A Divisive Victory

Zoran Milanović’s landslide re-election reflects Croatia’s fractured politics and casts uncertainty on the country’s trajectory within the EU and NATO.

Croatia’s incumbent president, Zoran Milanović, has secured a resounding mandate for a second five-year term, defeating his rival Dragan Primorac by a landslide. With nearly three-quarters of the vote in Sunday’s runoff, Milanović, 58, cemented his position as a polarizing yet formidable figure in Croatian politics. His victory underscores deep divisions within the nation’s political landscape and the challenges awaiting a country straddling Western alliances and domestic turbulence.

Milanović’s re-election was quite extraordinary. Emerging as a fierce critic of NATO and the European Union, his positions have often placed him at odds with Croatia’s pro-Western establishment, particularly the governing Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) party. This antagonism was on full display during the campaign, as his conservative opponent, Primorac, portrayed him as a “pro-Russian puppet.”

Primorac, a former science and education minister, struggled to mount a credible challenge with his campaign failing to resonate in a nation weary of political rhetoric and disillusioned with perceived corruption in the Plenković government.

Although Croatia’s presidency is largely ceremonial, it wields considerable influence in foreign policy, defence, and security. Milanović’s re-election signals potential friction in these domains, given his scepticism towards NATO and reluctance to align with Western military initiatives. His controversial decision to block the deployment of Croatian officers to NATO’s Ukraine mission highlights his divergence from the pro-Western stance championed by Plenković’s government.

This ideological clash reflects broader societal divides in Croatia, a country that joined the EU in 2013 but has struggled to reconcile its Western ambitions with the realities of domestic governance. While Milanović denounces NATO’s involvement in Ukraine, he has also condemned Russia’s invasion—walking a fine line that appeals to Croatia’s mixed sentiments on foreign policy.

Milanović’s confrontational style draws comparisons to figures like Donald Trump. His penchant for fiery rhetoric and unfiltered criticism has earned him both staunch supporters and fervent detractors. His critics argue that his populist tactics and inflammatory remarks exacerbate divisions rather than fostering solutions. His dismissal of NATO initiatives and criticism of Western allies risk isolating Croatia at a time when regional stability is increasingly fragile.

Milanović’s victory is part of a broader narrative of Croatian presidential politics since the nation declared independence in 1991. His predecessors, from FranjoTuđman to Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, have reflected Croatia’s evolving identity as it transitioned from a war-torn post-Yugoslav republic to an EU member state.

Tuđman, the nation’s founding president, embodied the nationalist aspirations of a newly independent Croatia. Subsequent leaders navigated the challenges of post-war recovery, EU accession and economic modernization. Milanović’s ascent in 2019 marked a shift towards a more populist, combative presidency, reflecting global trends of discontent with traditional political elites.

Croatia’s presidency, with its limited executive powers, has often served as a platform for symbolic leadership rather than concrete policymaking. Milanović’s ability to leverage this platform for political battles underscores his skill as a shrewd strategist. His scepticism towards NATO and EU policies could complicate Croatia’s role in regional diplomacy and security, particularly as tensions simmer in the Balkans.

Domestically, his victory underscores the enduring appeal of anti-establishment rhetoric in a nation grappling with economic challenges and political disillusionment. Croatia’s economy, heavily reliant on tourism, has struggled to recover from the shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical instability. Milanović’s ability to address these issues will likely define his legacy. Internationally, Milanović’s re-election raises questions about Croatia’s trajectory within the EU and NATO.

While Milanović’s victory is decisive, it reflects a divided electorate. Voter turnout, at just 45 percent, suggests widespread apathy or disillusionment. The triumph of a polarizing figure like Milanović signals not only his personal appeal but also the absence of a compelling alternative. In this moment of triumph, Milanović’s greatest challenge lies in proving that his resounding mandate can translate into meaningful progress.