—Anna Drusková, MA Candidate, Comenius University in Bratislava, Department of Political Science and Max Steuer, Principal Investigator, Comenius University in Bratislava, Department of Political Science – Schumann Fellow, University of Münster, Faculty of Law – Associate Professor [on leave], O.P. Jindal Global University, Jindal Global Law School
In 2025, Slovakia has been making negative headlines in rule of law news. Besides deterioration in global indices triggered by executive actions, the Slovak Constitutional Court offered limited hope after it had largely endorsed the illiberal amendments to the criminal legal system the year before. These changes—enacted in an accelerated legislative proceedings—radically decreased statutes of limitations and sentencing period for several criminal acts, despite the lack of justification for proceeding in such a rush and the evidenced adverse social consequences of the amendment. Furthermore, the amendments abolished the Special Prosecution Office which was responsible, among others, for prosecuting elite corruption. In its final judgment, the Court showed inclinations towards rule of law minimalism, upholding all but the most blatant violations.
In the early fall, the 23rd amendment to the Slovak Constitution declared further restrictions on minority—especially LGBTIQ+—rights, and included an explicit ‘national identity clause’ that can fuel attempts of illiberal partisan elites at undermining shared EU and Slovak constitutional values by generating conflicts between EU institutions and the state. Most of the substantive changes and the procedure of their enactment made the amendment appear as the next nail in the coffin of Slovakia’s constitutionalism. Although the changes alone did not endanger the position of the Constitutional Court as its authoritative interpreter, they cemented the perception of Slovakia undertaking an illiberal turn, particularly via regression in minority rights. The European Commission was not persuaded by the diplomatic efforts of the government and, perhaps learning from the slow reactions vis-à-vis Hungary and Poland a few years earlier, it opened an infringement process against Slovakia. This could potentially escalate into proceedings at the EU Court of Justice, which the government would be able to use to deepen polarization over EU integration in Slovakia.
The academic sector remains broadly free, however, unlike in neighboring Hungary. Without continued and robust defense of academic freedom, however, this might change. Moreover, the inherent weaknesses of Slovak (especially social science, including legal) academia reduce its impact on the defense of Slovakia’s democracy and the likelihood that, in case of an assault (that might be akin to the one in Hungary), democratic scholarly resistance could prevail. Nevertheless, the Hungarian and to some extent Polish cases can yield lessons also for scholars in Slovakia, even more so as, thanks to shared histories, these neighboring countries’ developments cannot be dismissed as incomparable. Among others, the neighboring countries show that it is not enough to be defensive and vigilant vis-à-vis illiberalizing initiatives, as doing so leaves the democratic actors vulnerable to accusations of a lack of a future-oriented, positive vision that illiberal actors (claim to) offer. In other words, it is a call for overcoming dichotomous thinking, in which formulations of visions for constitutional values need to give way to defending the status quo against further undermining of these values.
In this context, an international symposium was held on 10 November 2025 in collaboration between the Department of Political Science of the Comenius University in Bratislava (Faculty of Arts, as a concluding event of the project Illiberalism and the Constitution of the Slovak Republic) and the Leipzig University (project The Rule of Law in Central and Eastern Europe). The symposium consisted of two panels, one analyzing the narratives, challengers and defenders of the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe, and another focusing on reducing polarization over the meaning and implications of the rule of law to build a vision for futures in which the rule of law remains central.
The first session was chaired by Jan Němec (Research Fellow at the Institute of Political Science of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Philosophy of Leipzig University), who presented the Leipzig University research project concerning how parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe framed the concept of the rule of law, introducing the Slovak case in more detail. A discussion followed on how rule of law is framed in Slovakia. A key message was that illiberal politicians such as Vladimír Mečiar and Robert Fico, but also some judges especially during the era of Slovak Supreme Court President Harabin conceived of all actions conducted narrowly according to the letter of the law as legal. This mindset has, among others, sustained the so-called Mečiar’s amnesties that prevented the prosecution of elites close to the Mečiar cabinet of 1994-1998 as part of the formal legal order for almost two decades. Elites who instrumentalized the rule of law in favour of unaccountable executive discretion were opposed by others who conceived of legality as broadly connected to justice.
In her intervention, journalist and former Editor-in-Chief of daily SME Beata Balogová introduced three frameworks of the rule of law created by politicians such as Fico and Hungarian PM Orbán. The first one denies that corruption is a major problem in the country. The second one reframes individuals who had exposed corruption as those involved in political fights. The third one claims that the EU weaponized the rule of law to punish government for the opinions. Radim Dvořák (Deputy Head of European Commission’s Representation in Bratislava) pointed out that the foundations of the rule of law protection in the EU were created by its member states. Executive Director at VIA IURIS Katarína Batková highlighted the narrative of revenge connected with the rule of law, employed by former Prime Minister Igor Matovič and his cabinet during the COVID-19 pandemic and simultaneously by (at that time) opposition politician Robert Fico, who returned to the premiership in 2023.
The subsequent discussion highlighted how only a minority is willing to hold Slovak governments accountable for their actions, and how insiders in institutions adapt their behaviour according to who is in power, with a few notable exceptions—the latter especially from civil society. Participants also scrutinized the ways how ‘politics’ is perceived to enter the discourses on the rule of law, and to what extent various stakeholders differentiate between partisan motivations and broader political engagement, which may transcend partisan cleavages. The lack of professionalism in Slovak partisan politics contributes to the blurring of these lines, and the ensuing overall distrust in political action. Several participants also agreed that, even though democracy itself is a contested concept, contemporary democrats need to foster the connections between the rule of law and democracy.
The second session chaired by Max Steuer attempted to find common ground on the concept of the rule of law in the polarized society, in which it seems that rule of law minimalism is the only consensual frame, but hollows the substance out of the rule of law as a result. Maciej Kisilowski (Associate Professor of Law and Strategy at Central European University, Department of Legal Studies and Faculty Director, CEU Executive MBA) built on the findings of his new co-edited book with Anna Wojciuk Let’s Agree on Poland, the Polish version of which celebrated success as capable to bridge the divides between Polish intellectuals self-identifying as liberal and conservative. He emphasized that we are living in times of a conservative revolution and so elite compromise between liberals and conservatives is essential. Such compromise may require focusing on jurisdictional divides and de-centralization instead of agreement on substantive values.
Zoltán Fleck (Professor at the Center for Theory of Law and Society, ELTE Law School) pointed out that, in Hungary, the rule of law is predominantly understood in an authoritarian and formalistic manner, as discussed in more detail in his co-authored book with András Bozóki Embedded Autocracy: Hungary in the European Union. To change this understanding, it is important to have democratic social bases in institutions. Reaching that requires lot of practice and deliberation. Nóra Chronowski (Research Professor of the Institute for Legal Studies at the ELTE Centre for Social Sciences) preferred to think of authoritarian rule by law which cannot be squared with the concept of the rule of law. The Hungarian society is traumatized not least due to fearmongering surrounding some of the amendments to the 2011 Hungarian Fundamental Law, and frequent oppression of minorities. These issues are highly relevant for Slovakia as well, even more so due to the 2025 amendment to the Slovak Constitution. The study of the liberal and illiberal features and changes to that Constitution by Darina Malová (Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Arts of Comenius University in Bratislava) and Max Steuer demonstrates illiberalism in the 2025 amendment. At the same time, their research shows that most changes to the 1992 Slovak Constitution went in a liberal direction, while most illiberal changes in a single electoral term were enacted between 2012-2016, during Robert Fico’s single-party cabinet.
In this panel as well, fruitful questions were raised by the audience. The discussion touched upon, among others, whether a ‘conservative revolution’ is necessarily also authoritarian in character, whether deliberative democracy is a feasible solution to address pernicious polarization in many contemporary societies, and to what extent the focus on institutional design can constrain malicious actors’ behaviour. The speakers also exchanged views on whether the rise of anti-liberal narratives (such as anti-migrant hatred, racism, homophobia, misogyny) supported by captured public media in Hungary and (until recently) Poland is primarily triggered by elites swaying the public opinion, or by the public opinion which elites merely satisfy.
Overall, the symposium created a space to think about and discuss various visions of the rule of law in a dialogue between academic, civil society leaders, public officials and international partners, underscoring the importance of future-oriented research that speaks to contemporary challenges.
Suggested citation: Anna Drusková and Max Steuer, Conference Report: Rule of Law and the Future – The Victory of Minimalism in Slovakia? Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Dec. 10, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/conference-report-rule-of-law-and-the-future-the-victory-of-minimalism-in-slovakia/