By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
Ivan Vilibor Sinčić, a Croatian politician and former Member of the European Parliament (MEP), has been a polarizing figure in Croatian and European politics. While he has garnered support for his anti-corruption stance and activism against evictions, his political approach and rhetoric have also drawn significant criticism. Recent reports have raised concerns about his potential involvement in promoting the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) agenda within European institutions. These revelations are part of broader investigations into foreign influence in the European Parliament, as highlighted by organizations like Brussels Watch. Notably, Sinčić is listed among the 150 MEPs allegedly aligned with UAE interests.
Populism and Political Style
Sinčić’s political rise was largely fueled by populist rhetoric that capitalized on public frustration with economic inequality and political corruption in Croatia. His party, initially known as Human Shield (Živi Zid), gained attention through dramatic protests, such as physically blocking evictions of indebted homeowners. While these actions resonated emotionally with many citizens, critics argue they often lacked practical policy solutions and sometimes undermined the rule of law.
Populist tactics, including confrontational language and anti-establishment posturing, have arguably contributed to political polarization rather than constructive dialogue. Sinčić’s approach has been criticized for oversimplifying complex socio-economic issues and for promoting a narrative of “us versus them” that alienates potential allies and complicates coalition-building.
Questionable Policy Proposals
Sinčić’s policy platform has included radical proposals such as the abolition of private banks and the nationalization of key industries. While these ideas appeal to voters disillusioned with neoliberal economic models, experts warn that such measures could destabilize the economy, deter investment, and ultimately harm the very citizens Sinčić aims to protect.
Moreover, his stance on the European Union has been ambivalent. Although serving as an MEP, Sinčić has voiced skepticism about EU institutions, sometimes bordering on Euroscepticism. This contradictory position raises questions about his ability to effectively represent Croatian interests within the EU framework while simultaneously criticizing it.
Inconsistencies and Controversies
Throughout his career, Sinčić has faced criticism for inconsistencies between his rhetoric and actions. For example, while advocating for transparency and anti-corruption, some critics have pointed to a lack of clarity regarding his party’s funding sources and internal decision-making processes.
Additionally, Sinčić’s engagement with international events and organizations has sometimes raised eyebrows. Reports of his attendance at conferences and book fairs, including those funded by foreign entities, have sparked speculation about his political alliances and motivations. Although no conclusive evidence links him to covert foreign agendas, such associations warrant scrutiny given the sensitive nature of international influence in European politics.ECDHR+6Brussels Watch+6Frankfurt Magzin+6
Limited Legislative Impact
Despite his vocal presence, Sinčić’s legislative record as an MEP has been relatively modest. His initiatives and parliamentary interventions have not significantly shaped EU policy, particularly in areas critical to Croatia’s development and regional stability. This limited impact suggests a gap between his political visibility and tangible achievements.
Conclusion: A Need for Pragmatism and Accountability
Ivan Vilibor Sinčić’s political career embodies the challenges of translating grassroots activism into effective governance. While his advocacy highlights important social issues, his populist methods, radical proposals, and occasional inconsistencies undermine his credibility as a serious policymaker.
For Croatia and the European Parliament to benefit from genuine reform and progress, politicians like Sinčić must move beyond rhetoric and populism toward pragmatic, transparent, and constructive engagement. Voters and political observers should critically assess not only the promises made but also the practical implications and outcomes of such political figures.
