A legislative proposal introduced by Slovak Member of Parliament Tibor Gašpar, a former police chief aligned with the governing party Smer, has triggered alarm among legal experts and civil-society organisations for its potential to criminalise non-partisan civic mobilisation ahead of future elections. The amendment—quietly appended to an ongoing reform of the Criminal Code and endorsed by the prime minister—would punish individuals who “in cooperation with a foreign power or agent” engage in activities perceived as influencing political competition, with penalties of up to one year in prison. Critics including Katarína Batková of the rule-of-law NGO VIA IURIS and Fedor Bláščák of the Open Society Foundation warn that its vague language could expose NGOs, journalists, and youth initiatives to prosecution for routine voter-turnout campaigns funded by European Union or British grants.
The debate follows months of government allegations that UK-supported civic programmes interfered in the 2023 parliamentary elections—claims that have not been substantiated but have already prompted police investigations and the summoning of the British ambassador. Opponents describe the measure as part of a wider effort to intimidate the non-governmental sector while diverting attention from documented Russian influence operations, including disinformation and deepfake incidents linked to the same election. If enacted, legal observers say, the law could place Slovakia at odds with emerging European Union standards on protecting democratic participation and constrain the country’s civic space at a time of heightened scrutiny over its adherence to rule-of-law principles.
The discussion took place on “Aréna”, a public-affairs programme of the Slovak daily SME, moderated by journalist Jana Kresťanko Dybáková. The guests were Katarína Batková, a lawyer with the rule-of-law NGO VIA IURIS, and Fedor Bláščák, a representative of the Open Society Foundation in Slovakia. They addressed a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code sponsored by Member of Parliament Tibor Gašpar, which would introduce a new offence targeting “influencing elections”. According to both guests, the draft surfaced late in the legislative process, did not undergo public or expert consultation, and is written broadly enough to risk capturing ordinary civic mobilisation not linked to any political party.
The conversation situated the amendment within a wider narrative promoted by the prime minister alleging foreign meddling in Slovak elections through UK-supported civic initiatives, including youth-turnout campaigns and an online voter-advice tool. The moderator recalled the government’s public summoning of the British ambassador, while guests argued that the allegation has been used to frame non-partisan civil society as a security risk. In this context, Bláščák stated that police are investigating the non-partisan youth mobilisation initiative “Chcem tu zostať” (“I Want to Stay”), in which his foundation participated, and described the inquiry as burdensome for activists even in the absence of proven wrongdoing.
A central distinction was repeatedly emphasised by the guests: covert foreign influence operations versus transparent, non-partisan mobilisation. They cited examples of alleged Russian interference referenced in Slovak debate, including statements by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service about the 2023 Slovak elections and a deepfake video circulated on Telegram that targeted an opposition leader; by their account, formal consequences in these cases were minimal beyond a diplomatic summons. By contrast, they said, civic mobilisation in Slovakia is typically public, traceable and regulated, with open websites, campaign disclosures and visible events.
Concerns were also raised about the role and credibility of the Slovak Information Service (SIS), the national intelligence agency. The moderator noted public attention to contacts between senior politicians and Russian counterparts, and to family ties between SIS leadership and the amendment’s sponsor. Batková and Bláščák stated that such circumstances may undermine confidence that domestic services will prioritise countering hostile influence rather than monitoring NGOs and journalists. They referred to contested episodes from the 1990s, when SIS was linked to serious abuses, to illustrate why present-day talk of “monitoring” civil society prompts alarm. Specific current SIS methodologies or targets were “Unknown”.
Batková focused on the draft’s reference to activity undertaken “in connection with a foreign power or agent”, arguing that many Slovak NGOs routinely partner with international networks and receive cross-border grants through open competitions, including EU funding, without engaging in party politics. In her view, stricter oversight of foreign-funded party campaigning can be legitimate under electoral law, but its criminalisation would be disproportionate. To illustrate gaps in enforcement consistency, the guests cited several situations: alleged Hungarian funding of a local civic association that, according to investigative outlet Napunk, worked in favour of a minority party; a Russian intelligence statement during the 2023 campaign; and appearances by Slovak politicians in foreign state media. According to the guests, these episodes did not result in comprehensive legal follow-up. The programme did not present independent documentation beyond the cited media reports, and some details remain “Not Provided”.
Both participants warned that the amendment could generate a chilling effect through investigations and court actions that deter civic engagement even without convictions. They linked this risk to the broader European debate on protecting democracy, noting an EU-level package under discussion on “foreign interest representation” and anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) standards. Batková said EU norms warn against using transparency or foreign-agent rules to stigmatise NGOs, and suggested that a Slovak criminal-law approach might eventually conflict with European requirements; precise legislative timelines were “Not Provided”.
The programme situated these concerns within Slovakia’s recent democratic experience. The moderator recalled civic mobilisation in 1998 against illiberal practices and mass protests in 2018 after the murder of investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée, which, in her summary, were value-driven rather than party-political. Responding to political claims that youth mobilisation disadvantages some parties, Bláščák pointed to exit-poll data he cited for the 18–29 cohort—stating that support for one governing party rose from 6% in 2020 to 17% in 2023—arguing that participation is not inherently partisan. The programme did not provide independent statistical verification during the broadcast.
Looking ahead, the guests mentioned emerging political suggestions to restrict voting from abroad; no concrete proposal was discussed and details were “Unknown”. They also returned to foreign-policy implications, with Bláščák characterising the government’s public accusation against the United Kingdom as harmful to relations with an ally; his assertion that an ambassador’s departure was misrepresented was presented without documentary evidence in the programme. The discussion closed with an update on public support for Ukraine cited by Bláščák, who reported strong donations for a humanitarian convoy of ambulances, naming a current total and a year-end target; precise figures may fluctuate and independent confirmation was “Not Provided”.
Source: SME.sk
