Why do we need strategic foresight? 

The case of Slovakia

When we redefined Slovakia's foreign policy direction at the turn of the millennium, the strategic vision was clear and readily available. It was the political return to Europe. This meant embarking on a path that the rest of Central and Eastern Europe had already taken, with the exception of the war-torn Western Balkans and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Most importantly, our partners from the Visegrad Four were already on this path.

The exclusion of Slovakia from invitation to NATO at the Madrid Summit in July 1997 and the decision not to invite Slovakia to begin EU accession negotiations at the Luxembourg Summit in December 1997, less than ten years after the Velvet Revolution, served as a wake-up call for a society that had emerged from communism but had not fully managed to overcome its past.

The strategic redirection of the country after 1998 embodied not only the ethos of November 1989, with its focus on returning to Europe, but also the effort to build a modern society where the rule of law prevails, freedom creates space to realise the creative potential of individuals and the country's economic capacity, and where innovation and reforms are the sources of prosperity and progress. Slovakia's strategy shifted from considerations of neutrality or ideas about being a bridge between East and West to focusing on where the country could realistically and effectively ensure its prosperity and security - within the EU and NATO.

The essence of strategic foresight lies in developing alternative scenarios for future. Had a strategic foresight been applied in 1998, the aforementioned goals would have been part of an ideal scenario, with the EU and NATO accession processes fulfilling the chosen strategy. 

Strategic foresight is a method of systematic gathering of information about the future and developing possible scenarios, with the aim of identifying future risks and opportunities, thus facilitating strategic decision-making in the present.

The advantage for the governments that succeeded Mečiar was that they essentially did not need a strategic foresight. At the turn of the millennium, the geopolitical coordinates were crystal clear. The Cold War's victor was undisputed, China´s rise was still in its early stages, the lessons of Balkan nationalism were fresh, and the example of Yeltsin's Russia was sufficiently discouraging. The internet was still a relatively new phenomenon, and social networks did not yet exist. Fact-checking and data verification were part of basic professionalism. Disinformation agents existed then, as they do now, and will continue to exist. But at the turn of the millennium, it was much more difficult for them to reverse what was natural and inevitable.

The pro-integration strategy was embraced and implemented by the entire state administration with such ease, and at times even euphoria, that Slovakia not only caught up with its V4 partners when we joined the EU and NATO in 2004, but even surpassed them by being the only V4 country to join the Eurozone in 2009.

At that time, the implementation of European rules was not seen as a burden or a limitation of sovereignty but as a source of modernization and prosperity. The correctness of the strategy was proven in practice. During the first 10 years of EU membership, Slovakia's GDP rose from 59% to 79% of the EU average. However, somewhere along the way, something changed, and the picture after 20 years could hardly be more contradictory.

Debates about the country's strategic orientation, the now almost legendary inability to move Slovakia from an assembly workshop to an innovative economy, the failure to complete the highway between the two largest cities, and long-term efforts to improve education and healthcare are merely symptoms.

"Play the ball and not the man"

This English phrase is not only the essence of fair play but also good advice for life. The problem in political life, not just in Slovakia, has become the personalization of political parties and disputes. The competition of ideas has faded away. Yet the domain of politics should be the search for solutions.

Slovakia's integration strategy was the right one. However, it had one unintended consequence. Instead of maximizing opportunities, it ushered in an era of great complacency. NATO provided us with a peace dividend. While this would generally be positive, it also led to long-term stagnation in military development and neglect of the entire security system. Over time, our understanding of the EU in Slovakia narrowed to just one big pot of money - EU funds became the main source of public investment, which we failed to utilize effectively either quantitatively (to improve the budgetary situation) or qualitatively (to significantly enhance infrastructure and public services).

The correct question should therefore be: what do we want to do about it? This is the essence of the problem. Temporary ideas are not enough. We need more.

Anyone who has visions should see a doctor...

What Slovakia is lacking is a long-term vision. In the Slovak mindset, the word "vision" is often associated with something amorphous, unrealistic, and unattainable. That's why it is much more popular and politically successful to claim that we should focus on what is currently on the table. This is completely legitimate. The problem is that in such a case, we are constantly in reaction mode - responding to issues set by others. And that often frustrates us.

The public does not in the long run respect leaders who mirror its own insecurities or see only the symptoms of crises rather than the long-term trends.

Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy

A positive vision is absolutely crucial. How can we defend state interests if we cannot define their substance? Their promotion cannot be based solely on negating what we don't want. We need to define what we do want. This is something we've had difficulties with in recent years. The discussions around adopting the Security strategy revealed how challenging it is for us to even define risks and threats. The story of the Recovery Plan, in turn, shows how we handle opportunities.

If there is demand, strategic foresight can help with this. Strategic foresight doesn't predict the future, but it helps us better understand it. A vision that utilizes strategic foresight is not an illusion. It is the result of systematic research, identifying alternative scenarios, critically evaluating realistic options, selecting the scenario that suits us best, and finally defining the steps that will lead to that scenario.

We've lost our professional reflexes...

From the fall of Lehman Brothers to Russian aggression, we've experienced more than a decade of massive turbulence, during which we (not just in Slovakia) spent most of the time in reaction mode. The modus operandi of recent years has been called crisis management. And somewhere along the way, something went seriously wrong. As one former foreign minister used to say, we lost our professional reflexes. Simply put, we fell asleep at the wheel. The answer to the question posed at the beginning is quite simple: why does Slovakia need strategic foresight? Well, because it is a standard feature of a well-managed and mature state. If today's goal is to calm the society, we won't achieve that until we break free from crisis management. But this won't happen if we continue to walk aimlessly down a path without knowing its destination. Slovakia is now 31 years old. It's high time it started fulfilling the second verse of its anthem.