logo
In Slovakia, our grassroots movement helped oust a neo-Nazi. We can do it again

In Slovakia, our grassroots movement helped oust a neo-Nazi. We can do it again

The Guardian11-04-2025

Having grown up in Banská Bystrica in totalitarian Czechoslovakia, I vividly remember standing in the city's historic square a few days after 17 November 1989, the start of the Velvet Revolution, holding candles in solidarity with the students protesting in Prague. Never would I have imagined that 35 years later, I would be speaking at a rally in the same square, this time urging the preservation of democracy.
Back then, when I was a young social anthropology academic at our local university, activism was far from my mind. But everything changed for me in 2013 when Marian Kotleba, leader of the neo-Nazi People's Party Our Slovakia, was elected as regional governor. The shock was enormous. No one I knew had believed that such an outcome was possible, yet it happened. Realising the dangers this posed, many like-minded individuals knew we couldn't stand by idly.
On the night after the election, a group of us gathered on the steps of the Museum of the Slovak National Uprising, a site symbolising resistance against Nazi Germany and its Slovak puppet state. Echoing the past, we lit candles, shed tears, sang songs and embraced. That moment marked the beginning of our discussion of how to promote democratic values actively. Our goal was not to oppose a democratically elected candidate but to cultivate democratic awareness throughout the region and Slovakia. Not to talk but to do.
From this small gathering emerged an informal grassroots movement that played a crucial role in mobilising civil society against Kotleba and his extremist party. A few hundred volunteers, with no prior activism experience, were driven by the passion to defend our freedoms and ensure Slovakia never returned to its history of Nazi or communist tyranny.
The struggle was long and often discouraging. In 2016, Kotleba's party gained seats in the national parliament, emboldening his supporters. Yet in 2017, after four years of relentless effort, we succeeded in helping to oust Kotleba as regional governor. Our movement, Not in Our Town (Niot), exposed his extremist ideology through public discussions, educational programmes, protests and cultural events. We worked with journalists, academics and activists to distribute fact-based flyers detailing his mismanagement of the economy, his racist statements and harmful policies. We organised screenings of films like A Hole in the Head (about the Roma Holocaust) and The White World According to Daliborek (a documentary about contemporary neo-Nazis). We also engaged schools and local organisations to educate young people about democracy, tolerance and Slovakia's history of extremism. Our Schools for Democracy programme, a joint initiative of Niot and the Centre for Community Organising, used a method called living libraries, where individuals from various minority groups shared their life stories in classrooms.

A critical strategy was increasing voter participation, since Kotleba's 2013 victory resulted largely from low turnout and apathy: in the run-off that elected him, only 25% turned up to vote. Through social media campaigns, door-to-door outreach and public events, Niot encouraged citizens to vote in the 2017 elections. Our campaign Spolu je nás viac (Together We Are Stronger) directly engaged voters, explaining how abstention enabled extremism. For example, we showed how Kotleba rejected millions of euros in EU funds that could have improved schools and hospitals.
Most impactful, however, was talking to people face to face. This way we were able to explain Kotleba's failures as a governor: blocking EU funds, neglecting economic growth and implementing discriminatory practices targeting the Roma, Jews and migrants. None of these had put money in people's pockets – in fact, Kotleba's governorship had made life worse for many ordinary voters. Under his leadership, the Banská Bystrica region had the lowest investment levels in Slovakia and rising unemployment.
Recognising that fragmented opposition had weakened past election efforts, Niot facilitated dialogue among democratic and moderate groups to unite behind a single democratic candidate. Ján Lunter, a respected businessman and credible alternative to Kotleba, emerged as the strongest challenger.
Our efforts paid off. In the 2017 regional elections, Lunter won nearly 49%, while Kotleba suffered a crushing defeat with only 23%. It was a decisive moment, proving the power of grassroots activism. We were happy, but we knew this was only one battle in a longer struggle.
Then, in October 2023, Robert Fico became Slovakia's prime minister for the fourth time, adopting an increasingly anti-EU and pro-Russia stance. His government introduced legal changes widely seen as attempts to shield party affiliates from corruption investigations. Civil society mobilised once again.
On 22 December 2024, Fico visited Vladimir Putin in Moscow – without any public explanation. The next day, just before Christmas, Niot organised the first protest against Fico's visit to Moscow and his foreign policy. Despite the holiday season, hundreds gathered in Banská Bystrica.
Since then, Niot has held weekly protests and marches each Friday, featuring speeches by activists, artists and academics. We coordinate closely with movements – such as Peace for Ukraine – in other cities, maintaining a peaceful, non-violent and pro-democratic stance. Police cooperation has been excellent.
Our key message since December 2024 is simple: 'Slovakia is Europe. We are Europe'. Living less than 220 miles (350km) from Ukraine's border, the prospect of Slovakia aligning with Russia is alarming. Our protests have grown, now attracting 5,000 to 10,000 weekly participants in Banská Bystrica, a town of 75,000. On 7 February 2025, more than 100,000 people took part in protests in more than 40 Slovak cities as well as in cities abroad such as Prague, Brno, London, Luxembourg, Paris, Stockholm, Copenhagen and New York.
Despite threats, we refuse to be silenced. In January 2025, a Telegram channel published the home addresses of several Niot activists, leading to increased police monitoring of local activists. Nevertheless, Niot continues to organise protests and public discussions across Slovakia to foster dialogue and engagement among diverse communities.
Our organisation remains an informal grassroots platform, without a legal status. Decisions are made collectively, and our mailing list includes only about 150 citizens. The initiative's strength is in its diversity and authenticity. And in lots of off-line, face-to-face discussions that contribute to building mutual trust. We simply follow our right to gather, express our views and act on facts.
Slovakia is one of Europe's most beautiful yet often overlooked countries. Though small in size, the Niot movement is determined to defend democracy here. It is not extremism but indifference that is the real enemy of freedom.
Since the Velvet Revolution and our accession to the EU in 2004, Slovakia has flourished despite the challenges of populism. History has taught us painful lessons: we were invaded by the Nazis in 1939, fell into communist totalitarianism in 1948 and suffered Soviet occupation in 1968. Not in Our Town says, 'Never again. We will not be silent.'
Professor Alexandra Bitušíková is a social anthropologist at Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How a Luxembourg village divided Europe
How a Luxembourg village divided Europe

Spectator

time11 hours ago

  • Spectator

How a Luxembourg village divided Europe

I am in the most EU-ish bedroom in the EU. That is to say, I am lying in a refurbished room in the handsome 14th-century Chateau de Schengen, in the little village of Schengen, Luxembourg. From my casements, opened wide onto the sunny Saarland afternoon, I can see the exact stretch of the river Moselle where, on a boat floating between Germany, France and Luxembourg, the Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985. This was the agreement that sealed Free Movement as Europe's defining ideal – one whose consequences are still unfolding. I've been in Luxembourg for a week, on assignment, and this week has given me an insight into why the nations of the EU undertook their bold, remarkable experiment of no more borders. The first and obvious motivator was war. Luxembourg can look oddly new, or newish. Ancient-sounding villages are full of blocky 1960s houses. Supposedly medieval churches are clearly modern, lacking the rich patina of age. This is because they were all flattened in war – especially the last German offensive of the second world war, the Battle of the Bulge – which raged across snowbound Luxembourg from December 1944 to January 1945. As a result, much had to be rebuilt or heavily restored. Reviving international trust took even longer, as the war here was brutal. In little towns like Diekirch, teenage Nazi conscripts casually gunned down innocent civilians in the streets. The angered Allies felt no huge need thereafter to take German prisoners alive. The yearning to overcome this evil trauma – and reconcile – was one big driver of the EEC, which reached its frontierless, post-national apotheosis here in Schengen. But another was sheer practicality. Yesterday, my local guide, Anna, told me how she once had to show her passport every day to cross the Moselle to and from Germany. She can remember the queues and frustration. She recalls a crimped, claustrophobic Europe – like an office with too many cubicles. Nowadays the quaint old customs houses have been turned into tourist bureaux or posh chocolatiers, and everyone breezes between countries with total freedom. The other day I drove a meandering route through the rustling green winelands and must have crossed between Lux and DE half a dozen times, barely noticing. At its best, Schengen is indeed wonderful. But there's the geopolitical rub. Schengen at its Platonic best is magnificent. In practice, it may be turning into a tragic failure. A primary reason is migration – not within Europe, but without. To illustrate my point, Anna told me another story of Luxembourg. She explained how, in the 1970s, the now-prospering little Duchy required workers. As she put it, with bracing candour: 'We chose the Portuguese because they were poor and wanted the work, but also because they are European, Christian, Catholic, like us. We felt they would assimilate.' And so they have. You can see unexpectedly good selections of Douro wines in Luxembourg supermarkets. Otherwise, the 15 per cent of the population that is Portuguese is barely discernible. Schengen might, perhaps, be in much less trouble if every other country had followed those careful Luxembourg policies. But they didn't. France drew people from its old empire – Algeria, Morocco, sub-Saharan Africa. Germany imported millions of Turks, then another million Syrians under Merkel's idealistic Willkommen policy of 2015. Britain turned to the Caribbean, then Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Combining open internal borders with sovereign external migration policies – inviting millions from far outside Europe – was, in retrospect, bound to create a problem. It's like a flat share where everyone agrees to leave their doors open and split the rent, but each person gets to invite their own guests, who then stay forever, use the bathroom, and host loud parties. Irritation is guaranteed. Some housemates will get seriously annoyed. Take, for example, the Somali migrant population in Holland. Tens of thousands of them moved to the UK under Free Movement. The UK could do nothing to stop this – as Britons duly noted. This is one example of how Free Movement, which peaked with Schengen, led quite directly to Brexit. It was perhaps sheer bad luck that Schengen coincided with one of the most ill-conceived experiments of recent times: multiculturalism plus mass immigration. Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, and they derive from the same well-meaning, liberal universalism – only this time taken too far. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real Whatever the case, as I write this in my room in the Chateau de Schengen, I can also read the daily and unhappy news that springs from Europe's mass immigration experience: of riots and deaths in France following the football victory of Paris Saint-Germain; of another call for an inquiry into rape gangs in the UK; of a hard-right Polish politician becoming president, vowing to keep Poland migrant-free; of once-peaceful Sweden – now 'the bombing capital of the West'. Or I can read about de facto blasphemy laws in Britain and Denmark, introduced to placate militant Islam. And I can read of endless terror shifting across Europe untracked, leading even mainstream politicians in Germany, Austria, Italy to argue for the suspension of Schengen. Yes, of course there are multiple good, successful stories of integration and assimilation across Europe. But for many Europeans, judging by the remarkable electoral shift to the hard right, the good is now majorly outweighed by the bad. Is there any hope for that faded but shimmering Schengen ideal of a borderless Europe? I'd like to think so. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real – even if Robert Frost knew what he was talking about when he said 'good fences make good neighbours'. The day is closing here in the Chateau de Schengen, and the summer sun sets lazily over the Auxerrois vines. They have a nice restaurant in the hotel, which has a classic French menu. I want to eat French food in Luxembourg while looking at Germany. It feels Schengen-y. But as the waitress brings my tranche de foie gras maison, the capricious Luxemburg weather turns. It's been in the forecast for a while – now it has arrived: a cold wind from the Ardennes is sweeping down the Moselle valley. The rain lashes the ancient gardens, and the waiters drift toward the windows, watching as the parasols surrender to the storm.

Slovak parliament calls on government to end backing for Russia sanctions
Slovak parliament calls on government to end backing for Russia sanctions

Reuters

time5 days ago

  • Reuters

Slovak parliament calls on government to end backing for Russia sanctions

June 5 (Reuters) - Slovakia's parliament, in a thinly attended session, approved a resolution on Thursday calling on the government not to vote in favour of sanctions on Russia. Slovakia, a NATO and European Union member, has under Prime Minister Robert Fico diverged from Western allies in its position on Ukraine and stopped official state military aid to Kyiv as it battles Russia's invasion. Fico has been critical of sanctions against Moscow due to what he said was their impact on the Slovak and European economies, as well as lack of impact on Russia, but the country has backed EU sanctions packages to date. It was not clear to what extent the resolution, proposed by members of the far-right SNS party, a junior member of the ruling coalition, was binding on the government. There was no immediate reaction from Fico, nor from the country's foreign ministry. The resolution "commits members of the government... not to vote for the adoption of new sanctions and trade limitations towards the Russian Federation", the text released on the parliament's website said. The resolution did not specifically say ministers had to block or vote against sanctions. The resolution was approved with 51 votes in the 150-seat parliament, after a last-minute decision by the opposition to leave the chamber. It was backed by the SNS and most, but not all, of Fico's SMER-SSD party legislators, but only three deputies from the second-biggest ruling party, Hlas. Online newspaper quoted a legal expert as saying the government did not have to follow the resolution.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk: How did we get to 'KILL BILL' fallout
Donald Trump and Elon Musk: How did we get to 'KILL BILL' fallout

The Herald Scotland

time5 days ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Donald Trump and Elon Musk: How did we get to 'KILL BILL' fallout

Musk's prominence has been highly controversial with Americans, with only 38% of Economist/YouGov's May 30-June 2 poll respondents saying they would like Musk to have an influence in the administration going forward. How did we get here? Take a look back and the dramatic rise and fall of their partnership: Skid marks: President Trump's fast start has hit some speedbumps Elon Musk endorsed Trump following 2024 assassination attempt Musk, the CEO of Tesla, bought Twitter in 2022 and reinstated Trump to the platform after he was banned following the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots. Musk became a growing ally to Trump over the next couple of years. Then, on July 13, 2024, Trump was shot in an attempted assassination at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and Musk officially endorsed him for president shortly after. Musk gave more than $250 million to groups backing Trump in election Federal Election Commission records show Musk gave $238.5 million to his America PAC, which backed Trump's campaign. His contributions included $1 million daily payments to lucky voters in swing states who signed an online petition in support of the Constitution. The move raised legal questions, drew criticism from former Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, and prompted former Republican officials to press former Attorney General Merrick Garland for an investigation. Elon Musk was slated to lead DOGE with Vivek Ramaswamy During the campaign, Trump said he would establish a government efficiency commission headed by Musk if he won the election. Musk joined Trump at an October rally, jumping around on stage in a highly memeable moment. Shortly after winning the election, Trump announced Musk and former Republican presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy would lead the new "Department of Government Efficiency", also known as "DOGE" with the mandate to slash federal government spending, waste and regulations. But Ramaswamy ultimately decided to run for governor of Ohio in 2026. Musk attended Trump's Inauguration with other billionaires Musk was at Trump's inauguration in Washington, D.C., and joined by fellow billionaires Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. Musk delivered a speech at one of the inauguration events, during which he attracted controversy by giving a one-armed salute that some said appeared to resemble a Nazi-style gesture. "It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured," Musk said before making the gesture. DOGE comes for federal workforce, spending Musk's DOGE took a machete to federal spending, though he didn't cut nearly as much as he set out to. By some calculations, the workforce reduction efforts totaled in more than 100,000 layoffs, though the Trump administration is facing ongoing legal challenges to the swift cuts. Man of many hats at Cabinet meeting farewell At an April 30 Cabinet meeting, Musk appeared to bid farewell while joking about wearing lots of hats. Musk said at the meeting it was "an honor to work with your incredible Cabinet," and thanked the group. He had said at the time that DOGE was running more independently on its own and that he would spend less time in Washington as his companies needed him. (Tesla's earnings were down 71% in the first quarter of 2025.) On his way out, he participated in a seemingly friendly press conference with Trump in the Oval Office on May 30. But by his last day as a government employee, Musk had also appeared to diverge with Trump on a major piece of legislation going through Congress. Musk calls Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' a 'disgusting abomination' in post Just days after the White House sendoff, Musk appears to have embarked on a "kill bill" campaign on his X account. Trump's tax and domestic policy bill he has dubbed the "Big Beautiful Bill," is under consideration in the U.S. Senate. But some Republicans have major concerns about the bill, like the deficit and health care and now, Musk. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk said in a June 3 post on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." "Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. "It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it." Contributing: Joey Garrison, Riley Beggin, Bart Jansen; USA TODAY. Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store