President Peter Pellegrini scheduled a referendum for July 4 on two questions: restoring the Special Prosecutor’s Office and abolishing the lifetime pension for the prime minister, while excluding a third question on early elections that opposition parties had demanded.
According to analyst Eduard Chmelár, the omitted question on shortening the parliamentary term was unconstitutional, a view he said was shared by most reputable lawyers. He argued that including it would have violated legal norms, making the president’s decision legally sound despite criticism from the opposition.
Chmelár expressed near certainty that the referendum would fail, citing low voter motivation and the summer timing. He noted that the Democracy party, which collected nearly 385,000 signatures — 368,000 deemed valid — had struggled for almost two years to gain traction, suggesting the vote lacked genuine public mandate.
He dismissed the referendum as a financial and political absurdity, stating that the cost of holding the vote would exceed the total value of the prime minister’s lifetime pension. “It’s utter nonsense,” he said, adding that the exercise amounted to voter mockery rather than democratic expression.
The opposition reacted sharply, with Progressive Slovakia leader Michal Šimečka accusing the president of protecting the government by avoiding the early election question. He claimed Pellegrini had reversed his stance on referendums as a democratic tool, calling it proof of his pro-government alignment.
Šimečka nonetheless urged his supporters to participate and vote in favor of restoring the Special Prosecutor’s Office and NAKA, framing the referendum as a mobilization opportunity despite reservations about the date and process.
Igor Matovič of Slovakia Movement announced new conditions for future government participation, insisting that any coalition must agree to abolish lifetime pensions — including for the president — and restore NAKA and the Special Prosecutor’s Office. He argued that nearly 400,000 signatures should not go to waste and must translate into real political outcomes after elections.
Matovič accused the Democracy party of misleading voters by promoting a referendum he deemed legally questionable, while maintaining that his party’s demands were necessary to validate the effort of those who signed the petitions.
The Democracy party responded by filing a submission to the Constitutional Court challenging the president’s decision to exclude the early election question, asserting that the move undermined the citizens’ initiative and democratic process.
In a separate commentary, Chmelár criticized opposition rhetoric that labeled the president a “lackey” or “Fico’s poodle,” warning that such language devalued the presidency and could backfire politically, eroding institutional respect over time.
Why did the president exclude the question on early elections from the referendum?
President Pellegrini excluded the question on shortening the parliamentary term and holding early elections because, according to analyst Eduard Chmelár and legal experts he cited, the proposal was unconstitutional.
What are the two questions voters will actually decide on in the July 4 referendum?
Voters will decide on restoring the Special Prosecutor’s Office and abolishing the lifetime pension for the prime minister.
What conditions has Igor Matovič set for his party’s future participation in government?
Igor Matovič stated that his party will not join any future government unless it agrees to abolish lifetime pensions — including for the president — and restore NAKA and the Special Prosecutor’s Office.
