Acoalition of six left and green parties (We can !, New Left, Workers' Front, ORaH, Zagreb is OURS !, For the city) could be the surprise of the July 5 elections. As the elections approach, their numbers are growing strongly, at the level of the whole of Croatia they jumped from 2.6 to 4.5 percent in a month according to the new Crobarometer, but they are much stronger in the capital and it is obvious that they will become a new parliamentary option. , is just a question of how many terms.
The leader of the coalition list in the First Constituency and the already established Zagreb oppositionist of the We Can! Party, Tomislav Tomašević, is currently on the ground and in the media, but in the conversation he does not show that he is overwhelmed by routine or fatigue. In the shade of a cafe near Zagreb's Central Station, where trains are still needed across the line because the station building is still closed due to the earthquake in March, we started talking about the unusual idea of Katarina Peović from the Workers' Front, who suggested that all private savings over 700 thousand kuna be redirected to recovery from the corona crisis.
TELEGRAM: Okay, your coalition framework for the parliamentary election program does not envisage such an extreme measure, but progressive taxation…
TOMAŠEVIĆ : In the meantime, the Workers' Front also explained on their websites and in interviews that they also propose progressive taxation…
TELEGRAM: Unless one thinks of a 100 percent tax rate, progressive taxation is something completely different from deducting the entire amount of savings above a certain amount.
TOMASEVIC: They said that they would not take anything, but above the savings of 700 thousand kuna guaranteed by the state, they would start with progressive taxation, so tax rates would be minimal for amounts of 700,000 kuna and up, and rates would increase as the amount increases savings with the aim of paying the highest rate to the 1% of the ultra-rich and taking on the greatest burden of the crisis. What is for We can! essential when we talk about the property tax of the 1% of the ultra-rich is that there is no discrimination between types of property, whether it is securities, savings or real estate and that it should be progressively taxed. After all, there is no left-wing party in Europe that does not think that progressive taxation is fairer than single-rate taxation, either of property or of income above a certain threshold.
TELEGRAM: We will return to real estate tax, but let's go back to the story of the redistribution of all funds above the savings of 700 thousand kuna. So, it is clear that in the manifesto published in Večernji list, Peović meant that the entire savings were taken away above that amount.
TOMASEVIC: Ha, I can talk and talk about what they wrote later in their explanation and numerous interviews, and what we agreed on. After all, any taxation is a redistribution.
TELEGRAM: I insist on this issue so that we are not surprised if tomorrow someone in Parliament proposes that the state take all private savings above 700 thousand kuna.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: What we will stand for as a coalition and from which we will eventually set conditions for the SDP is our coalition framework. There will certainly be no taking.
TELEGRAM: Nothing from the nationalization of savings?
TOMASEVIC: That will certainly not happen.
TELEGRAM: You are in favor of the real estate tax, which the SDP and HDZ have been dancing about for almost ten years.
TOMASEVIC: We have made it clear in our program that we are in favor of progressive income taxation. We used to have four feet in Croatia, and now we have dropped to only two, so we are going backwards. On the other hand, our VAT is as high as 25 percent, and it is a regressive tax, which means that it strikes more at poorer citizens. Now, if we already need a progressive income tax, and we do, then we need the same for property above a certain middle class threshold. When we talk about real estate, it is unfair that someone can own 20 apartments in Zagreb, and not pay property taxes, but rent them to tourists and pay only 300 kuna flat tax per year per bed.
Such large landlords and rentiers would be primarily taxed, not the homes and cottages that people built with their own hands. This rentier economy of big players, as a concept of Croatia's development, relies on the monoculture of tourism, construction speculation, land conversion that we know how they go… And then why would anyone be educated when he calculates that he will inherit dozens of apartments and live on rent? In such an economy, people do not even need to be educated because we do not need highly educated staff, and we are turning into a society of low-skilled and low-paid labor.
TELEGRAM: So you are in favor of a property tax so that the tax burden on labor can be reduced?
TOMASEVIC: What we stand for is not what the public calls a real estate tax. I would call it a large property tax. I emphasize, great property, So that property owned by 1% of the ultra-rich. Property is both real estate and financial assets, the only thing is that you can move the latter to another country by clicking, unlike real estate. After all, when we talk about the real estate tax from which both SDP and HDZ are fleeing, the European Commission has been advising us for years to introduce it. Of course, we do not want it to be applied to people who are filling the household budget with a zimmer-free, especially in areas where there are no jobs.
I’m talking primarily about those who own dozens of apartments and pay almost nothing. That's ridiculous, insane. Take the example of Zagreb, if you rent your apartment to a tenant, you pay a 12 percent tax. In the average size of an apartment in an average location after tax, it is about 300 kuna per month. But when you rent to tourists, you pay 300 kuna per bed - per year! So, we have a tax system that stimulates people to rent to tourists and of course we have a problem, that apartments are rented to locals illegally, renters do not want to report tenants for not paying taxes to the state and that tenants can be evicted whenever they want su and the lack of housing policy and the small share of public rental housing and the wrong tax system.
TELEGRAM: Will such a change in tax policy that you advocate be one of the conditions for a possible post-election coalition with the SDP?
TOMASEVIC: It's hard for me to say that now. We will have several conditions, which we will agree on as a coalition, and then our membership has yet to decide on them. How many conditions we will have depends, of course, on how many seats we win.
TELEGRAM: And about whether you will have enough mandate with the SDP to form a government at all.
TOMASEVIC: Ha, that's the zero point. If there will be no mathematical options for a left-centrist government, then we will be in opposition, against the HDZ and the Homeland Movement. And we will show what the opposition should look like. But if there is a mathematical possibility for the SDP to form a government that we could theoretically support, then we will talk about what our program conditions will be.
It is clear that not everyone from our coalition framework can do that, but there will certainly be at least some conditions from each of the three program pillars: green economy and working conditions, social equality, and democratization and the fight against corruption. But there is no point in stating now what the conditions might be…
TELEGRAM: While the rabbit is still in the woods.
TOMASEVIC: It all depends on our result. If we have more mandates, we will be able to set more conditions.
TELEGRAM: Your basic plan, if I understood correctly, is not to enter the Government, but only to support it from the Parliament. But what if you get more mandates than you might expect now. Can you stay in the Parliament with seven, eight or ten seats as a support to the minority government, or should you ask for a department?
TOMASEVIC: And I don't know. That is a hypothetical question.
TELEGRAM: That's what we journalists like the most.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: (laughter) I don't like to answer hypothetical questions that are not very realistic. If a situation of a large number of mandates occurs, then we, as a coalition, will agree as far as possible. In that case, we will see if there is any other option than supporting the minority government.
TELEGRAM: Will you, in addition to the program, also have personnel conditions for the SDP. I don't think you are looking for your people in the Government, but…
TOMASEVIC: We will, we will.
TELEGRAM:… than to veto some of their personnel solutions.
TOMASEVIC: We will, we will.
TELEGRAM: Who would be unacceptable to you as a minister?
TOMASEVIC: I would not state that now, because then we will enter into a discussion with the SDP about what and who can and what and who cannot, and as we said - the rabbit is still in the woods. But certainly not the people who have been charged with crime, tax evasion, Bandic's people and the like.
TELEGRAM: He is almost saying that the HDZ can, if Plenković is not the prime minister. Bernardic does not have to be afraid of such a request from you?
TOMASEVIC: I wouldn't say that now either. We will not prejudge anything, neither about the Prime Minister, nor about the ministers. There are different options. We can have a veto on some of their solutions, there may be a story about the number of ministries, and we may even be looking for some non-partisan ministers, not ours, but not theirs either.
TELEGRAM: But some cards are, obviously, already prepared up your sleeve.
TOMASEVIC: Of course. We are not naive and we will certainly not allow the SDP to hold us as a pendant. We have nothing to lose in that sense. If the SDP is not ready to cooperate, okay, we will go to new elections. But I believe that we can find some modality of cooperation, we also found it in the Zagreb City Assembly. Despite all the differences and criticism, we are also cooperating with the SDP against Bandic.
TELEGRAM: Speaking of Bandic, I have an even more hypothetical question. Can you imagine that the SDP will personally support you in the elections for the mayor of Zagreb in the second round against him next year?
TOMASEVIC: Of course I can, why not. But we will also see the polls, about who is standing against Bandic, they have not been done for three years. So, we don't know what my rating is against Bandic, what Maras is , what Petek is , what Anka Mrak-Taritas is . Although, it seems to me that the placement of Gordan Maras on the sixth place of the SDP list in the First Constituency is not exactly a message that that party is counting on him as its candidate for mayor of Zagreb.
TELEGRAM: What if he was still an SDP candidate and entered the second round with Bandic.
TOMASEVIC: We said that we should do everything in our power to make Bandic no longer mayor.
TELEGRAM: And even if the price is support for Maras?
TOMASEVIC: That seems like an incredible scenario to me, but we said that we have to find ways as an opposition for Bandic to lose. If he remains mayor, I don't know what else we will do in Zagreb. I do not see, however, that Bandic remains mayor as a realistic possibility, but, on the other hand, a year in politics is a lot. Who knows, we may not even have to agree to go against Bandic as a united opposition, who knows where he will be in a year. We see, after all, how the whole world turns upside down in just three months.
TELEGRAM: In your policies, you constantly insist on greater participation of citizens in decision-making, on more referendums, especially local ones…
TOMASEVIC: More direct, deliberative, even representative democracy.
TELEGRAM: What exactly would deliberative democracy mean?
TOMAŠEVIĆ: That people participate in discussions in the decision-making process at the beginning, that they can express their opinion and that it is respected, that the decision-making process is of better quality. I am thinking specifically of, for example, participatory budgeting, that people define priority in city districts, communal needs, but through a discussion process. A referendum is a decision of yes / no, there is no debate in which a compromise or consensus is reached. On the other hand, representative democracy has also been eroded, especially at the local level. The Lex Sheriff practically disempowered the representative bodies in the local self-government units in relation to the local leaders
TELEGRAM: Do you think that the mandates of local government leaders should be limited to two consecutive ones?
TOMASEVIC: Yes. That's in our program. I would not give myself more than two terms either. Any government that is concentrated for a long time and has so many resources in its hands, prevents change. Part of my political values is that skepticism towards any concentration of political power, even in my hands.
TELEGRAM: Let's go back to direct democracy. Your commitment to it reminds me a little of what Most is talking about, they are very willing to insist on referendums, especially those they say have been stolen, on the Istanbul Convention and the electoral system.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: These are their ideological referendums, which mostly go hand in hand with the failed referendum of Željka Markić on the electoral system. They are pushing it because of their electorate. My objection to the SDP from the left perspective is that they agreed, fearing that the referendum for joining the EU would not pass, to the abolition of the quorum for the national referendum, according to which it was necessary for 50 percent of voters to join it in order to be valid. . So now three people are enough to change the Constitution in a referendum, even in human rights issues, as we had with the definition of marriage, and at the local level, where you decide what is the communal priority, at least 50 percent of people must go for the referendum to be valid !
TELEGRAM: Do you think it should be the other way around?
TOMASEVIC: Yes. Perhaps at the national level the condition should not be exactly fifty percent, but a slightly lower turnout, but in any case there is no logic that there is no mandatory turnout for the validity of the referendum at the national level, and at the local level a virtually impossible turnout is higher. from the usual turnout in local elections.
TELEGRAM: I didn't accidentally introduce the bridge into the story. Some polls suggest that the SDP will agree with the parliamentary majority, with you, but also with Most. Would you support such a combination?
TOMAŠEVIĆ: I wouldn't ... With their statements about abortion… Most acted as a center and based on that they had an initial success with 19 mandates, based on the story "neither HDZ nor SDP". Some even resent us for being transparent about who we are willing to work with after the election! We have already said more about the conditions for supporting the minority government and with whom, than all other political actors. Everyone pretends to be silly and doesn't want to say who they could work with after the election and who they wouldn't.
TELEGRAM: I guess people don't like people hypothetical questions.
TOMASEVIC: I want to say that we are already more transparent than everyone else in terms of who we could and could not with after the elections. The bridge never did that. Most played "Neither HDZ nor SDP", and he knew he could not with SDP. The HDZ has been brought to power twice and is now, in the last step, revealing itself as a completely right-wing party.
TELEGRAM: For the truth's sake, they broke up with the HDZ twice after only a few months.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: Okay, but they assured the notary that he would not go with them! Realistically, I don’t see anything in common with Most and I think the SDP would be suicidal to go into a coalition with them.
TELEGRAM: So Bernardic can freely cross out from his notebook the possibility of a triple coalition in which both you and Most would be.
TOMASEVIC: He is free to cross. How could it even be possible for us and Raspudic to support the same government ?!
TELEGRAM: In the coalition framework, you insist, among other things, on greater employee participation in decision-making in the workplace. Many will criticize you for being very reminiscent of…
TOMASEVIC: Self-government.
TELEGRAM: Yes. What is the difference? The self-government of the 1980s in Yugoslavia did not really work, there were more pro forma.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: We still have a legal obligation, which is not really respected, according to which the employee's representative must be a member of the company's Supervisory Board. It is also participation. Such as employee participation in cooperatives. This is not a radical concept, a cooperative in Europe has about 200,000 and 17% of European citizens are members of a cooperative. In Western European, Yalta capitalist countries, workers who participate in decision-making about their firm are considered to be more motivated and to do better. In cooperatives, moreover, there are co-owners and no one who does not work in the cooperative can be a co-owner. Basically, there are different models of greater economic democracy and I don’t see any problem in having more democracy in private as well as in public firms.
What we keep saying is that we want more employee representatives on the Supervisory Boards of public companies, because now that there is only one, if he sees that something is going against the interests of the company and all of us who are taxpayers, if he tells anyone about it, everyone will know that he is the source. All other members of the Supervisory Board are appointed exclusively politically, ie party-wise. Furthermore, the Supervisory Board of public companies should also include representatives of the users of the services it provides, independent experts, and perhaps representatives of some associations. I emphasize, it is about the Supervisory Board, not the Administration. She is a professional, she is selected in a competition, she is given business goals, and in my opinion, some social goals should be set. Because a public company cannot aim for profit alone.
It must not be a decisive criterion for us that, for example, HEP earns billions of kunas in profit. The crucial criterion should be how is that electricity they sell produced, environmentally friendly or not? Is it expensive, should it be more affordable because of the economy and private users? Is it available spatially? Does HEP's transition to renewable sources, balanced regional development of the state help? For years I have been researching the functioning of public companies in different cities, the models I am talking about exist in Paris, Barcelona… Public companies can really function much better and really work for the public, not to be, as now, ATMs for political parties.
TELEGRAM: Is there, however, a possibility that with a few seats in Parliament you will influence public companies to stop being party ATMs?
TOMAŠEVIĆ: It is very important to me, but I do not want to prejudge the agreement with the coalition partners. Public enterprises are in a way the infrastructure of society and are crucial for economic development. If HEP, Croatian Waters, Croatian Forests, Croatian Railways do not work, a lot of things will not work in the private sector either. From this perspective, I do not see how without public enterprise reform we can make a development shift towards a green economy that would be more resilient to external shocks, from pandemics to climate change.
TELEGRAM: Except through the transformation of public enterprises, how do you intend to push the green transformation of the economy, which is increasingly emerging as a major European and world theme at least the first half of this century.
TOMASEVIC: All dirty industries and technologies should be taxed. That's where the money comes from. Tax policy should punish undesirable behavior, and subsidies should reward the desirable. However, we have seen when we also have subsidies for renewable energy to investors, which it turns into when it is managed by the HDZ. But we are even against further subsidizing renewable energy, because its market price is such that it is not necessary today.
What we would help from the budget is that citizens put microsolars on their roofs. It is unbelievable that only Maribor has more microsolars than the whole of Croatia. Not to mention Dalmatia, where in some cases gas is used to heat water, and the solar collector does not need to be ordered from China, I make it with my own hands. But here, everyone has learned to use imported gas, which will be more and more expensive in the future. In that sense, we wouldn't nationalize .. this… I have to pay attention to the words (laughs).
TELEGRAM:…
TOMASEVIC: We would not buy Ina. First of all, the HDZ had already devastated her until he extradited her to Mol. In addition, oil is now exported for refining to Hungary, Ina has been reduced to a network of gas stations, with weak exploration capacity. From the perspective of the 21st century, climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Ina is not a priority for us. HEP, however, is. Electrification will be needed in all sectors of society and in that sense HEP is a strategic company that we would not privatize in any percentage. If private actors entered HEP's ownership structure with a small share, then the only criterion for HEP's operations would be the realized profit and dividend, and then our plan for those social goals according to which the work of HEP's management would be evaluated would fall into place. .
TELEGRAM: In the coalition framework, you are also advocating for strengthening the role of trade unions. Many analysts consider the role of trade unions to be a brake on reforms in the Croatian economy.
TOMASEVIC: It depends on what kind of reforms. Many in Croatia advocate the Scandinavian model, and there the unionization, ie the percentage of workers who are members of the union, is several times higher than in Croatia. We can talk about the quality of the union, the leadership…
TELEGRAM: The bigger role of trade unions in your country no longer means Vilim Ribić or some other current trade union leaders?
TOMASEVIC: We believe that greater trade unionization of workers contributes to greater workers' rights. We are at the top of the European Union in terms of precarious forms of work, ie insecure, poorly paid and temporary work. We need to address this in labor legislation, but not only there, just as we cannot address the sustainability of the pension system only within the pension system.
Without another development model, which does not go to low-paid jobs, to seasonal work, without a development model for which we need modernization of education, investment in technology and research, green industry that creates new value and new well-paid jobs, we cannot improve the quality of life of people who make a living from their work. And without increasing the number of workers compared to the number of retirees, we cannot have a more sustainable pension system.
TELEGRAM: What does the attitude of your coalition that health and education must not depend on the thickness of the wallet mean for private clinics and private polytechnics?
TOMASEVIC: It is okay that there are private clinics and private polytechnics. But the trend of Americanization of education and health care, according to which accessible and high-quality public health and education is becoming low-quality and inaccessible, and thus the only option remains expensive private hospitals and schools, is unacceptable to us.
And in this crisis, the European model of public health has proven to be much better than the others. In the US, people were in a situation where they were considering whether to tell their employer they had a fever because they knew they would not have sick leave, that they would have to pay a doctor's and fat for a crown, so they preferred to lie, go to work and infect more. three persons. Solidarity, in short, cannot be a matter of goodwill of some wealthier citizens and humanitarian actions.
TELEGRAM: Radical liberals are just pulling their hair out.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: From my perspective, solidarity must be institutionalized, based on a fair tax system and such a social, health and educational policy. If we believe that equality of opportunity is based on all available education and preschool education, then we can not have a system of vouchers and a situation where everyone would decide where his tax will go, ie in private or public hospitals and schools.
In that case, the entire public education and health system, based on solidarity between the rich and the poor, is falling apart. Namely, public health and education systems are based on the fact that the one who earns more must pay more and contribute more, so that everyone in this society, regardless of the thickness of the wallet, has the right to education and health services. It is not normal for me to have children in the 21st century who are hungry in schools because their parents cannot afford a snack.
TELEGRAM: You and the rest of the opposition have fiercely criticized the fact that the Parliament was dissolved before the adoption of the Law on the Reconstruction of Zagreb after the earthquake.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: The rest of the opposition is much smaller, because, for example, the SDP and the HDZ voted for the dissolution of the Parliament before the adoption of that law.
TELEGRAM: Realistically, if they had not voted for the dissolution of the Parliament, the HDZ would have attacked them for fear of going to the polls.
TOMASEVIC: They are now criticizing the dissolution of Parliament because the law has not been adopted, and they are also criticizing the calling of elections in an epidemic situation. At the same time, despite both, they voted for the dissolution of the Parliament, and now the HDZ is talking about it. And why did they do that? Because Bernardić was afraid that Plenković would call him a coward.
TELEGRAM: Well, he was rightly afraid, that's politics. Parliament would be dissolved anyway no matter how the SDP votes.
TOMASEVIC: Well, that's exactly why! But then the SDP could point out that he was not in favor of dissolving Parliament. What will Bernardic say to Plenković now ? It's unconvincing to me. They were not for the early elections, and they voted that way.
TELEGRAM: Well, the fact is that they were not for the earlier elections.
TOMASEVIC: But they did not dare to insist on that until the end. Sometimes you need to be more responsible to yourself and to society, and less afraid of the Prime Minister calling you a coward.
TELEGRAM: And what kind of Law on Reconstruction should be passed at all?
TOMASEVIC: The one that would clearly define the financial framework. That, for example, the state gives fifty percent, the city 35, and private co-owners 15 percent of the funds for reconstruction. And then those 15 percent should also depend on social criteria. This is roughly our framework proposal. Furthermore, the law should also define the operational capacities for reconstruction, which the current one does not do, but defines coordination between ministries, which is a floating body and I think it will not work.
We have good experiences with the Institute for the Reconstruction of Dubrovnik after the earthquake of the seventies, it was an expert body founded by Dubrovnik and the state where the reconstruction was really led by the profession. Both in Dubrovnik and now in Zagreb, it is about the restoration of the culturally protected core and I think that the Institute for the Reconstruction of Zagreb and its surroundings should be established according to a similar model.
Basically, financial and operational conditions need to be transparent and clear so people know what to expect. Because now it's really chaos. Some citizens order detailed inspections that are paid for fat, some go to the renovation project, the market has completely exploded, the prices of water heaters, detailed inspections, project documentation, repairs have gone sky high. And the state left everything to the wild market - they did not make any public procurement, nor did they pass a regulation by which they could regulate prices, as they did at the beginning of the pandemic.
Everything is left to earthquake-profiteers, and the citizens are left to manage as they know and can. At the same time, they do not know whether anything they are financing now will be returned to them, in any amount. We also do not allow the idea of renovation, which would mean restoring the original condition for, for example, public buildings - schools, kindergartens, hospitals. Because, if we return them to their original state, then some future earthquake will do this kind of damage again. We need to have an earthquake recovery. Which costs, so we have to decide for which facilities it will go. There are a lot of things like that and that’s why I don’t like it when someone says they’ll pass the law in three days.
TELEGRAM: He would not be the first to be brought over the knee.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: Over the summer in peace, we want to discuss the law in two readings with the profession, not only MPs, so that it is of high quality.
TELEGRAM: Finally, I would like to ask you another, perhaps superfluous, hypothetical question. The mandates could be distributed after the elections so there will probably be a hundred wonders around reaching the majority needed to form a government. Is there any possibility to support a government composed of HDZ. Let's say they accept all your beliefs, and equality, and green transformation…
TOMASEVIC: No. A new Croatia cannot be built with a party that is being tried for crime, not to mention the convicted leaders of that party. In practice, the HDZ has shown what it means to accept the conditions and then do the opposite. Is there one coalition partner that has survived cooperation with them. Anyone who is satisfied with the cooperation with the HDZ? Here, who goes with them from these in the last convocation?
TELEGRAM: Of all the important ones, only Hrebak, HSLS.
TOMASEVIC: Only him. To survive. To take another eventual term. But we have another problem here. The mayor of a small town in Croatia cannot do anything without the state, he is literally blackmailed if he wants a new mayoral mandate in Bjelovar. They can make it very difficult for him with Hrvatske vode, Hrvatske šume, with all infrastructure projects…
TELEGRAM: Still, there are a lot of mayors in Croatia who do not go to the polls with the HDZ.
TOMAŠEVIĆ: Yes, but I don't think people understand the reality of the mayors of small towns who are heavily dependent on state-owned companies and then the central government can sabotage and blackmail them in a million ways. And that is why we need the reorganization of local self-government and the consolidation of units to have greater autonomy than the central state. Of course, someone doesn’t agree to that kind of blackmail. But some agree.
TELEGRAM: Basically, nothing from your support for the right-wing government. We don't have to go to a notary public.
TOMASEVIC: None of our coalition's support for the HDZ.
TELEGRAM: And your personal political ambitions in the future?
As for me personally, my path is clear. Parliament, work on the Law on the Reconstruction of Zagreb, dealing with Zagreb, where I will continue to be a city representative. And then the candidacy for mayor in May 2021, if the local elections are not for some reason earlier.
