Keywords

1 Introduction

In Slovakia, negative attitudes towards the EU prevail. According to the Eurobarometer Spring 2021 survey, 52% of the Slovak people have a fairly negative or a very negative image of the EU, whereas 44% have a very positive or fairly positive image (European Parliament 2021). Despite the predominantly negative attitudes, the majority of Slovaks voted for pro-European parties in the 2019 elections to the European Parliament. Of all the voters, 41.1% cast their ballot for a pro-European party (PS + SPOLU, SMER-SD, OĽaNO), 19.3% cast their vote for a soft Eurosceptic party opposing the EU in one or more policy areas (KDH, SaS) and 12.1% for a hard Eurosceptic party generally opposing the EU (ĽSNS, see European Parliament 2019a).Footnote 1 The remaining 27.5% were cast for parties that did not cross the 5% threshold.

While voter turnout in the elections to the European Parliament is very low in Slovakia, it increased between 2014 and 2019 from 13.1 to 22.7 % (ibid.). Furthermore, the participation of young people aged between 18 and 24 increased from 6% to 11%, but still, Slovakia shows the lowest voter turnout out of all EU member states (EACEA 2022; European Parliament 2019b).

2 Towns, Schools, and Discussion Participants

Within the research programme of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, group discussions were conducted in four schools in the three Slovak towns of Ružomberok, Liptovský Mikuláš, and Lučenec in September 2021.

Ružomberok, with its 27,000 inhabitants, is located in the northwest of Slovakia. The city is easily accessible by car within the country. It has an old town centre and otherwise rather socialist-style architecture. The two largest employers in the region are the Military Hospital and the Mondi SCP paper factory. The 26% voter turnout in the 2019 European Parliament election in Ružomberok was slightly above the Slovakian average (ŠÚSR 2019a). In the territorial district of Ružomberok (which includes the nearby villages), 33.1% voted for a pro-European party (SMER-SD, PS + SPOLU, OĽaNO), 30.7% for a soft Eurosceptic (KDH, SaS) one, and 14.9% for a hard Eurosceptic party (ĽSNS, ŠÚSR 2019b). In the 2020 elections to the National Council, 49.7% voted for a pro-European party (OĽaNO, SMER-SD, Za ľudíFootnote 2), 14.6% for a soft Eurosceptic (Sme Rodina, SaS) one, and 9.8% for a hard Eurosceptic party in this district (ĽSNS, ŠÚSR 2020a). The vocational school in Ružomberok, Spojená škola—Stredná odborná škola obchodu a služieb Ružomberok, is centrally located in the town in an older, non-renovated building. About 320 students attended the school. It has a hotel academy, and subjects offered at the school include management in regional tourism and marketing.

Liptovský Mikuláš is located about 30 km east of Ružomberok, with about 31,000 inhabitants. In the well-kept centre, there are several restaurants and sights with residential areas surrounding the centre. The town has experienced a tourism boom in recent years. In the 2019 European Parliament election, voter turnout in Liptovský Mikuláš was at 24.6%, thus slightly above the national average (ŠÚSR 2019d). In Liptovský Mikuláš (territorial district), 46.7% voted for a pro-European party (PS + SPOLU, SMER-SD, OĽaNO), 18.3% for a soft Eurosceptic (SaS, KDH) one and 12.6% for a hard Eurosceptic party (ĽSNS, ŠÚSR 2019c). In the 2020 elections to the National Council, 49.5% voted for a pro-European party (OĽaNO, SMER-SD, Za ľudí), 16.9% for a soft Eurosceptic (Sme Rodina, SaS) one, and 9.3% for a hard Eurosceptic party (ĽSNS, ŠÚSR 2020b). The secondary school in Liptovský Mikuláš, Gymnázium M. M. Hodžu, is situated not far from the town centre. The large old school building appeared to be well-maintained. Approximately 400 students attend the school.

Lučenec, a town with about 28,000 inhabitants, is located in the south of Slovakia, close to the Hungarian border. Architecturally, the city centre is very heterogenous. Some of the streets and buildings are in poor condition, especially outside the city centre. In the 2019 European Parliament election, less than every fifth citizen of the town cast his/her vote, and the turnout was at 18.2% (ŠÚSR 2019e). In the territorial district of Lučenec, 37.2% voted for a pro-European party (SMER-SD, PS + SPOLU, OĽaNO), 7.1% for a soft Eurosceptic (SaS) one, and 13.0% for a hard Eurosceptic party (ĽSNS, see ŠÚSR 2019f). Apart from the parties that crossed the 5% threshold, more than one-fifth of the votes were cast for the parties of the Hungarian minority, SMK-MKP (11.6%), and Most-Híd (10.6%), who later merged together with MKÖ-MKS into Szövetség/Aliancia in 2021 (ibid., TA3 2021). In the 2020 elections to the National Council, 46.7% voted for a pro-European party (OĽaNO, SMER-SD, Za ľudí), 12.5% for a soft Eurosceptic (Sme Rodina, SaS) one, and 8.9% for a hard Eurosceptic party (ĽSNS, see ŠÚSR 2020c). The vocational school in Lučenec, Stredná odborná škola hotelových služieb a dopravy v Lučenci, is located in an industrial area surrounded by barrack-like buildings. The school is in an outdated condition. There is a hotel academy, and subjects such as marketing, computer science, agribusiness, mechanics, and electrical engineering are offered. It is a bilingual school with many students having a Hungarian background. The secondary school in Lučenec, Gymnázium Boženy Slančíkovej Timravy, is located just outside the centre. The school building is in average condition. About 420 students attend the school.

In all group discussions in Ružomberok, Liptovský Mikuláš, and Lučenec, eight randomly selected students took part, four of them male, four female, except for the Lučenec secondary school, where seven students participated and three had to leave during the discussion. All teachers were supportive throughout the organisation process. They were not present during the discussions.

3 The Situation of the Young People and Their Self-image as Citizens

To start the group discussions, students were asked to describe the problems and qualities of their town, to identify who is responsible for them, and to explain where they would like to live in 10 years. One aspect that prevailed among all school types was that the responsibilities were seen mostly on a local level but also on a national scale. Regarding future places of living, there was no clear tendency towards staying in the region, in Slovakia, or going abroad. Students often named the Czech Republic as a place where they saw themselves and used the neighbouring country as a comparative example for the quality of life in Slovakia. Public transport was seen as a problem by some but not all of the students. One aspect that was perceived as a problem was the segregation of the Roma and non-Roma populations, as well as the conflicts that arise between the majority population and minorities. What was discussed very differently in the groups was the question of a shared mentality and value system among the EU member states.

Students of the vocational school in Ružomberok revealed quite negative views concerning their town. They named Milan Fil’o, one of the richest Slovaks and the owner of the paper company Mondi SCP and the football club MFK Ružomberok, as responsible for many local problems, as well as the mayors and the national government. The town itself was described as “backward” due to its poor air quality, bad state of construction, and the rural depopulation in the region. The students also discussed Ružomberok in relation to its neighbouring town, Liptovský Mikuláš, which they perceived as being in a better economic position. They positively mentioned Ružomberok’s good infrastructural connection within Slovakia and to the neighbouring countries, as well as the mountains close by. In general, the students described financial uncertainty in Slovakia and viewed the Czech Republic as a country in which the quality of life is higher.

In the secondary school in Liptovský Mikuláš, some students viewed the Roma population in their places of residence as a problem and also expressed prejudices towards them. They perceived the Roma population as living untidily and being dirty and accused them of contributing to the bad cityscape. The students saw that responsibility for local problems lay mainly with the mayors and the local government. Furthermore, they talked about censorship in the local media towards critical reports on local politics.

The students in the vocational school in Lučenec and the region perceived bad waste management, vandalism, brothels, drugs, and thievery as the main problems. They furthermore described the growing number of LGBTQ+ people in the region as something negative. Regarding their daily needs, the students considered Lučenec to provide a good infrastructure and mentioned that this does not seem to be the case in the surrounding towns, especially regarding health care. Students perceived racism and anti-Romani sentiment as a problem not only in the region but also in the school, e.g. coming from the teachers. One student described a clear spatial division between the Roma and the non-Roma population in her town, which would amplify a mutual dismissal among both groups. The students in the Lučenec secondary school saw the high unemployment rate and conflicts between the Hungarian minority, Slovaks, and Roma as problems. Some of them articulated prejudices and revealed racist attitudes toward the Roma, which were countered by other students and sparked a discussion in the group. Discrimination against LGBTQ+ people was also seen as a problem by a part of the group.

Regarding their perception of EU citizenship, the students from the Ružomberok vocational school perceived tourism and the freedom of movement as unifying elements in the EU and named Brexit as a negative example. The students pointed out that the states help each other and that Slovakia could not sustain itself on its own. EU citizenship was seen as something positive, especially in terms of educational opportunities at home and abroad. They also felt that there was a similar mentality among the EU countries. As positive aspects of the EU, the students of the secondary school in Liptovský Mikuláš mentioned the freedom of movement and trade, a sense of belonging among the member states, as well as the fact that the “stronger” member states help the “weaker” ones. For the students, the EU has opened many new opportunities. In addition, they viewed the adoption of the Euro, the EU’s efforts in environmental protection, and the work against discrimination very positively. The students reported that they feel connected to the EU through a sense of belonging and a shared value system.

Talking about EU citizenship, the students from the Lučenec vocational school perceived EU membership as a given and named the freedom of movement as a unifying aspect. The member states were seen as a “family” that is helping each other in times of crisis. The students named projects in education like Erasmus+ as important opportunities. Yet, they said they are too young to compare the time of Slovak EU membership with the time of its non-membership. The Euro as a common currency was a polarising topic. Similar to the students in Ružomberok, students in the vocational school in Lučenec perceived the Czech Republic as better off after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Students from the secondary school in Lučenec argued that the cultures among the EU member states are too different to be united. They saw the EU as a system of coexistence in which the emphasis lies on the individual state and its actions. As a follow-up to the discussion on racism, one student articulated that she perceived racism as a huge problem in the EU and stated that racism and homophobia would be what unites the European member states. In all four groups, no one had heard of the Conference on the Future of Europe.

To make them feel more like EU citizens, the students from the Ružomberok vocational school mentioned that they would like to see young people’s opinions taken more seriously. EU subsidies should be invested more in rural areas. The students said that they hardly ever talk about the EU. The students from the Liptovský Mikuláš secondary school demanded that political education and EU topics should be more prominent in schools. They wished for financial project support on a more accessible level. In addition, they mentioned dialogue formats in schools and with older people and demanded that EU-funded projects be made visible beyond the region in which they were implemented. From the students’ perspective, a lot of projects take place in Bratislava and go unnoticed in the more rural regions of Slovakia. At the end of the discussion, several students articulated that even talking about the EU topic throughout the course of the group discussion had already made them feel more connected to the EU and their rights as citizens.

Discussions in the two schools in Lučenec focused on different issues. For the students of the vocational school in Lučenec, the EU should pay further attention to poorer countries and provide more free education and financial support for educational institutions. Underpinning this demand, the students described their school as the most neglected in Lučenec. Besides this, they reported that doctor’s visits cost them money and expressed the wish for free healthcare. In the view of the students, the EU should inform people more about its projects, e.g. Erasmus+. Moreover, it should care more about the Roma and other minorities in the region who experience discrimination. By contrast, the students from the secondary school in Lučenec saw the national rather than the European level as responsible for the changes needed to solve the problems they perceive. They did, for instance, suggest lowering taxes.

4 Perceptions of the EU and EU Rights

When asked to rank EU achievements and rights connected to EU citizenship, all four groups agreed that peace is an important feature of the EU. Students in three of the four groups also agreed that the right to vote is a central right. The freedom of movement was seen as an important aspect in three groups, except for the students in the Lučenec vocational school, who discarded it. Apart from that, the groups considered very different rights essential. The students of the Ružomberok vocational school viewed the right to healthcare and access to clean drinking water as very important. In the Liptovský Mikuláš secondary school, the students considered EU funding for structurally weak regions, reconstruction after the Corona pandemic, and access to an independent judiciary very important. Similarly, the students of the Lučenec vocational school regarded the right to healthcare, EU funding for structurally weak regions and reconstruction after Corona, as well as access to clean drinking water, as very important. The students of the secondary school in Lučenec were the only group that chose consumer protection as a very important EU citizenship right. Furthermore, they viewed access to clean drinking water and the right to healthcare as essential. It is interesting to note that EU funding for structurally weak regions and reconstruction after the Corona pandemic was put into very different categories in the two schools in Lučenec. As mentioned, for the students of the vocational school, it was one of the most important aspects, whereas the students in the secondary school discarded it.

By contrast, there seemed to be a stronger consensus among the students with regard to the question of which rights could be discarded. They all agreed on the absence of roaming charges and the Erasmus program. Three out of four groups also mentioned the right to protest, which is a fundamental right but yet something they could easily live without. This was explained differently in all three groups, but similarly, students in the Ružomberok vocational school and the Liptovský Mikuláš secondary school said that in their perception, the right to protest is at times being misused or abused. The students in these two groups further stated that citizens could just wait for the next election to come around and voice their opinions that way instead of protesting. The students of the Lučenec vocational school argued that the right to protest would be less important because the European citizens’ initiative would also allow for a form of protest. Apart from the absence of roaming charges and Erasmus exchanges, access to documents was also discarded by two groups and categorised as less important in the secondary school and the Lučenec vocational school.

In general, the task of ranking EU achievements and rights connected to EU citizenship stirred up different debates among the groups. The students at the Ružomberok vocational school mainly discussed their understanding of racism and discrimination, and concluded that their definitions of where discrimination and racism begin are very different. In Liptovský Mikuláš, the discussion revealed that the deciding factor for students when ranking EU citizenship rights was whether something was considered essential for survival. In both schools in Lučenec, the process of ranking EU citizenship rights was very quick, and there was almost no discussion. Even though the students of the vocational school named the freedom of movement as something uniting in the EU and discrimination as a huge problem in the first part of the group discussion, they discarded the freedom of movement and not being discriminated against because they did not seem essential to them compared to other rights. In the Lučenec secondary school, the students pointed out the discrepancy between formally claiming non-discrimination and acting according to this claim, which is not always a given in their perception.

5 The Right to Vote and EU Elections

Talking about the right to vote and whether non-voting is a missed chance, the students reported that they see several problems as reasons for the very low turnout in the elections to the European Parliament.

According to the students, one important factor is the feeling of a lack of representation. The students of three groups—the vocational school in Ružomberok, the secondary school in Liptovský Mikuláš, and the vocational school in Lučenec—pointed out that people do not see themselves represented by the candidates they can vote for, and that the candidates for the EP elections seem far away from the electorate, which would be the reason why many citizens do not voice their opinion in elections. Moreover, the students in Ružomberok, Liptovský Mikuláš, and the Lučenec secondary school pointed out that there is too little information about EP elections and the EU in general, which they perceive as another important factor as to why only few people in Slovakia vote.

Apart from these two aspects, the groups raised various other points. The students in Ružomberok revealed that they see elections mainly as a matter of money. Voters, in their perception, vote primarily for the least of all evils. At the same time, they argued that people who do not vote are missing an opportunity. The students in Liptovský Mikuláš stated that the low voter turnout is used by more extreme parties to their advantage, and the discussion showed that they had polarising opinions on whether the European Parliament is more important than the national parliament. In the vocational school in Lučenec, students said that the youth feel like their vote does not matter, and they stated that, on a national level, politicians would be lying a lot. In the secondary school in Lučenec, the students felt too young to change anything about political issues because they could not vote yet.

When asked how to increase voter turnout, the students of the schools in Ružomberok and Liptovský Mikuláš similarly emphasised the importance of adequate representation and information. From the Ružomberok students’ point of view, a better choice of candidates would motivate more people to vote. In addition, they argued that people should be more informed about why the European Parliament elections should be important to them. In the students’ perception, politicians mainly use their voters because they want to accumulate money themselves. The students in Liptovský Mikuláš suggested that the EU should promote the elections better, e.g. via social networks, which are used more by young people, or via TV, for older voters. In addition, the candidates should be more visible in the campaigns. In schools, political education about the EU should be strengthened, too, by the EU itself.

In both schools in Lučenec, the students suggested incentives to get people to vote. Students of the vocational school said that the EU should motivate and interest people to go to the elections and suggest material motivations like money or gifts, even though this was also seen critically as making a bribe among the group. The students of the secondary school also mentioned material voting incentives. This was countered with the argument that people would then go out and just vote for anyone, only to receive the bonus. Furthermore, the students pointed out that people need to feel affected by the elections and their outcome.

6 Conclusion

In the discussions, the students in three groups mentioned a shared value system or a similar mentality within the EU as a unifying factor, whereas the fourth group perceived the EU states as living more in a system of coexistence. Young people in peripheral regions of Slovakia, therefore, seem to have different perceptions of the EU. Some students reflected that they hardly talk about the EU in their daily lives but found it more interesting the longer they participated in the discussions. Apart from the benefits that the students saw for Slovakia as a country, on a personal level, they mentioned the freedom of movement and educational opportunities provided by the EU as being important to them. To feel more like EU citizens, they suggested that EU topics should be more prominent in schools and further wished for financial project support on a more accessible level.

Peace was central to all groups, as were the right to vote and the freedom of movement in three out of four groups. It was interesting to observe that the right to protest was discarded in three of them. This was justified by saying that people could wait for the next elections to voice their protest or start a petition, which indicates that the students perceive these rights as balancing each other out.

One recurring aspect in the discussions was the reference to the Czech Republic. Due to their shared history, the Czech Republic was perceived as being close to Slovakia, but was described by several groups as offering better living standards after the dissolution. Furthermore, living together with ethnic minorities and discrimination against them were very present topics, especially in Lučenec.

Looking at the right to vote and the low voter turnout for EP elections in Slovakia, the students described a lack of representation and lack of information or misinformation on the elections as the main problems. Following these issues, they suggested a better choice and the higher visibility of candidates, material voting incentives, and more information on why these elections should matter to people in Slovakia.