By: Vančo K. Tegov
The question of whether it is “normal” for “candidates from the street” to enter politics and for “street culture” to enter parliament is, in fact, part of a broader debate on democracy, representativeness, and political culture.
Here are some neutral aspects that can help us reflect.
Democracy is based on the principle that anyone can run for office, but not that anyone should dismantle it.
In multiparty democracies, it is not unusual for people without traditional political careers to enter politics – activists, entrepreneurs, artists, influencers, even complete unknowns. This can be “positive,” because they bring new perspectives, are not part of entrenched interest networks, and speak the language of ordinary citizens. The presence of “people from the street” is therefore not a problem in itself – sometimes it is even the essence of democracy.
“Street culture” can mean different things. If it refers to directness, less formal communication, simple expression, then it is not necessarily negative. Politics can become more accessible and understandable.
But if it means insults, destructive communication, disrespect for procedures, institutions, rules, “performances” instead of argumentation, then it can reduce the quality of democratic debate. Similar phenomena occur in many countries, not just one. Wherever people lose trust in traditional political elites, space opens up for populists, protest candidates, new faces, outsiders – or parachutists into politics.
The important question is: are institutions still respected?
Democracy functions normally as long as parliament remains a space for reasoned debate, procedures are respected, decision‑makers take responsibility, and political culture does not become violent or hostile. If this is lost, then it no longer matters whether politicians are “from the street” or “from the elite” – the damage lies in the quality of the system. The system needs correction.
The primitivisation of political culture is a serious phenomenon observed in many democracies, not only Slovenia.
When political communication becomes primitive, politics itself becomes primitive. Parliament is meant for arguments, decision‑making, and respect for institutions. But when shouting, insults, mockery, performances for the cameras, displays instead of words, personal attacks instead of arguments, and the search for “viral moments” prevail, politics is reduced to spectacle. This erodes trust in democratic processes in the long run.
In other words, politics is at its best when it becomes boring, politics as craft and skill. That is when we know we are doing it right. Everything beyond that, spectacle, show, is a departure from its essence.
Why does this happen?
It is not the fault of one party or individual, but of broader trends. Conflict sells better than argument. Politicians therefore reward “show,” not work. Social media, the language of Twitter/TikTok, is short, sharp, emotional. That logic has migrated into parliament. When people lose faith in the system, they begin to support a more aggressive style – like “slamming the table.”
Or personalisation of politics, where debates focus on people, personalities, scandals instead of solutions.
What are the consequences for democracy?
Erosion and undermining of its foundations. This leads to lower quality legislation, less cooperation among political actors, citizen passivity or cynicism, radicalisation of rhetoric, weakened trust in institutions (parliament, government, judiciary), and the feeling that “they are all the same.” When communication falls to the level of the street, institutions begin to function like the street. The task of politics is to turn this in a positive direction, away from the idea that everyone is the same, because they are not.
What would healthy political culture look like?
Argumentation instead of personal attacks, respectful dialogue (even among opponents), acceptance of different opinions, restraint, thoughtfulness, responsibility for words, awareness that politics shapes the rules by which we all live. Politics need not be sterile or passionless, but it must be dignified, because it is a space of decision‑making, not an arena.
Why is this alarming?
After the government’s clear defeat in the recent referendum on euthanasia, a torrent of insults against individual MPs and entire groups of citizens emerged – very worrying. The rapid shift into insulting and divisive tones after the referendum is a troubling sign for political culture. And your sense of alarm is strongly supported by what we have witnessed in recent days.
If politics and public debate become battles for “virality” and emotion, not arguments, this undermines the capacity for rational, considered discussion. Debate no longer focuses on the actual consequences of laws or the real needs of people, but on who best exploits fears, prejudices, emotions.
Insults and attacks on groups of people (the elderly, the sick, the vulnerable) – which you probably mean by “torrent” – do not contribute to understanding and compassion, but to hatred, stigmatisation, fear. If this becomes normalised, democracy is in danger: institutions and decision‑making no longer rest on respect, but on conflict, division, and polarisation.
The referendum result now serves as justification and confirmation for those who defend traditional values; at the same time, disappointment among those who supported the law may mean a collapse of trust in “politics as an institution of debate and problem‑solving.” This can lead to apathy, cynicism, or the search for alternatives – toward “street politics,” populism, radicalisation.
Sharp, primitive personal accusations and “street” communication among politicians
After the referendum, hostile statements appeared among MPs. One MP, Lena Grgurevič (on behalf of Gibanje Svoboda), wrote on social media that opponents of the law – and certain parties – were “SDS lackeys.” Her statement was sharply criticised – one opponent, MP Jožef Horvat (from Nova Slovenija), said such communication “does not belong in parliamentary dialogue” and “is not worthy of an MP.” To insult entire populations or individuals such as Marco Tavares, former Maribor footballer of Brazilian origin, or Janez Janša, president of SDS, as “črnuhar” (racial slur), whether based on skin colour or ideology, is base, uncouth, in extreme cases pathological, sick. The street brought them into the temple of democracy, and the street remains domesticated in their mental framework.
This shows that debate – even when it takes place in parliament or in public – often slips into personal attacks, generalisations, and hostile labelling of opponents, instead of staying with substance. “Street” communication should remain on the street, though even there we do not need it.
Common sense for a healthy Slovenia
Slovenia will endure only if laws are enacted that are acceptable and in harmony with culture, ethics, and values rooted in our soil. Involving or inciting the population toward something abnormal, foreign, contrary to common sense, through lies, pretences, or cacophonous slogans, is misguided and will always be misguided, cacophonous, and insulting. Insults have never been the foundation for anything good, useful, or respectful. What endures is what is rooted here, lives longer, and survives. in politics and in society at large.