(The Croatian version of this article ran in today's Jutarnji List, Croatia's largest daily newspaper.)
An Expat in Zagreb
By Roger Malone
When George W. Bush won a second term as president of the United States in 2004, Thomas Friedman started his column in the New York Times, “Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health.” I’m not sure Croatia has its health anymore.
Watching the results of Sunday’s referendum was like watching a beloved relative with cancer who refuses to give up smoking. Actually, the metaphor is understated. In Croatia’s case, the patient takes up smoking in the middle of treatment.
An Expat in Zagreb
By Roger Malone
When George W. Bush won a second term as president of the United States in 2004, Thomas Friedman started his column in the New York Times, “Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health.” I’m not sure Croatia has its health anymore.
Watching the results of Sunday’s referendum was like watching a beloved relative with cancer who refuses to give up smoking. Actually, the metaphor is understated. In Croatia’s case, the patient takes up smoking in the middle of treatment.
Croatia’s economic problems are profound and complex. But,
if the experience from successful emerging markets is any guidance, part of the
solution includes building effective democratic institutions, defining a
positive vision for the future and creating an attractive climate for foreign
investment. Like putting down the
cigarettes, these prescriptions are straightforward and generally accepted.
Instead, despite almost five years of economic misery with
little hope for immediate recovery, Croatia in Sunday’s vote bypassed such
common-sense approaches. In a thinly veiled attack on gays orchestrated by a Catholic
group, it chose to defend a traditional definition of marriage that was never
under threat. As President Josipović
suggested, the vote Sunday may establish Croatia as a country of intolerance at
a time when the global trend is toward tolerance. Even Pope Francis has warned
against the church’s obsession with conservative issues including gay
marriages.
The referendum did no one any good and changes nothing for most Croats. Only gays, the target of this
oppressive measure, will feel a slight sting. (“Slight” because “marriage” is
just a word. The Sabor can still define civil unions any way it sees fit with
whatever rights it deems appropriate.) If the referendum had failed, no one was
going to force a straight Croat to marry someone of the same sex. Ever.
Yet the potential for harm is vast. "While many countries have not legalized gay marriage, Croatia here seems to go out of its way to be negative to gay people," Paul Barnes, head of communications for the Gay European Travel Association (GETA), told Bloomberg News. "Even though the proposed change to the constitution doesn't take away any existing gay rights, it will be seen as a negative moment, and a setback like this can act as a catalyst that mobilizes the gay community."
GETA estimates that gays spend about 50 billion euros a year on travel in Europe and has recommended more than 50 gay-friendly hotels in Croatia. The potential of a travel boycott by gays, their friends and families might just be bluster, but was the risk worth it for a backward measure that means little? It will be impossible to calculate how many months or years -- if any, of course -- passing the referendum will delay Croatia's economic recovery. Tourism numbers next year will offer only a hint.
But Croatia might not have to wait that long to feel the repercussions of the referendum's victory. From an AFP story, Zeljka Markić with In the Name of the Family, the group behind the referendum, said soon after the votes were counted, "This time (it was) for the protection of marriage, and next time for something else of the same importance." The only thing missing was a melodramatic laugh at the end, bwa ha ha ha. Her group barred respectable media outlets from its headquarters on referendum day, illustrating its regard for democratic institutions such as a free press.
Some people I've talked with will see the referendum as a victory for democracy, for majority rule, It's not. The majority of Croats were simply apathetic. Also, "majority rule" is the easiest concept of democracy to grasp. A much more difficult concept is that in a mature democracy the majority must also protect the rights of the minority, even and especially those it might not like. Croatia still seems to be working on that part. Maybe as more people are caught by "something else of the same importance" to Markić the idea will start to sink in.
[Follow Roger Malone
on twitter at @ExpatinZagreb or at www.expatinzagreb.blogspot.com]
