Political analyst Eduard Chmelár reacted on social media to the prime minister’s press statement and criticized Robert Fico, accusing him that instead of stable governance he focuses on weakening coalition partners and winning over their voters, and that he previously warned the prime minister against giving in to so-called “uncontrolled shooters” in the coalition.
Chmelár on the coalition crisis and shifting factions
Chmelár argued that the friction began when Fico conceded to demands forcing Chmelár out of his role as advisor to the prime minister. According to his analysis, a compounding pattern followed shortly after with Rudolf Huliak’s faction gaining political influence, later mirrored by Samuel Migaľ, Radomír Šalitroš, and other lawmakers.
The critique targeted the shifting allegiances of figures like Roman Malatinec, who moved from Hlas to Huliak’s faction before landing with Tomáš Taraba. Chmelár asserted that such fluid political groupings fail to form stable parties, arguing instead for independent personalities with grounded values rather than unthinking voting blocs.
Executive overreach and the weakening of parliamentary independence
Beyond shifting alliances, Chmelár identified a deeper threat to the balance of power inside the National Council of the Slovak Republic. He contended that Fico routinely crosses competency boundaries by revoking ministerial portfolios or threatening coalition partners with such removals. Citing Article 73, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, which mandates that MPs exercise their duties according to their own conscience and convictions without binding instructions, Chmelár criticized demands for absolute obedience.
He likened members of the ruling coalition to mechanical voting tools, contrasting them with past parliamentary groups capable of substantive debate. Fico’s stated willingness to seek agreements with splinter factions—much like previous arrangements with the Migaľ and Huliak groups—amounts to political corruption in Chmelár’s view, demonstrating that maintaining power takes precedence over passing cohesive legislation.
Divergence from everyday realities and European foreign policy disputes
The critique extended beyond domestic coalition mechanics to encompass broader socioeconomic stagnation and a growing disconnect between government officials and ordinary citizens. Chmelár argued that Slovakia slips backward across multiple development indicators while leaders remain consumed by bureaucratic positioning. He emphasized that the issue transcends personal expenses or private flights, pointing instead to an institutional abandonment of the public interest in favor of oligarchic influence.
The discourse also touched upon international governance, echoing broader commentary reported by TA3 regarding European leadership and foreign policy. Chmelár directed harsh words toward continental officials, stating, „Prepáčte, ale toto je podľa mňa znak, že nás vedú idioti,“ as quoted by TA3 when criticizing European sanctions on Russian energy supplies that end up routed through third parties like India at inflated prices.”
Chmelár criticizes European Union crisis management and Ukrainian democratic dilemma
TA3 further noted Chmelár’s dissatisfaction with how the European Union manages geopolitical crises, particularly regarding the war in Ukraine and the diplomatic sidelined status of European capitals. He criticized US Donald Trump’s assertions regarding Ukrainian leadership changes, while simultaneously conceding that the absence of regular elections on Ukrainian soil poses a genuine democratic dilemma.
Addressing domestic prospects, Chmelár warned that the political opposition fails to offer a credible alternative, though that failure does not excuse the current administration’s shortcomings. He concluded that growing anger among younger generations stems from a profound lack of agency, cautioning that legitimate public frustration should not be confused with blind hatred as systemic economic disparities continue to widen across society.
