovakia�s overall development, one in four would mark the government with an A or B, almost one in two would award it with a C while one in three would use a D or E). Satisfaction with Slovakia�s overall devel-opment is not an exclusive feature of the outgoing ruling coalition�s supporters, as SDKÚ-DS, SMK and KDH voters make up less than one third (31%) of all people who

SF (60%) and SMK (55%). On the other hand, most sympathizers of Smer-SD and SNS (56% each), ĽS-HZDS (64%) and KSS (80%) presented opposite views (please see Graph 2). How do citizens perceive reforms currently underway? As we observed toward the end of 2005, most ongoing reforms � except the health service reform � do not provoke funda-mental refusal and opposition on the part of citizens (please see Table 1). Since November 2005, citizens� perception of ongoing reforms has not changed almost at all. Again, the most positively evaluated was decentralization of public administra-tion as 61 % of respondents said it was basi-cally good (50%) or did not have any reser-vations (11%). Majority of respondents also endorsed taxation (58%) and pension (53%)

2

reforms, while changes in welfare benefits were supported by almost one in two re-spondents (47%). As we see, none of the ex-amined reforms is endorsed without reser-vations; citizens tend to support their basic philosophy while suggesting adjustments. The only reform opposed by a vast majority of citizens is the health service reform that should be thoroughly revised according to three in four respondents (72%). The re-form�s negative perception was reiterated by the list of the most pressing social problems where quality of provided health care ranked second overall as almost one in three respondents (31%) cited it among three most pressing problems. Compared to December 2005, there have been some faint but significant shifts in re-forms� perception by particular political parties� supporters. Their greatest advocates continue to be SDKÚ-DS supporters, fol-lowed by SF sympathizers (please see Table 2). On the other hand, potential voters of KDH and partly SMK show a more critical attitude to reforms and emphasize the im-portance of adjusting them. Supporters of Smer-SD have grown slightly more critical of most reforms, which brought them more

in line with the critical rhetoric presented by Smer-SD Chairman Robert Fico. Based on their supporters� prevailing atti-tudes to examined reforms, political parties may be divided into three basic categories: A � parties whose supporters show above-average support for all examined reforms (SDKÚ-DS and SF); B � parties whose sym-pathizers show above-average criticism re-garding all examined reforms (KSS, ĽS-HZDS and Smer-SD); C � parties whose ad-herents present rather average or inconsis-tent attitudes (for instance the KDH that inclines to category A or the SMK and SNS that incline to category B). Which problems are viewed as the most pressing by citizens? The respondents were asked to select the most pressing social problems (please see Table 3) from a list. The most frequently identified problems included unemploy-ment (50%), quality of health care (31%), poverty (29%) and the standard of living (27%). The second group comprised the following problems: status and opportuni-

Table 1: Citizens� views regarding the future fate of reforms

Good reform, it should be left

as it is

Basically a good reform, but it should be adjusted in details

Bad reform, it should be changed

thoroughly

I don�t know

Decentralization of public administration 11 50 26 14 Taxation reform 12 46 31 11 Pension reform 7 46 37 10 Changes in welfare benefits 7 40 46 7 Health service reform 3 22 72 3

Table 2: Citizens� views regarding particular reforms - breakdown by political parties (good reform : good reform that needs adjustment : bad reform)

Taxation reform

Pension reform Decentralization Changes in

welfare benefits Health service

reform

SDKÚ 31 : 52 : 12 16 : 63 : 15 19 : 59 : 15 16 : 52 : 23 9 : 37 : 51 SF 12 : 61 : 24 10 : 55 : 32 14 : 58 : 20 3 : 58 : 43 3 : 34 : 61 KDH 12 : 47 : 29 11 : 54 : 29 7 : 48 : 29 8 : 41 : 44 5 : 27 : 67 SMK 12 : 51 : 14 8 : 41 : 46 17 : 47 : 33 12 : 32 : 48 3 : 18 : 77 SNS 16 : 46 : 34 6 : 41 : 46 17 : 47 : 33 12 : 32 : 48 4 : 18 : 77 Smer-SD 10 : 43 : 42 7 : 46 : 42 8 : 47 : 34 6 : 38 : 51 3 : 15 : 81 ĽS-HZDS 5 : 42 : 43 5 : 34 : 57 3 : 50 : 35 1 : 39 : 54 3 :15 : 80 KSS 9 : 35 : 46 5 : 41 : 50 7 : 37 : 43 2 : 38 : 60 0 : 13 : 85 Slovakia average 12 : 46 : 31 7 : 46 : 37 11 : 50 : 26 7 : 40 : 46 3 : 22 : 72

3

Table 3: Most pressing social problems

Unemployment 50

Quality of health care 31

Poverty in Slovakia 29

Living standard of people like you 27

Status and opportunities of young people 17

Prevalence of corruption and bribery 16

Criminality, organized crime 15

Economic and social disparities between regions 14

Abuse of power 14

Performance of the judiciary, enforceability of law and justice 9

Status and opportunities of elderly people 9

Performance of national economy 7

Protection of rights of private firms� employees 5

Environmental protection 5

Status and opportunities of women 4

Quality of democracy in Slovakia 4

Note: This was an open question, respondents could name three problems.

ties of young people (17%), prevalence of corruption and bribery (16%), criminality and organized crime (15%), economic and social disparities between regions (14%) and abuse of power (14%). All these problems were cited by over 10% of respondents. Other problems were chosen by more than 4% of respondents: status and opportunities of elderly people (9%); performance of the judiciary, enforceability of law and justice (9%); performance of national economy (7%); protection of rights of private firms� employees (5%) and environmental protection (5%); status and opportunities of

women (4%); quality of democracy in Slova-kia (4%). What are the differences in perception of pressing social problems between particu-lar parties� supporters? As Table 4 shows, all relevant parties� supporters labelled un-employment as the most pressing problem. The closest to the Slovakia average are KDH, Smer-SD and SNS supporters whose lists of nine most pressing problems are identical with the one identified by the en-tire population; furthermore, the rank of the problems did not essentially differ from

Unemploymen

Quality of hea

Poverty in Slo

Living standar

Status and op

Prevalence of

Criminality, o

Economic and

Abuse of pow

Table 4: The most pressing social problems as ranked by the Slovak population and political parties� supporters

Slov

akia

to

tal

KD

H

KSS

ĽS-H

ZDS

SDK

Ú-D

S

SF

Smer

-SD

SMK

SNS

t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

lth care 2 2 3 3 2 8 2 2 2

vakia 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 3

d of people like you 4 4 2 2 9 6 3 3 4

portunities of young people 5 5 11 8 3 7 5 7 5

corruption and bribery 6 7 9 12 6 4 6 9 6

rganized crime 7 9 5 7 7 3 9 6 9

social disparities between regions 8 6 6 6 5 9 7 5 7

er 9 8 8 11 13 5 8 10 8

4

2.2

3.4

5.5

6.0

8.1

9.5

9.7

9.8

11.1

31.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

HZD

ANO

KSS

SF

SNS

SDKÚ-DS

KDH

SMK

ĽS-HZDS

SMER-SD

Graph 3: Party preferences in May 2006 (number of seats in parliament)

58

18

16

16

16

13

10

9

the overall list. Sympathizers of the SDKÚ-DS are less worried about abuse of power and their own standard of living; instead, they emphasized the need to eliminate re-gional disparities, improve effectiveness of the judiciary and law enforcement and en-hance performance of national economy. Supporters of the SMK also stressed the importance of eliminating regional dispari-ties. Potential voters of the SF are more sen-sitive to issues of criminality and organized crime, corruption and bribery and abuse of power; on the other hand, they are not as much worried by the quality of health care. Supporters of ĽS-HZDS and KSS pay close attention to problems of elderly people but do not care much about the status and op-portunities of young people or the preva-lence of corruption and bribery; on top of that, potential voters of the ĽS-HZDS attach less importance to abuse of power. VOTER SUPPORT FOR PARTICULAR POLITICAL PARTIES AND PROFILES OF THEIR SUPPORTERS In mid-May 2006, i.e. approximately one months before parliamentary elections, the strongest party in terms of voting prefer-ences was Smer-SD, which would receive over 30% of the popular vote according to surveys carried out by FOCUS agency but also other agencies. After a significant gap,

Smer-SD is followed by the ĽS-HZDS (11.3%) and three parties of the outgoing ruling coalition, namely the SMK (10.0%), SDKÚ-DS (9.8%) and KDH (8.7%). Voter support for the SNS, which is currently out-side parliament, hovers at approximately the same level (9.6%). If parliamentary elec-tions were held in mid-April 2006, parlia-mentary seats would be clinched also by the SF (6.8%) and the KSS (6.3%). One in nine eligible voters (11%) has not yet decided and/or refused to state any prefer-ences. This category of voters is dominated by first-time voters (18% of all undecided voters), former non-voters (18%) and for-mer SDKÚ-DS voters from 2002 (10%). Since the most recent parliamentary elec-tions in 2002, voter support for particular political parties has seen some interesting developments. While the current opposition leader (i.e. Smer-SD) boosted its electoral potential from 13% to over 30%, prefer-ences of the previous opposition leader (i.e. HZDS) dropped from 19.5% to 11%. Voter support for once ruling party, namely the ANO, has plunged below the 5% threshold. Parties that can boast with relatively stable the SMK, KDH and also the SKDÚ-DS that has managed to bounce back following a temporary crisis in summer 2003.

5

Graphs 4-11: Development of relevant political parties� voting preferences since the 2002 parliamentary elections

6

22.525.7

28.9

34.031.8 31.8 32.4 32.6 31.7

31.3

22.8

30.628.2

25.6

19.421.3

17.113.5

0

10

20

30

40

Ele

ctio

ns 2

002

XII.

2002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.

2003

II.20

04

V.2

004

IX.2

004

XII.

2004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.

2005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.2

006

SMER-SD

16.312.6 12.9 12.4 12.4

10.8 11.4 11.5 12.1 11.1

19.0

14.915.917.317.616.119.019.5

0

10

20

30

40

Ele

ctio

ns 2

002

XII.

2002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.

2003

II.20

04

V.2

004

IX.2

004

XII.

2004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.

2005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.2

006

ĽS-HZDS

11.0 10.6 10.1 10.011.9

9.9 10.3 11.19.3 9.8

11.910.512.3

10.512.011.011.111.2

0

10

20

30

40

Ele

ctio

ns 2

002

XII.

2002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.

2003

II.20

04

V.2

004

IX.2

004

XII.

2004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.

2005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.2

006

SMK

50

7

40

30 20 10

8.7 9.7 8.3 9.1 8.9 10.2 10.3 10.2 9.8 9.78.97.87.17.67.27.28.68.3

0

10

20

30

40El

ectio

ns 2

002

XII.2

002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.2

003

II.20

04

V.20

04

IX.2

004

XII.2

004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.2

005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.20

06

KDH

9.1 8.2 9.0 8.9 7.4 8.5 8.7 7.5 8.1 9.55.85.64.1

6.5

13.311.0

13.715.1

0

10

20

30

40

Elec

tions

200

2

XII.2

002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.2

003

II.20

04

V.20

04

IX.2

004

XII.2

004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.2

005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.20

06

SDKÚ-DS

6.2 6.28.8

6.8 7.0 6.9 8.1 8.7 8.5 8.1

4.16.17.67.36.54.8

3.03.3

0

Elec

tions

200

2

XII.2

002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.2

003

II.20

04

V.20

04

IX.2

004

XII.2

004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.2

005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.20

06

SNS

40

2.8 1.6 2.9 3.6 4.4 6.0 7.6 6.6 6.4 6.03.02.0

0

10

20

30E

lect

ions

200

2

XII.

2002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.

2003

II.20

04

V.2

004

IX.2

004

XII.

2004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.

2005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.2

006

SF

7.59.0

6.4 5.4 5.87.6 7.0

5.0 6.4 5.57.78.89.59.9

8.010.28.9

6.3

0

10

20

30

40

Elec

tions

200

2

XII.2

002

III.2

003

VI.2

003

IX.2

003

XII.2

003

II.20

04

V.20

04

IX.2

004

XII.2

004

III.2

005

VI.2

005

IX.2

005

XII.2

005

II.20

06

III.2

006

IV.2

006

V.20

06

KSS

In terms of socio-demographic structure, political parties� electorates show the fol-lowing long-term characteristics:

• the typical supporter of the ĽS-HZDS and KSS is an elderly and less affluent resident of a smaller village;

• the SMK remains primarily the party of

ethnic Hungarians who make up 91% of its electorate;

• the SDKÚ-DS is a party with above-average support among urban (34% live in towns with population over 50,000) and educated voters (22% have com-pleted university education) with a higher social status (72% perceive them-selves as members of the higher middle class or the middle class while the na-tional average is 60%); consequently, they are more affluent than the average Slovak voter;

• the KDH electorate features the highest share of deeply believing people � 75% compared to 11% in the entire adult population;

• the greatest strongholds of the SNS are Banská Bystrica and �ilina regions.

From the viewpoint of voters� self-perception on the left-right continuum, we may draw a conclusion that � like in autumn 2005 � most Slovak voters perceive them-selves as centre-oriented. Despite amplified

• the electorate of Smer-SD closely copies the average Slovak voter in terms of vir-tually all socio-demographic catego-ries/characteristics;

8

66

39

32

21

21

10

10

7

3

16

47

43

64

46

60

53

39

41

5

6

15

10

17

22

23

53

49

13

8

9

6

16

8

14

1

7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

KSS

Smer-SD

ĽS-HZDS

SNS

Slovakia average

SF

SMK

SDKÚ

KDH

Left Centre Right I don't know

Graph 12: Self-perception of political parties� supporters on the left-right continuum

intensity of disputes over ongoing socio-economic reforms, the total share of voters who declare centrist orientation slightly in-creased from 41% to 46% (please see Graph 12). The centrist orientation is the most fre-quent among supporters of Smer-SD (47%). The overall proportion of people declaring leftist orientation and ambiguous attitudes saw a slight decline; two in three (66%) KSS adherents and two in five (39%) Smer-SD supporters declared leftist orientation. On the other hand, the rightist self-perception of SDKÚ-DS and KDH sympathizers has strengthened compared to November 2005.

Besides objective reasons for not taking part in the upcoming elections (e.g. travelling abroad, health problems, etc.), our respon-dents cited a variety of subjective reasons that may be divided into three basic cate-gories:

• Lack of trust in politicians (who mind only their own interests) and political parties (e.g. �I don�t trust any party�� �All of them just promise�� �Because all they do is lying�� �It�s al-ways the same people trying to seize power using unfair methods�);

• Feeling of helplessness and futility (e.g. �Nothing will change anyway!�� �It will be pointless anyway�� �My vote cannot make a difference�);

Voter participation Several surveys indicate that total voter par-ticipation in the upcoming parliamentary elections may well be lower than in 2002. According to a detailed seven-degree scale of position on participating, two in three (64%) respondents declared that they will likely come to the polls (21% will take part certainly, 14% almost certainly and 29% probably). On the other hand, almost one in four (22%) respondents representing eligi-ble voters stated that they will probably not participate. At this point, almost one in eight eligible voters (12%) have not yet made up their minds about participating.

• Cognitive disorientation, absence of viable alternatives (�I cannot make up my mind because every political party claims something else�� �I have never experienced a chaos like in our current politics�).

All in all, the reasons cited by potential non-voters are a blend of frustration and apathy brought about by cognitive disorientation and alienation from politics.

9

I will certainly take

I will almost certai

I will probably take

Maybe I will take p

I will probably not

I will almost certai

I will certainly not

I don�t know

Firmness of votin A typical featurences is the higbiguity. Even amtheir favourite fully identified w36% of potenti�certainly� andwould �most pvourite party, 1still change thei The share of voences differs greanother (pleaseaverage shares are in ĽS-HZDStorates; while SDtorates are neAmong the SN

0%

SF

SNS

SDKÚ-DS

Slovakia average

Smer-SD

KSS

SMK

KDH

ĽS-HZDS

I will certai

Graph 13:

Table 5: �Slovakia is to hold parliamentary elections on June 17, 2006. What is your current position on participating?�

part 21

nly take part 14

part 29

64

art, maybe I will not 12 12

take part 8

nly not take part 5

take part 9

22

2 2

g preferences

e of citizens� voting prefer-h rate of hesitancy and am-

ong voters who identified party, many were not yet ith their preference. While

al voters said they would 45% of them said they

robably� vote for their fa-8% of them said they might r mind.

ters with firm voting prefer-atly from one electorate to see Graph 13). Above-

of firmly determined voters , KDH, SMK and KSS elec-KÚ-DS and Smer-SD elec-

ar the national average. S and SF electorates the

share of firmly determined voters is below-average. We asked the respondents to describe them-selves from the viewpoint of stability of vot-ing pattern and timing of voting decision. More than two in five of them (42%) who had taken part in more than one elections in the past said they �tend to change their preference� from one elections to another. Again, we were able to establish substantial differences between individual parties� elec-torates. The SMK, ĽS-HZDS and KDH can rely on particularly loyal electorates. SDKÚ-DS and KSS sympathizers also declared relatively high stability of their voting pat-terns. On the other hand, Smer-SD and SF supporters admitted their voting pattern was rather unstable. About one in four re-spondents said they tend to make up their mind �in the last moment�.

6.7

22.6

31.4

35.7

36.3

44.4

46

46.7

59.2

65

56

51.2

45.1

46.9

35.2

43.7

36

27.6

28.3

21.4

16.3

17.8

16.1

18.5

8

13.3

11.2

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

nly vote for this partry I will most probably vote for this party I may still change my mind

Firmness of potential voters� party preferences � breakdown by political parties

10

All these findings indicate a high rate of uncertainty as far as election results go. What are the mutual sympathies and antipathies between particular parties� supporters? Smer-SD and the SF are on top of the credi-bility list of political parties. In fact, they are the only relevant parties that are trusted rather than distrusted. As for all other

other relevant parties, distrust of citizens prevails over trust (please see Graph 14). We may also take a look at political parties� credibility through the eyes of other parties� supporters. Mutual �closeness� or �distance� between parties measured by the rate of their supporters� trust or distrust in other parties allows us to draw a specific map of Slovakia�s political scene (please see Graphs 15 � 23).

-72

-71

-70

-70

-69

-58

-41

-43

SDKÚ-DS

KDH

SMK

ĽS-HZDS

SNS

SF

24

24

26

26

28

38

48

53

KSS

SMER � SD

Distrust (-) Trust (+)

Graph 14: General trust/distrust in political ti

Graphs 15 � 23: Potential voters� degree of trust/distrust in other political parties

SDKÚ supporters

-99

-95

-83

-79

-51

-47

-45

KSS

SNS

SMER

KDH

SF

SMK

17

21

48

51

52

HZDS 4

1

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

KDH supporters

-93

-92

-78

-64

-57

-57

-41

KSS

SMER

SMK

SF

SNS

SDKÚ

5

8

21

35

36

42

55

HZDS

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

11

SMK supporters

-93

-93

-87

-75

-45

-40

-41

SNS

KSS

SMER

SF

SDKÚ

KDH

20

33

49

53

HZDS

6

2

2

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

SF supporters

-82

-78

-78

-77

-66

-62

HZDS

SDKÚ

KDH

SMK

SNS

13

18

20

22

32

33

HZDS

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

Smer-SD supporters

-86

-86

-76

-67

-63

-47

-36

SDKÚ

SMK

KSS

SNS

SF

11

13

20

32

34

50

57

KDH

HZDS

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

ĽS-HZDS supporters

-90

-86

-86

-63

-65

-50

-44

SDKÚ

KDH

SF

KSS

SNS

9

12

12

26

32

47

54

SMER

HZDS

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

KSS supporters

-94

-93

-86

-53

-60

-59

-27

SDKÚ

SMK

SF

SNS

13

36

40

41

71SMER

HZDS

HZDS 7

4

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

SNS supporters

-94

-89

-80

-71

-56

-58

SMK

KDH

KSS

SF

6

8

20

26

36

37HZDS

SDKÚ

Do not trust (-) Trust (+)

12

Distance from other parties • KDH sympathizers excluded espe-cially the KSS, ANO and ĽS-HZDS and were less reluctant regarding Smer-SD and the SNS;

Based on the highest rate of distrust (please see Graphs 15 � 23), we may con-clude the following regarding the distance between particular parties� electorates:

• potential voters of the SMK clearly excluded their party�s future coop-eration with the SNS, KSS and ĽS-HZDS but were far less negative about Smer-SD;

• supporters of the SDKÚ-DS and KDH distrust especially the KSS;

• KSS, ĽS-HZDS and Smer-SD sympa-thizers distance themselves espe-cially from the SDKÚ-DS;

• Smer-SD and KSS supporters most frequently excluded parties of the outgoing ruling coalition, particu-larly the SDKÚ-DS; • SF supporters distance themselves

especially from the ĽS-HZDS; • ĽS-HZDS sympathizers were more

negative about the KDH and SMK than about the SDKÚ-DS;

• SMK and SNS supporters show a high rate of mutual distrust.

Among undecided voters and especially non-voters distrust prevails over trust with respect to all relevant political parties.

• potential voters of the SF named the KSS, ĽS-HZDS and SDKÚ-DS as the least acceptable while being more open to their party�s cooperation with Smer-SD;

Least likely coalition bonds according

• SNS supporters excluded especially the SMK, followed by the SDKÚ-DS and KSS but were not as negative with respect to the KDH.

to parties� supporters Potential coalition cooperation after elec-tions is the acid test of mutual closeness and distance between political parties. Therefore we asked our respondents to identify their favourite parties� least likely coalition ally (please see Table 6). Their responses al-lowed us to make the following conclusions:

Credibility of politicians In the long term, the credibility list of Slo-vak politicians is led by Smer-SD Chairman Robert Fico. In an IVO survey from April 2006, almost one in three respondents (31%) indicated him as trustworthy (please see Graph 24). Fico was followed by SF leader Zuzana Martináková (15%) and President Ivan Ga�parovič (13%). Several

• SDKÚ-DS supporters were the most negative about the KSS; also, they were more negative of their party�s future cooperation with the Smer-SD than ĽS-HZDS;

Suppo

SDKÚKDH SMK Smer-ĽS-HZKSS SF SNS

Table 6: �In your opinion, which party is the least likely coalition ally of your favourite party?�

Least likely coalition allies

First Second Third rters of:

Party % Party % Party %

-DS KSS 72 Smer-SD 52 ĽS-HZDS 32 KSS 67 ANO 38 ĽS-HZDS 34 SNS 75 ĽS-HZDS 50 KSS 48

SD SDKÚ-DS 57 KDH 44 SMK 37 DS KDH 48 SMK 40 SDKÚ-DS 38

SDKÚ-DS 62 KDH 47 SMK 36 KSS 46 SDKÚ-DS 42 ĽS-HZDS 27 SMK 81 SDKÚ-DS 36 KSS 35

13

31

20

1412

8 86 6 5 5 5

3 3 3 3 31

30

1315

11

6

12

8

12

6 5 52

5

31

26

3 3 4 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

FicoGa�

parov

ičMart

ináko

váBug

árSlot

aHru�

ovsk

ýMeč

iarDzu

rinda

Kaliňá

kBeň

ová

Lip�ic

Kukan

Miklo�

Vete�k

aPalk

oRad

ičová

�evc

Nobod

y/I do

n't kn

ow

November 2005 April 2006

Graph 24: Credibility of select political figures

Note: This was an open question. Respondents could name three politicians.

party leaders strengthened their positions compared to November 2005, especially Vladimír Mečiar and Ján Slota but also Mi-kulá� Dzurinda; on the other hand, the po-sition of President Ga�parovič slightly weak-ened. Politicians� credibility can also be measured through their popularity among their own parties� supporters. As Table 7 shows, party leaders are natural leaders within all rele-vant political parties� electorates. The most trustworthy party leaders are Vladimír Me-čiar and Robert Fico whose credibility rate hovers at approximately 90% followed by Zuzana Martináková and Béla Bugár (79% and 78 %, respectively). Compared to No-

vember 2005, KSS and SNS chairmen Jozef �evc and Ján Slota strengthened their posi-tions along with Ivan Miklo� (SDKÚ-DS), Daniel Lip�ic (KDH) and Róbert Kaliňák (Smer-SD), all second-seeded on their re-spective parties� tickets. The overall share of people who do not trust any politician has declined before the upcoming elections as voters tend to iden-tify with their favourite parties� leaders.

***

Table 7: Credibility of politicians within particular political parties� electorates

Electorate/ politician

Rating (%)

Electorate/ Politician

Rating (%)

Electorate/ politician

Rating (%)

Electorate/ politician

Rating (%)

SDKÚ SMK KDH SF

Dzurinda 62 Bugár 78 Hru�ovský 62 Martináková 79

Miklo� 46 Csáky 30 Lip�ic 47 Fico 34

Bugár 20 Dzurinda 13 Palko 22 Ga�parovič 18

Smer HZDS KSS SNS

Fico 90 Mečiar 89 �evc 47 Slota 67

Martináková 23 Vete�ka 26 Fico 38 Fico

Kaliňák 20 Ga�parovič 21 Nobody 21 Ga�parovič 19

38

14