Originally published on 8.11.2023
With the rise of a nationally and social-democratically oriented government, the scope of the president’s influence has significantly narrowed. Her political energy has been depleted, yet she remains in office. Her statements about not intending to run in the next presidential elections suggest that she may have never taken her role seriously enough. What led her to assume this position? Was it personal ambition, financial incentives, a desire for change, or a need for control? Everyone can form their own opinion.
One thing is certain – the final months and days in office will be more of a trial than a satisfaction for the president. She lacks support from the government and the trust of the population, which has been weakened by her past decisions. One of her major mistakes was frequently interfering in politics and advocating for a specific ideology – liberal democracy. From a political science perspective, promoting any ideology within the presidency has never proven effective, except for direct democracy. This suggests that the president never truly grew into her role, despite possibly having qualities in other areas. At the very least, let’s hope she learns from this experience.
For us, however, this means little, as we continue to face candidates who are entirely unsuitable for the presidency. That is why one of our goals and program points is the abolition of the presidential office or its replacement with a rotating function modeled after Switzerland.
Marek Poleč SPD – Slovak Direct Democracy https://t.me/spd_slovensko
redakcia