The nation-state of Slovakia, as it exists today, was born out of the Velvet Revolution of 1989, a pivotal moment that marked the country’s break from Soviet control and its aspirations toward democracy. The peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 saw Slovakia emerge as an independent state, navigating the complex transition from a centrally planned economy and authoritarian governance to a liberal democratic framework.5 After joining the European Union (EU) in 2004, Slovakia integrated itself into the broader European project, embracing political pluralism, market liberalization, and institutional reforms aimed at fostering democratic resilience.6 

However, Slovakia’s democratic trajectory has been punctuated by episodes of backsliding. In the 1990s, the authoritarian tendencies of former Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar’s successive governments set early precedents for executive overreach. Governance under Mečiar (1990-1,1992-4, 1994-8) was characterized by state-controlled media, political purges, and rampant corruption.7 Although later governments sought to rectify these deficiencies, the return of Robert Fico as Prime Minister in October 2023 has reignited fears of illiberal governance.8  

Since its early days, Prime Minister Robert Fico’s administration (October 2023–present) has aggressively restructured Slovakia’s cultural sector, leveraging legislative reforms and strategic appointments to consolidate control over the country’s cultural institutions. These actions signal a deliberate effort to align the country’s arts and cultural governance with the ideological priorities of his political party, SMER-SSD, and its coalition partners, particularly the Slovak National Party (SNS), which is the most hardline nationalist faction within the governing coalition. Central to this transformation is the systematic dismantling of safeguards that ensured the independence and professionalism of cultural institutions. By politicizing the Ministry of Culture and installing unqualified, ideologically aligned leaders, the government has reoriented the state’s cultural apparatus and laid the groundwork for it to serve as a nationalist propaganda vehicle. 

Under the pretense of modernization, the incumbent administration has replaced long-standing directors, eliminated expert-led decision-making structures, and centralized authority within the Ministry. These measures have disrupted institutional stability, marginalized dissenting voices, and curtailed artistic freedom. The resulting shifts echo troubling regional trends where illiberal regimes have exploited the state’s cultural apparatus to suppress pluralism and promote exclusionary agendas. 

The Politicization of the Ministry of Culture  

The SNS program to assert ideological control of the arts and cultural sector began in earnest after the appointment of key party members to the leadership of Slovakia’s Ministry of Culture. In October 2023, SNS parliamentary representative Martina Šimkovičová was appointed Minister of Culture, despite having no background in cultural policy or management.9 Prior to her political career, Šimkovičová was a television presenter for TV Markíza, one of Slovakia’s most prominent mainstream broadcasters. Known for making controversial statements, she was dismissed from that role in the summer of 2015 for remarks expressing anti-refugee and anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) sentiments. She later joined Televízia Slovan, a channel known for promoting conspiracy theories.10 Šimkovičová’s ministerial tenure has been marked by attacks on minority groups and confrontations with cultural institutions, signaling that her appointment will represent a significant shift away from inclusionary policies in cultural governance.  

Compounding these concerns was the subsequent appointment of Lukáš Machala as General Secretary of the Ministry of Culture’s Service Office. Machala has a history of disseminating conspiracy theories, including publicly questioning whether the Earth is round and promoting chemtrail narratives, which previously led to his resignation from public office.11 His leadership—characterized by the targeted dismissal of key directors of cultural institutions and ministry employees without clear justification, as detailed below —led to public protests and mobilization by cultural workers.12 Reports of his authoritarian management style and aggressive centralization of power within the Ministry reflect a deeply ideological agenda, one that stifles transparency, fosters division, and intensifies fear across Slovakia’s cultural sector. The cultural workers interviewed for this report uniformly stated that Machala has created a climate of fear within the Ministry, where managers and directors are in danger of being removed or replaced without notice and department funding can be cut at whim. 

Together, Šimkovičová and Machala have gained and exerted disproportionate influence over Slovakia’s cultural governance. As both lack appropriate qualifications and possess controversial backgrounds in right-wing politics, their appointments suggest a deliberate strategy to transform the Ministry of Culture into a vehicle for propagandist objectives. Machala himself openly declared, “We are patriots, we want to save Slovakia from this rabid pack of progressives in some non-governmental organizations, cultural institutions, in art and in the media,”13 reflecting a clear intent to align the Ministry with the SNS’s nationalist agenda.  

While the authors of this report acknowledge that governing political parties and administrations have the right to select Ministers of Culture and pursue their own cultural policies, the position of Artistic Freedom Initiative (AFI) is that cultural institutions should be apolitically managed and not be vessels for political propaganda. Our organization’s deeper concern is that these changes appear to track with regional trends in cultural governance—particularly in Poland under the previous ruling party, Law and Justice (PiS), and in Hungary under the current Hungarian Civic Alliance (FIDESZ) regime—and that these early measures are ultimately aimed towards the larger political goals of (1) deplatforming artists who use their creativity to speak out against the regime, (2) transforming key arts and cultural institutions into instruments for nationalist propaganda, and (3) creating an intimidating environment for free expression in the arts and cultural sector whereby artists choose to self-censor rather than express viewpoints contrary to the government’s political platform. 

Nationalistic and conservative shift in cultural policy 

The nationalist and exclusionary turn of the SNS’s cultural policies became evident early in Minister Šimkovičová’s tenure. Her manifesto-like statement during Prime Minister Fico’s visit to the Ministry of Culture on November 6, 2023, encapsulated the shift: “The culture of the Slovak people should be Slovak. Slovak, and no other. We tolerate other national cultures, but our culture is not a mixing of other cultures.”14 This rhetoric was followed by Šimkovičová’s January 2024 public remarks, where she criticized the state of cultural affairs within the Ministry and specifically referred to a “Pandora’s box” of contracts supporting LGBTQ+ initiatives and allocating subsidies to progressive non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In response to her alleged discovery, she threatened an audit of the Ministry. 

To reinforce this shift, the Minister conducted a controversial online Facebook poll on her personal account that framed cultural funding as a binary choice between preserving heritage projects or supporting “LGBTQ+ events where minors are to learn how to perform in a sexual show [and] rainbow parades, where half-naked people are paraded in the squares.”15 Only days later, Šimkovičová announced the termination of funding for LGBTQ+ artistic and cultural initiatives. (See report section, Experiences of Censorship and Suppression.) 

The SNS rapidly followed these actions with a legislative push to centralize control over cultural institutions. In January 2024, the party introduced a package of laws targeting the governance of two of the main art funds—the Audiovisual Fund (AVF) and the Slovak Arts Council (FPU)—as well as the operational standards of museums and galleries.16 These laws were eventually passed in the first half of 2024, and their implementation and impact are discussed in greater detail below. (See report section, Legislative Reforms Enabling Political Control Over Cultural Institutions.)  

The legislative takeover of public cultural funding is deeply intertwined with a broader erosion of democratic freedoms, particularly the shrinking space for freedom of information and expression. In June 2024, the parliament approved a controversial law dissolving the public broadcaster, Radio and Television Slovakia (RTVS), and replacing it with Slovak Television and Radio (STVR).17 This move was widely criticized by international organizations such as the European Broadcasting Union, the International Press Institute, and the Council of Europe, and significantly undermined media independence.18  

In parallel, symbolic policies further reinforced the nationalist agenda in Slovakia’s cultural governance. The government revised the State Language Act to emphasize the primacy of Slovak in public life, a move that critics argue marginalizes minority cultures and languages.19 Similarly, the Ministry of Culture spearheaded a contentious project to rearrange the national anthem, incorporating traditional Slovak fujara tones—deep, airy melodies played on a long wooden shepherd’s flute, historically associated with Slovak folk heritage—to emphasize national identity. The anthem’s revision drew sharp criticism for its lack of public consultation and association with exclusionary rhetoric implying the anthem was “not meant for everyone.”20 

In June 2024, further signaling the government’s intent to centralize and nationalize the cultural sector, reports emerged of a feasibility plan commissioned by the Ministry.21 The plan proposed consolidating major entities, such as the Slovak National Museum (SNM) and the Slovak National Gallery (SNG), into new “Slovak national” organizations. Estimated to cost hundreds of millions of euros, this controversial project would reshape the cultural landscape, affecting thousands of employees and properties while reinforcing state control over the sector. One particularly concerning aspect is the handling of artwork, with critics alarmed by the potential misuse or misappropriation of cultural property.22  

In early 2024, the Ministry also began restructuring cultural organizations. (See report section, Purge of personnel and dismantling of institutions.) The process started in January 2024 with the controversial announcement of the merger of Kunsthalle Bratislava with the SNG, a move widely criticized for its ideological motivation and lack of transparency. Soon after, the Ministry initiated a wave of leadership dismissals across core state institutions. On the same day in March 2024, the heads of the International House of Art for Children (BIBIANA) and the National Library were dismissed. By August, the removals had escalated, with the directors of the SNG and the Slovak National Theatre (SND) both replaced, triggering public outrage. In September, the head of the SNM was also dismissed, further illustrating the Ministry’s intent to consolidate control over Slovakia’s cultural institutions.  

These actions represent a deliberate strategy by the SNS-led Ministry of Culture to impose a nationalist agenda, marginalize progressive voices, and dismantle structures that previously upheld cultural diversity and autonomy. However, while driven by clear ideological goals, the government’s lack of institutional expertise and inability to ensure the smooth operation of cultural institutions has led to significant disruptions. In less than a year, this combination of political restructuring and administrative inefficiency has significantly reshaped Slovakia’s cultural governance, aligning it with exclusionary and ideological objectives that echo similar trends in neighboring Hungary and Poland, albeit with a more chaotic and improvised execution. 

The following two sections will detail how the SNS embarked on a specific course of action enabling them to harness control of the arts and cultural sector, specifically through (1) passing legislation empowering the ruling party to control arts and cultural funding, (2) enacting laws augmenting the Ministry of Culture’s regulatory control over the management of state cultural institutions, (3) large scale purging of Ministry personnel, (4) targeted dismissals of the directors of the most prominent state cultural institutions, and (5) and their replacement with politically connected directors with questionable backgrounds in cultural management.  

Legislative Reforms Enabling Political Control Over Cultural Institutions 

Since its inception, the Fico administration consolidated control over the arts and cultural sector by implementing legislative reforms that effectively dismantled mechanisms designed to ensure the political independence and transparency of Slovakia’s state cultural institutions. Specifically, the SNS enacted key laws that augmented the Ministry of Culture’s authority over (1) funding allocations in the cultural sector and (2) management decisions in state-led museums and galleries. Given the appointment of right-wing nationalist Minister Šimkovičová and General Secretary Machala to head the Ministry of Culture, there was initially considerable concern that the purpose of such legislation was to align the governance and programming of Slovak cultural institutions with the Fico administration’s ideological agenda. This concern was in part based on Hungary’s similar course of conduct over the last decade, which entailed passing legislation and enacting reforms to consolidate the Orbán government’s complete political control over cultural institutions.

Indeed, early actions taken by the Ministry pursuant to these new laws have confirmed fears that the SNS is seeking to instrumentalize the state’s cultural apparatus and use it to advance a nationalist platform.  

Increased state control over funding for art and culture  

In January 2024, SNS deputies introduced a package of amendments to cultural funding laws that fundamentally altered the functioning of two key institutions in the funding scheme of arts and culture in Slovakia: the AVF and the FPU. These two institutions are at the core of the country’s funding scheme for arts and culture, distributing 28 million euros in 2023 across a wide range of cultural projects and initiatives.23 The amendments significantly increased the number of Ministry of Culture appointees in both executive and oversight roles within these funds, enabling the appointment of politically aligned individuals. Furthermore, the reforms eliminated professional qualifications for board members and stripped away requirements for evidence-based decision-making in funding allocations, effectively dismantling the safeguards that had ensured their institutional independence and expertise-driven management. 

Amendment to Act No. 516/2008 on the Slovak Audiovisual Fund (AVF) 

Established in 2010 as an independent entity, the AVF replaced the previous ministerial fund as the primary mechanism for supporting Slovak film.24 Funded through a combination of state allocations and contributions, it is dedicated to the development, production, distribution, promotion, and participation of Slovak films in international festivals. 

From its inception, the AVF was designed as an expert-led structure to ensure that funding decisions were independent from political influence and based on artistic and industry merit. The Fund operates through three key bodies: the Board, the Supervisory Board, and the Director. While these bodies oversee the AVF administration and financial management, the core decision-making power regarding the allocation of grants historically rested with expert committees—composed of industry professionals with substantial experience in film production, distribution, and other audiovisual sectors.25 

Effective August 1, 2024, the amendment26 to Act No. 516/2008 introduced significant changes that fundamentally altered this expert-driven system, diminishing the independence of the funding process.27 While the three governing bodies—the Board, the Supervisory Board, and the director—formally remain in place, the amendment has profoundly changed their functioning and the role of experts within them.  

At the executive level, the new law transferred the authority to allocate grants away from the expert committees and the director, concentrating decision-making power in the hands of the Board. Under the previous system, the Board did not intervene in the allocation of individual grants but instead provided oversight and strategic direction, while expert committees made funding recommendations that were assessed by the director. The new law upends this balance by granting the Board direct authority over funding decisions, allowing it to override expert recommendations. 

The composition of the Board has also been altered to increase the influence of the Ministry of Culture.  The AVF is funded by multiple bodies—including broadcasters, public service television, and distributors—necessitating their representation on the Board. While the AVF’s Board used to be composed of nine members, all appointed to six-year terms by the Ministry of Culture, the amendment increased the number of members to thirteen. Crucially, under the previous system, the Board had only one ministerial seat. The expansion to thirteen members significantly increased the Ministry’s influence, raising the number of ministerial seats from one to five. 

Although the Ministry of Culture does not hold an outright majority, with five ministerial seats out of thirteen, the new system grants these ministerial nominees significant leverage. Under the new structure, at least nine out of thirteen Board members must vote to adopt an expert committee’s decision. This means that without the support of at least one ministerial nominee, funding recommendations can be blocked. This effectively provides the SNS-controlled Ministry with a powerful tool of censorship, even without a direct majority on the Board. 

The Supervisory Board is an oversight body responsible for monitoring the fund’s financial management and ensuring compliance with legal and statutory obligations. The new law increases the number of Supervisory Board members from three to five. While the Board remains in charge of nominating two members of the Supervisory Board, under the new law the Ministry of Culture has been granted the authority to dismiss and replace three members. By appointing the majority of the members of the Supervisory Board, the Ministry of Culture effectively gained control of the fund’s oversight body.  

While Minister Šimkovičová and General Secretary Machala framed these changes as a step towards greater transparency and fairness, Machala’s statements reveal a deeper intent to weed out progressive projects. For example, he described the reform as “an end to nepotism, wastefulness, and patronage in the allocation of subsidies for all kinds of projects of the liberal-progressive mafia in [the] audiovisual [sector].”28  

The film industry and the cultural community at large criticized these changes as a threat to the independence and functionality of the Slovak audiovisual industry. The implementation of the new legislation raised issues regarding Šimkovičová’s appointment of Štefan Dlugolínský as a member of the AVF Board.29 On August 16, 2024, professional audiovisual organizations publicly objected to his Board appointment, citing his lack of relevant experience in cinema and the opaque selection process.30 They criticized the Ministry of Culture for disregarding their proposed candidate, Adriana Tomanová, a seasoned audiovisual production expert, without clear justification. It is important to note that Dlugolinský served as the deputy director of Slovak Television (STV) during a period marked by allegations against the administration of former Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar of political misuse of the broadcaster, including violating the election law.31 Further, he participated in the privatization of the joint-stock company Štúdio Koliba, which was associated with the shuttering of film production facilities in Slovakia. Perhaps most alarmingly, Dlugolinský was the former chairman of the Slovak Association of Journalists (SAN), a defunct organization whose vice-chairman was Roman Michelko—a current SNS member, parliamentarian, and co-author of this amendment to the Act on the Audiovisual Fund.32  

Amendment to Act No. 284/2014 on the Slovak Arts Council (FPU) 

Established in 2015, the FPU is the primary public institution for financing and supporting art, culture, and creative industries in Slovakia.33 Operating under the Ministry of Culture, the FPU was designed to be an independent grant-awarding body to systematically support artistic and cultural projects across diverse fields, including visual arts, music, theater, literature, and cultural heritage. The FPU’s independence and integrity, much like the AVF, relied on approximately 70 expert commissions responsible for evaluating project proposals based on artistic merit and sector-specific expertise.  

Overriding former President Zuzana Čaputová’s veto, the parliament approved an amendment34 to Act No. 284/2014 that altered the functioning of the FPU’s three decision-making bodies: the Board, the Supervisory Board, and the director.35 The new law increased the number of Board members from nine to thirteen. It granted the Minister of Culture greater control by allowing the direct appointment of eight members, instead of four. The remaining five members are still appointed based on proposals from professional associations or legally established cultural entities. 

Similar to the AVF amendment, this new legislation increased the number of FPU Board members and granted the Ministry of Culture the authority to appoint the majority. The amendment removed the requirement to consult professional experts in the appointment process, thereby eliminating guarantees for qualified representation across music, theater, literature, visual arts, and intangible cultural heritage. As a result, the Ministry now controls the majority of seats on the Board, enabling appointments without consultation with experts in the cultural sector. 

The professionalization of the FPU is further undermined by the decision to relegate the expert commissions, which are responsible for the independent evaluation of project proposals submitted to FPU, to an advisory role. This implies that decisions over the allocation of funds are no longer required to align with the independent assessment of experts in each relevant field.  

With these changes, the Ministry of Culture effectively gained significant influence over the funding of art originating from non-state entities such as freelance artists, cultural NGOs, and organizations operating outside the Ministry’s direct control.  

The FPU expressed serious concerns about these changes, highlighting significant operational and governance challenges.36 The newly approved legislation disproportionately concentrated decision-making authority within the thirteen-member Board, replacing the previous system of 70 expert commissions. This shift created a bottleneck in processing the approximately 5,000 annual applications for funding, leading to delays in deliberation and fund distribution. Additionally, granting the Ministry of Culture the power to nominate members to both the Board and the Supervisory Board raised concerns about conflicts of interest, further necessitating comprehensive regulatory revisions. 

On August 13, 2024, Minister Šimkovičová replaced three FPU Board members with appointees widely perceived to be aligned with the Ministry due to their lack of recognition within professional sectors and their failure to attend meetings.37 The persistent absenteeism of these new appointees repeatedly prevented the Board from reaching a quorum, effectively halting 2025 funding allocations.38 This paralysis fueled allegations of political interference aimed at undermining the fund’s functionality. Philosopher Ján Hrkút, the only consistently active participant, revealed that he faced pressure to abstain from meetings before being dismissed and replaced.39 The situation worsened in November 2024, when the failure to renew mandates for 26 expert commission members further crippled FPU operations. 

On December 18, 2024, the FPU presented a new draft statute, which immediately sparked criticism due to concerns that its provisions could significantly undermine funding for cultural centers, festivals, museums, galleries, and libraries. Critics, including the Association of Self-Governing Regions (SK8), accused Šimkovičová’s Ministry of Culture of systematically dismantling the support structures for culture by shifting priorities and excluding key cultural programs from funding.40 SK8 called for the Ministry to halt what they described as the “destruction of cultural support programs.” The draft statute is widely perceived as a politically motivated attempt to centralize control over cultural funding and remains under discussion, with a decision expected in the near future. 

The changes to the FPU’s governance structure and operations represent a significant shift toward centralization and political control, fundamentally undermining its original purpose as an independent grant-awarding body. By consolidating authority within the Ministry of Culture and sidelining expert input, these changes have disrupted the FPU’s ability to effectively and transparently support Slovakia’s diverse cultural sector. The operational paralysis, delayed funding, and exclusion of key cultural programs highlight the adverse impacts of these reforms, fostering allegations of political interference and mismanagement. As the FPU’s future remains uncertain, the ongoing debate over its draft statute underscores the urgent need for regulatory revisions to safeguard cultural independence and ensure the equitable and apolitical distribution of resources essential to Slovakia’s artistic and cultural landscape. 

Expansion of regulatory authority 

As part of broader efforts to consolidate control over cultural governance, the recent reforms have not only reshaped institutional oversight but also reversed progress toward transparency and modernization in the selection of statutory officials in museums and galleries. These changes have      heightened heightened concerns about the politicization of such appointments, further centralizing decision-making power within the Ministry of Culture. 

One of the most significant transparency measures in Slovakia’s cultural sector was the introduction of public hearings in the selection processes for cultural institutions, a reform implemented in 2020 under former Minister Natália Milanová.41 Designed to enhance transparency and fairness, these hearings allowed the public to assess candidates and their proposed management plans.42 The current generation of directors represents the first cohort to be selected through these transparent processes, marking a departure from past practices of discretionary ministerial appointments. 

However, this commitment to transparency was dismantled as part of the SNS legislative package aimed at streamlining cultural governance. Among the key reforms was an amendment43 to Act No. 206/2009 Coll. on Museums and Galleries which regulates the appointment and dismissals of statutory bodies of collection-based institutions.44  

While proponents framed the amendment as a managerial model intended to reduce the administrative burdens, in practice, it abolished critical safeguards designed to ensure transparent and merit-based selection procedures.45 First, it eliminated public hearings and removed protection against dismissal without cause. Furthermore, it revoked the five-year term limits for directors and senior staff. Instead, the new law established that the tenure of statutory bodies and senior employees is based on the assessment of their managerial qualities and performance in their role. 

The shift towards less transparent practices raised alarm about the enhanced risk of politicization faced by cultural institutions. 46 For example, the Slovak Museums Association denounced the new amendment as harmful to professionalism and meritocracy, as well as not conforming with standards across European museums.47 The proposal was vetoed by former President Zuzana Čaputová in May 2024. Čaputová cited concerns about transparency, fairness, and constitutionality.48  

Despite her veto, the National Council of the Slovak Republic overrode the former President in June 2024, re-approving Act No. 206/2009 Coll. On Museums and Galleries.49 

The Ministry of Culture rapidly enforced the Act, dismissing long-standing leadership at key institutions. In the first week of August 2024, the directors of the SND and the SNG were removed from their positions, followed by the dismissal of the SNM director on September 30, 2024. (See report section, Targeted dismissals in cultural leadership.) 

Key Takeaways 

These reforms illustrate how the incumbent Slovak government, under Minister Šimkovičová, has laid the groundwork for non-democratic practices that threaten pluralism of expression and artistic freedom. By consolidating decision-making power over cultural financing, centralizing authority within the Ministry of Culture, and politicizing leadership appointments, the government has created conditions that raise significant concerns about the future of Slovakia’s cultural landscape. 

While it may be too early to fully assess the effects of these changes, the immediate consequences—such as the erosion of institutional autonomy, the marginalization of diverse voices, and the destabilization of cultural governance—are troubling. The dismantling of safeguards (e.g., expert evaluations and transparent selection processes), combined with a rhetoric that excludes progressive and minority perspectives, paints a worrying picture for the direction of cultural policy in Slovakia. 

The long-term prospects are concerning, as these reforms risk enabling censorship, reducing innovation, and fostering an environment of ideological conformity within the arts and culture sector. Although the full impact has yet to unfold, the ongoing trajectory suggests a potential weakening of artistic freedom and cultural diversity. 

Mechanisms of Cultural Control 

While increasing its direct control over funding, the government also secured indirect control over cultural institutions by dismissing most of the Ministry’s staff and replacing the directors of prominent state cultural institutions. 

Purge of personnel and dismantling of institutions  

Since her appointment, Minister Šimkovičová has initiated a significant restructuring of the Ministry of Culture, implementing a program of substantial personnel changes that affected nearly half of the ministry’s 240 staff members.50 The restructuring of cultural institutions began in January 2024 with events surrounding Kunsthalle Bratislava, a cornerstone of Slovakia’s contemporary art scene. Established in 2014 and independent since 2021, the Kunsthalle provided a platform for national and international contemporary art, showcasing diverse artistic voices, including feminist, queer, and marginalized perspectives, without maintaining a permanent collection. 51 

After the Ministry rescinded funding for its planned 2024 programs, Kunsthalle’s director, Jen Kratochvil, resigned and the institution was merged with the SNG.52 The Ministry justified this decision by asserting that Kunsthalle’s programming did not align with the government’s cultural priorities, particularly its emphasis on promoting traditional Slovak heritage.53 The merger with the SNG was presented as a cost-saving measure and a way to streamline cultural governance. By April 1, 2024, all Kunsthalle employees were dismissed, effectively dismantling one of Slovakia’s key platforms for contemporary art.54  

Critics—such as the International Association of Art Critics (AICA)—condemned this decision as opaque and ideologically motivated, framing it as a deliberate effort to suppress cultural diversity and align the institution with the government’s conservative agenda. 55 For many, the closure of Kunsthalle is not just a loss of an institution but a significant step backward for the contemporary art scene in Slovakia. The AICA expressed deep concern over the institution’s merger with the SNG, highlighting the negative impact on Kunsthalle’s reputation and programming autonomy.56 

By August 2024, the so-called “political purge” escalated, with the dismissal of long-standing leadership at key institutions alongside the contract termination of 30 specialists in arts and culture. Among the casualties was the Institute of Cultural Policy (IKP), which was dissolved as part of the Ministry’s broader restructuring plan. 

Established in 2018, the IKP functioned as the Ministry of Culture’s analytical center, offering evidence-based insights to support strategic decision-making.57 Its creation responded to evaluations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which had criticized the absence of data-driven policymaking in Slovakia.58 During its tenure, the IKP played a pivotal role in modernizing cultural governance, advising on policies such as the transparent appointment of cultural institution directors and Slovakia’s cultural contributions to EU reforms post-COVID-19 pandemic.59 Alongside the dismantling of the Creativity and Education Unit, the IKP’s closure on September 1, 2024 was officially justified as financial streamlining but widely seen as ideologically driven.60 

Marcel Čas, former head of the IKP, described the decision as ideologically motivated, noting, “The real reason was that [the Ministry] didn’t want people who do not fit their ideological vision inside.”61 He recounted how General Secretary Lukáš Machala, who is viewed as the de facto leader of the Ministry, threatened him with surveillance by the Slovak Information Service due to differing political opinions.62 Machala also played a central role in the Ministry’s broader cultural agenda, which critics have described as chaotic and destructive. 

Trade unions and cultural workers condemned the wave of dismissals as arbitrary and accused Machala of favoritism, alleging he appointed unqualified acquaintances to key positions.63 His critics say that Machala’s restructuring not only destabilized institutions but also symbolized a sharp departure from the Ministry’s previous trajectory of modernization and transparency.  

The dismantling of Kunsthalle and the IKP, coupled with the politicization of new appointments, has generated widespread fear over job instability and the de-legitimization of the cultural sector in Slovakia. Given the SNS’s anti-progressive rhetoric, these actions are widely perceived as a rapid centralization of cultural policy and the deliberate creation of an environment that demands compliance with nationalistic and conservative views. 

Targeted dismissals in cultural leadership 

By September 2024, the wave of dismissals initiated by the Ministry of Culture extended to the leadership of seven significant national cultural institutions, undermining their stability and autonomy.64 While the government oversees approximately 30 cultural institutions, these dismissals notably targeted major organizations, amplifying their impact on the cultural landscape. While leadership changes can often be expected with a new administration, the scale and nature of these actions have raised significant concerns. Based on interviews conducted by AFI and Open Culture! with dismissed directors, the abruptness, lack of formal justification, and absence of dialogue surrounding these dismissals strongly suggest political rather than professional motives, reflecting an apparent effort to centralize control and align cultural governance with the Ministry’s nationalist agenda. 

The first two dismissals occurred prior to the enactment of the new laws on cultural management. On March 25, 2024, the directors of the Slovak National Library and BIBIANA, Katarína Krištofová and Zuzana Liptáková, were dismissed from their respective positions.65 Both were removed on the same day and without warning during brief meetings with ministry officials. “I was invited to the ministry, and they just announced I was dismissed, with no reason,” Liptáková recalled.66 “By the time I walked back to BIBIANA, everyone already knew—it was prepared in advance.” 

In response to Liptáková’s dismissal, three employees and members of the Biennial of Animation Bratislava (BAB), a flagship initiative of BIBIANA, resigned in protest.67 The BIBIANA staff organized a protest outside of the institution and issued a statement defending Liptáková’s suitability for the role, as she had been the first director of the institution to be elected through public selection procedure.68 

The situation escalated on August 6 and 7, 2024, with the dismissal of the director of the SND, Matej Drlička, and the director of the SNG, Alexandra Kusá.69 Their removal sparked significant public outcry and turmoil, with protests and widespread criticism of the Ministry’s action. (See report section, Unified Solidarity and Open Culture!.) 

Kusá, who served as SNG director for over a decade and had been employed there since 2000, oversaw a transformative €75 million renovation, culminating in the reopening of the gallery in December 2022.70 The largest investment in a public building in Slovakia’s history, this monumental project elevated the SNG to a position of prominence within the European cultural landscape. However, Kusá faced accusations of a conflict of interest related to the reconstruction project and was criticized for alleged “anti-Slovak activities” following a protest during Slovakia’s exhibition at the 60th Venice Biennale.71 Over 360 artists and cultural workers signed an open letter denouncing her dismissal as a blow to the independence and reputation of Slovak culture. 72 

Appointed as director of the SND in 2021, Drlička also implemented reforms that modernized the institution and significantly improved its financial stability. His efforts to restructure the opera department boosted attendance from 50 per cent to 80 per cent; under his tenure, the SND achieved record-breaking sales of over five million euros and attracted nearly 275,000 visitors in 2023.73 His dismissal occurred days after the French Minister of Culture, Rachida Dati, honored him with a prestigious award for his cultural contributions and exemplary leadership at the SND.74 In a public statement about his dismissal, the Ministry cited serious misconduct and loss of trust, including failure to address issues previously raised, regulatory violations, and misuse of public funds.75  

Following Drlička’s removal, the institution experienced a leadership vacuum. During this time, the Ministry of Culture assumed interim management of the theatre, a move that raised legal concerns. The Slovak organization Stop Corruption filed a formal complaint against the government’s overreach.76 

In response to this incident, SND Economic Director Matej Bošňák and Opera Director Martin Leginus resigned from their positions in protest, which exacerbated the leadership vacuum.77 Cultural organizations, including Opera Europa, condemned the developments as an attack on artistic freedom and a troubling sign of political interference in Slovakia’s cultural institutions.78 The European Theatre Convention (ETC) expressed deep concern over the dismissal, viewing it as part of a broader trend by far-right parties across Europe to limit freedom of expression.79 They highlighted that such actions undermine the independence of democratic cultural institutions. 

The wave of dismissals continued on September 30 with the removal of the head of the SNM, Branislav Panis.80 Panis, who had overseen critical projects such as the renovation of Spiš Castle and Krásna Hôrka Castle, was removed under questionable allegations of “multiple managerial failures.” However, the Ministry did not elaborate on the specific nature of these alleged failures. Panis himself noted that the dismissal letter did not detail any reasons for his removal.81 The Slovak Museum Association and the International Council of Museums Slovakia (ICOM Slovakia) condemned the lack of transparency and emphasized the destabilizing impact of abrupt leadership changes. 82  

On December 10, Pavol Ižvolt was dismissed from his position as director of the Monuments Office. He was replaced by archaeologist Mário Comisso, a decision that raised concerns among heritage professionals and cultural experts. Critics noted that Comisso had previously faced allegations that nearly resulted in the revocation of his license to conduct archaeological research, casting doubt on the professional criteria guiding his appointment.83 

This massive turnover in leadership has created an atmosphere of uncertainty within Slovakia’s cultural institutions, with many wondering who might be next. On her Telegram channel, Minister Šimkovičová hinted at potential future targets, naming Maroš Schmidt, director of the Slovak Design Centre; Pavel Sibyla, director of the Slovak Literary Centre, who was later dismissed on January 8, 2025; and Robert Jindra, chief conductor of the Slovak State Philharmonic in Košice, among others.84 These individuals had publicly opposed the dismissals of Kusá and Drlička through their institutional platforms, leading the Minister to accuse them of spreading propaganda and suggesting that such political commentary could be grounds for dismissal. 

Patterns of dismissal  

The aforementioned dismissals were abrupt, often communicated during meetings or through perfunctory notices. Directors and employees have described the atmosphere as one of fear and uncertainty. As BIBIANA’s former director recounted, “The sudden announcement was not just shocking for me but left the entire team in chaos, with no time to process or plan.”85 Matej Drlička, former SND director, also described his dismissal as abrupt and inappropriate, recounting how it occurred unannounced while he was on sick leave, with Ministry officials delivering the news at his home without prior notice or preparation for a replacement.86 

In several cases, the allegations against the directors were later publicized through media and social platforms, with no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. Directors consistently denied these allegations, describing them as baseless and a form of instrumentalization to justify their removal. Drlička, for instance, was accused of “bullying and mismanagement” yet was never summoned to discuss these claims with the ministry.87 Zuzana Liptáková observed “No dissatisfaction was communicated prior to my dismissal. It was purely political, not based on any professional grounds.”88 Katarina Krištofová, the former director of the Slovak National Library, similarly noted, “The letter of dismissal was dated two weeks before the alleged reason—our cyberattack—even occurred.”89 Alexandra Kusá, the former SNG director, described the allegations against her as “vague and mostly fabricated”90 and accused the Ministry of initiating “an era of bullying and intimidation,” characterizing their approach as “pure destruction and demonstration of power.”91 

General Secretary Lukáš Machala of the Ministry of Culture was reported to have played a decisive role in the wave of dismissals, often appearing more actively involved than Minister Šimkovičová herself. His active participation was noted in meetings, direct communication of dismissals, and the orchestration of leadership changes across institutions. “Machala was in the room, informing me personally that I was dismissed. It was clear he was driving the agenda,” said Krištofová of the Slovak National Library.92 Similarly, Drlička of the SND remarked, “Machala fabricated reasons to justify the dismissals. He had no intention of discussing or resolving issues—his focus was solely on removal.”93 

Adding to the climate of uncertainty was the unpredictability of these decisions and the apparent lack of a clear governmental vision for cultural policy. Directors consistently reported that the government appears to lack a coherent cultural policy or long-term plan. “They don’t know what to do; it’s just chaos,” observed one former director.94 Machala’s focus on replacing individuals rather than implementing actionable reforms has led to a standstill in many institutions. “It seems like the goal is just to make things nonfunctional without any real plan for the future,” said a cultural worker.95 

The dismissals left a profound impact on the professional and personal lives of the directors, forcing many to navigate uncertain futures. As Liptáková noted, “I thought the period of BIBIANA was over for me, but its consequences keep reappearing.”96 After a period of rest, she transitioned to academia, managing a student theater at the Faculty of Theater. Drlička expressed a mix of freedom and sorrow, stating, “I feel free in a way to do what I can outside of it, but I’m very sad looking at the theater and what’s happening there because it’s miserable now.”97 For Krištofová, who dedicated nearly two decades to the Slovak National Library, the dismissal posed significant challenges, leaving her contemplating a move to the capital, Bratislava, or even abroad to find work. She described the difficulty of starting anew after devoting much of her career to the institution, stating, “It’s very hard for me to find another job here because [there is only one] National Library.”98 Despite their resilience and efforts to rebuild, these directors highlight the personal toll of the dismissals, underscoring how deeply the changes in Slovakia’s cultural governance have disrupted lives and careers. 

Politicized new appointments  

To replace the dismissed directors, the government predominantly nominated individuals with backgrounds in risk management, marketing, and television rather than cultural governance—many of whom have personal ties to Minister Šimkovičová or General Secretary Machala. 

Petra Flach, appointed as the acting director of BIBIANA in March 2024, has a background primarily in economics and management.99 Prior to her appointment, she worked in the economic sector, including a position at IBM.100 Flach resides in Kittsee, Austria, the same town as Minister Šimkovičová, and they have been seen together at public events, suggesting a personal acquaintance. Initially appointed as temporary statutory officer, Flach was nominated in July 2024 to be director of BIBIANA in a procedure that was later criticized due to the absence of other candidates.101 The members of the scientific board of BIBIANA subsequently resigned, accusing Flach of censorship. (See report section, Experiences of Censorship and Suppression.) 

Zuzana Ťapáková, a Slovak media executive with a background in theater studies from the Academy of Performing Arts in Bratislava (VŠMU)—and a former colleague of Minister Šimkovičová—was appointed interim director of the SND. 102 Her tenure was marked by the controversy over the decision to cancel a performance with LGBTQ+ themes, sparking allegations of censorship and underscoring the politicized environment within the institution. (See report section, Experiences of Censorship and Suppression.) 

The removal of Alexandra Kusá marked the start of a chaotic period for the SNG. Within six months, three directors—Anton Bittner, Miloš Timko, and Jaroslav Niňaj—were appointed and replaced in rapid succession, creating a leadership vacuum that disrupted the gallery’s operations. 

Anton Bittner, a manager with a background in international finance and corporate management, served as acting director for 54 days before being reassigned to the SNM.103 His successor, Miloš Timko is a Slovak consultant and auditor with experience in organizational audits and management. In September 2024, he conducted an audit at the SNG and was subsequently appointed as its interim director on October 1, 2024. Timko held the position for 55 days, during which he faced criticism for poor communication and non-transparent organizational changes.104 In November 2024, Jaroslav Niňaj was appointed as the third acting director. His tenure began amid controversies such as concerns about his lack of experience in visual arts.105 Scrutiny of Niňaj’s leadership at the SNG was intensified when the Association of Independent Producers expelled a company that he co-owned, FilmWorx, due to suspicions surrounding substantial grants from the AVF.106  

These successive leadership failures deepened the challenges facing the SNG, leaving it in a state of disarray and further eroding the confidence of employees and stakeholders. On November 21, 177 employees threatened mass resignations in January 2025 if their concerns—including targeted dismissals, non-transparent organizational changes, perceived incompetence, and inadequate communication—were not addressed. Days later, on November 26, the SNG’s department heads submitted a formal letter to Minister Šimkovičová, announcing their intent to resign and condemning the leadership for creating an environment of intimidation and demotivation. Due to the lack of any meaningful state response, the threatened mass resignation took place in January 2025, with employees officially set to leave their positions when their contracts expire in April 2025.107 

In response, Minister Šimkovičová downplayed the impact of the resignations, emphasizing the government’s ability to ensure the gallery’s continued operation, even in the absence of specific individuals. She stated: “The SNG is a significant cultural institution; however, its functioning is not inextricably linked to specific individuals.”108  

The changes at the SNM further underscored the challenges of leadership discontinuity after the dismissal of its former head, Branislav Panis, and the subsequent appointment of Anton Bittner as the temporary director of the SNM. Bittner’s leadership at the SNM quickly drew criticism from staff, particularly over his controversial personnel changes at the Betliar Museum, a specialized museum under the SNM’s Museum of History division. Citing internal regulations, Bittner dismissed Deputy Director Erika Šmelková and appointed journalist Andrea Predajňová in her place, overriding the recommendation of Tímea Mátéová, the Betliar Museum’s director, during her maternity leave.109 The Betliar Museum issued a strongly worded statement criticizing the appointment of someone they described as “unknown and professionally incompetent.”110 They also expressed concerns about the disruption to ongoing projects involving significant Slovak monuments, such as the Betliar Mansion and Krásna Hôrka Castle. 

Meanwhile, the abrupt dismissal of Pavel Sibyla as director of the Slovak Literary Centre further highlights the broader pattern of disregarding professional recommendations in favor of appointing controversial and unqualified figures. Despite Sibyla having proactively arranged for his deputy, Marek Vadas, to take over during his planned parental leave in early 2025, the Ministry instead dismissed him entirely and installed Gustáv Murín.111 Murín, a writer known for his ties to conspiracy platforms and with no institutional management experience, was selected over an experienced internal candidate, raising serious concerns about the government’s prioritization of political loyalty over competence.112 

These examples signaled a blatant disregard for institutional stability and the expertise of cultural professionals. The lack of continuity in leadership has not only destabilized these institutions but also jeopardized their ability to fulfill their cultural missions. 

Key Takeaways 

Abrupt leadership changes and politically driven appointments have disrupted the operations of important institutions at the core of Slovakia’s cultural and artistic production. The Fico administration’s new approach to cultural governance has destabilized key institutions, undermining their autonomy and ability to fulfill their missions. These actions have caused turmoil among staff, sparked protests, and raised serious concerns in professional circles and European organizations about the erosion of artistic freedom and institutional independence. Furthermore, the prioritization of political loyalty over expertise has weakened the functionality of these institutions, jeopardizing their cultural missions and long-term stability. The broader implications of these changes extend beyond Slovakia, reflecting a troubling trend toward centralized, ideologically driven governance in cultural sectors.