national populism and slovak – hungarian relations in - MEK

National Populism and Electoral BehaviourTable 5 illustrates obvious differences between western and eastern constituencies.In the west, one may detect a significant discrepancy betweenboth sets of figures that may probably be attributed to several factors. Oneof the most important is that election results of SMK–MKP in some districtsof West Slovakia significantly (i.e. by three to nine percent) exceededethnic Hungarians’ overall share on the given constituency’s population.A plausible explanation is that voter participation among ethnic Hungarianswas slightly higher than among Slovaks. This factor was the most perceptiblein Dunajská Streda and Štúrovo constituencies where voter participationwas the highest of all Slovak constituencies not only in the 2006 parliamentaryelections but also in the 2009 presidential elections. 22 Anotherimportant factor might have been that SMK–MKP was supported by twogroups of Slovak voters: first, citizens who officially declare Slovak nationalitybut internally perceive themselves as Hungarians, either becauseHungarian is their mother tongue or because they have a Hungarian ethnicidentity; 23 second, so-called ‘pure’ Slovak voters who preferred SMK–MKPbased on their civic values that disregarded ethnic criteria. 24In eastern constituencies, the discrepancy between both sets of figures isnot as obvious. Also, the differences between election results posted bySMK–MKP and the official share of ethnic Hungarian voters are less conspicuousthan in the west. In Rimavská Sobota and Trebišov districts, electionresults of SMK–MKP were in fact lower than ethnic Hungarians’ shareon these districts’ respective populations. One of plausible explanations is thata significant share of numerous local Roma who otherwise declare Hungarianethnic nationality in population censuses voted for Slovak parties.Even though we are unable to define exact voting preferences of Slovakvoters in the 2006 elections (hence the intervals), we may draw relativelyunambiguous conclusions regarding stability or changeability of their votingpreferences between 2006 and 2009. The difference between nationwide electionresults posted by President Gašparoviè in 2009 (55.53%) and the SMER– SNS – HZDS bloc in 2006 (49.66%) is approximately 6%, which almostexactly matches the combined election results of seven small parties thatfailed to qualify to parliament in 2006 but are closer to the ruling coalitionthan the opposition in terms of ideological and political background. 25 Thisjustifies a conclusion that the overall voter support for the national-populistbloc (i.e. the bloc of national-socialist forces) remained unchanged in threeyears. 26 Table 5 even suggests that overall voting preferences of ruling partiesgrew slightly stronger in the stripe of border districts to the east of thetown of Šahy. This is true particularly of Michalovce and Trebišov districtsbut also of Košice-area, Revúca, Rimavská Sobota and Ve¾ký Krtíš districts.National Populism and Slovak – Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006 – 2009. Forum Minority Research Institute Šamorín – Somorja, 2009117