Difference between revisions of "Pozornost', d'akovné, všimné (Slovakia)"

The term všimné best describes ambiguous interactions. It is used today as a euphemism for a bribe, as in the blog headline: ‘Love is such všimné from Heaven, a little bribe, in order to survive life...’ (Láska je také všimné zhora, malý úplatok, aby sa život dal vydržať, a ako vieme, darovanému koňovi sa na zuby hľadieť neodporúča) (Anonymous 2013)<ref>Anonymous. 2013, May 26. Láska je také všimné zhora, malý úplatok, aby sa život dal vydržať, a ako vieme, darovanému koňovi sa na zuby hľadieť neodporúča (Love is such všimné from Heaven, a little bribe, in order to survive life...). http://s-u-n-r-i-s-e.blog.cz/1305/laska-je-take-vsimne-zhora-maly-uplatok-aby-sa-zivot-dal-vydrzat-a-ako-vieme-darovanemu-konovi-sa-na-zuby-hladiet-neodporuca</ref>. Twenty-five years ago, všimné was defined as a jocular term referring to voluntary payment for a service provided (Hegerová 1991:330)<ref>Hegerová, K. 1991. ‘Názvy s príponou -né’ (Names ending in -né), Kultúra slova, 25(10) 327-33</ref>.

The term všimné best describes ambiguous interactions. It is used today as a euphemism for a bribe, as in the blog headline: ‘Love is such všimné from Heaven, a little bribe, in order to survive life...’ (Láska je také všimné zhora, malý úplatok, aby sa život dal vydržať, a ako vieme, darovanému koňovi sa na zuby hľadieť neodporúča) (Anonymous 2013)<ref>Anonymous. 2013, May 26. Láska je také všimné zhora, malý úplatok, aby sa život dal vydržať, a ako vieme, darovanému koňovi sa na zuby hľadieť neodporúča (Love is such všimné from Heaven, a little bribe, in order to survive life...). http://s-u-n-r-i-s-e.blog.cz/1305/laska-je-take-vsimne-zhora-maly-uplatok-aby-sa-zivot-dal-vydrzat-a-ako-vieme-darovanemu-konovi-sa-na-zuby-hladiet-neodporuca</ref>. Twenty-five years ago, všimné was defined as a jocular term referring to voluntary payment for a service provided (Hegerová 1991:330)<ref>Hegerová, K. 1991. ‘Názvy s príponou -né’ (Names ending in -né), Kultúra slova, 25(10) 327-33</ref>.

The term pozornosť, by contrast, was dissociated from ‘bribe’ by the sociologist Iveta Radičová (who served in 2010-2012 as Slovakia’s first woman prime minister). Emphasising that it has long been customary in Slovakia to visit a notary, teacher, priest or mayor bearing a small gift, Radičová argued that there is a clear distinction between such traditional ‘elementary decency’ and paying bribes (Topky 2011)<ref>Topky.sk. 2011. 'Pozornosť a úplatok nie je to isté, vysvetľuje Radičová', November 7, http://www.topky.sk/cl/10/867270/Pozornost-a-uplatok-nie-je-to-iste--vysvetluje-Radicova</ref>. In practice, however, it is not always easy to make such a distinction. Just as the tradition of paying tribute for state services was once criminalised (Lovell et al. 2000), in modern societies the size of the gift is usually regulated by anti-corruption legislation. Small gifts and payment, however, remain a matter of individual discretion. Even this is not always unproblematic, however, and much depends on the context. For example, Slovak courts frequently hand down heavy penalties for bribes as small as 5 to 10 Euros paid for putting someone on sick leave without genuine medical justification. These penalties may include a suspended prison sentence and a fine of several hundred Euros. While such sentences have been criticised as too harsh by bloggers and in the press, Judge Hrubala has pointed out that, taken together, such corrupt practices can cost the state and society huge amounts of money paid out in the form of health and social benefits from public insurance funds (Hrubala 2015)<ref>Hrubala, J. 2015. ‘Rozhodujú sudcovia. Strašná tragédia?’ (Judges decide. Is it a big tragedy?), Dennik N, 2 March. https://www.facebook.com/projektn.sk</ref>.

The term pozornosť, by contrast, was dissociated from ‘bribe’ by the sociologist Iveta Radičová (who served in 2010-2012 as Slovakia’s first woman prime minister). Emphasising that it has long been customary in Slovakia to visit a notary, teacher, priest or mayor bearing a small gift, Radičová argued that there is a clear distinction between such traditional ‘elementary decency’ and paying bribes (Topky 2011)<ref>Topky.sk. 2011. 'Pozornosť a úplatok nie je to isté, vysvetľuje Radičová', November 7, http://www.topky.sk/cl/10/867270/Pozornost-a-uplatok-nie-je-to-iste--vysvetluje-Radicova</ref>. In practice, however, it is not always easy to make such a distinction. Just as the tradition of paying tribute for state services was once criminalised (Lovell et al. 2000), in modern societies the size of the gift is usually regulated by anti-corruption legislation. Small gifts and payment, however, remain a matter of individual discretion. Even this is not always unproblematic, however, and much depends on the context. For example, Slovak courts frequently hand down heavy penalties for bribes as small as 5 to 10 Euros paid for putting someone on sick leave without genuine medical justification. These penalties may include a suspended prison sentence and a fine of several hundred Euros. While such sentences have been criticised as too harsh by bloggers and in the press, Judge Hrubala has pointed out that, taken together, such corrupt practices can cost the state and society huge amounts of money paid out in the form of health and social benefits from public insurance funds (Hrubala 2015)<ref>Hrubala, J. 2015. ‘Rozhodujú sudcovia. Strašná tragédia?’ (Judges decide. Is it a big tragedy?), Dennik N, 2 March. https://www.facebook.com/projektn.sk</ref>.

Today, ďakovné is still used relatively rarely. It seems to have an archaic connotation. (Indeed, linguistically similar terms can be found in a dictionary published in 1825 [Lexicon Slavicum, 1825]<ref>Lexicon Slavicum. http://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/bernolak/</ref>). By contrast, both pozornosť and všimné are commonly used, normally in the context of the spread of informal practices and corruption in the Slovak public services.

Today, ďakovné is still used relatively rarely. It seems to have an archaic connotation. (Indeed, linguistically similar terms can be found in a dictionary published in 1825 [Lexicon Slavicum, 1825]<ref>Lexicon Slavicum. http://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/bernolak/</ref>). By contrast, both pozornosť and všimné are commonly used, normally in the context of the spread of informal practices and corruption in the Slovak public services.

Morally and practically, much depends on whether gifts are voluntary, expected or even extorted, and whether they are presented before or after a service, such as a medical operation. However, all cases of ďakovné, pozornosť and všimné seem to hinge on the need to personalise a relationship in order to secure preferential treatment. This suggests defects in the functioning of impersonal institutions, which in turn justifies personalisation to some extent. On the other hand, getting preferential treatment at the expense of others will always be morally dubious. In early 2015, the Slovak government abolished fast-track access to doctors on the grounds that it was prejudicial to the poor and to those who were prepared to wait patiently for treatment. Interviewed on television Dr Peter Lipták, a physician, admitted having received thousands of gifts from patients, including flowers and small amounts of money. He strongly denied that either could be considered a bribe. At the same time, he claimed that he needed these voluntary gifts in order to finance his medical practice (Turanský 2015)<ref>Turanský, V. 2015. Doktor Lipták pre HN: Toto je môj názor na zdravotníctvo a poisťovne, HNPoradňa, 20 February, http://hnporadna.hnonline.sk/clanky-168/doktor-liptak-pre-hn-toto-je-moj-nazor-na-zdravotnictvo-a-poistovne-658704</ref>. The case was widely discussed in the media and was investigated by the police. In the end, Lipták was not charged with either corruption or tax evasion. But his story illustrates how the informal practices examined here are evolving: they are being publicly discussed in the media, investigated and transformed into new legal and social norms that will help to transform such practices in the future.

Morally and practically, much depends on whether gifts are voluntary, expected or even extorted, and whether they are presented before or after a service, such as a medical operation. However, all cases of ďakovné, pozornosť and všimné seem to hinge on the need to personalise a relationship in order to secure preferential treatment. This suggests defects in the functioning of impersonal institutions, which in turn justifies personalisation to some extent. On the other hand, getting preferential treatment at the expense of others will always be morally dubious. In early 2015, the Slovak government abolished fast-track access to doctors on the grounds that it was prejudicial to the poor and to those who were prepared to wait patiently for treatment. Interviewed on television Dr Peter Lipták, a physician, admitted having received thousands of gifts from patients, including flowers and small amounts of money. He strongly denied that either could be considered a bribe. At the same time, he claimed that he needed these voluntary gifts in order to finance his medical practice (Turanský 2015)<ref>Turanský, V. 2015. Doktor Lipták pre HN: Toto je môj názor na zdravotníctvo a poisťovne, HNPoradňa, 20 February, http://hnporadna.hnonline.sk/clanky-168/doktor-liptak-pre-hn-toto-je-moj-nazor-na-zdravotnictvo-a-poistovne-658704</ref>. The case was widely discussed in the media and was investigated by the police. In the end, Lipták was not charged with either corruption or tax evasion. But his story illustrates how the informal practices examined here are evolving: they are being publicly discussed in the media, investigated and transformed into new legal and social norms that will help to transform such practices in the future.