By: Vančo K. Tegov
The approach of a referendum often acts as a powerful catalyst in the political arena, giving rise to the vivid saying that for some people “the dog is nipping at their backside.” This folk expression perfectly captures the panic, pressure, and sense of urgency experienced by those whose privileges, political survival, or unjustified financial benefits suddenly come under threat because of direct decision-making by the people.
When citizens are given the opportunity to decide directly on an important issue through a referendum, the balance of power within the state changes significantly. This has different effects on different groups.
The corrupt and the loss of control over their “deals”
For those who operate behind the scenes and exploit loopholes in the system for personal gain, a referendum represents a particular threat.
Exposure of interests: Referendum campaigns place laws, contracts, and financial flows under public scrutiny, bringing into the spotlight matters that might otherwise remain hidden in parliamentary backrooms.
The end of lobbying as usual: When decision-making passes from the hands of a handful of politicians into the hands of the electorate as a whole, traditional methods of influence and lobbying lose much of their effectiveness. It is impossible to “buy” or persuade hundreds of thousands of voters in the same way one might influence a few key decision-makers.
And then, lo and behold, along comes a certain “Hudi Hmet”, who allegedly had his hands in the business of supposedly stolen identities connected to a once very boastful bird, now somewhat plucked, who goes by the name Robert Golob.
This “Hudi Hmet,” was allegedly promoting a project involving the storage of electricity in massive batteries, on the condition that an interested Romanian would contribute just under half a million euros, as if saying, “If you buy the pizza.”
There are apparently many such little “millions” safely parked in less regulated environments, especially across parts of the Balkans. Too little time has passed since certain people dismounted from a horse that had been riding on lies, deception, and theft.
This explains the panic and attacks directed at the sponsors of the law and the institution expected to track down those missing millions hidden in Balkan hideaways. Some have even begun speaking of the creation of a kind of political police force that would investigate everyone indiscriminately.
No. The objective is to prosecute, investigate, and recover what was stolen and what rightfully belongs to taxpayers, that is, to all of us.
Panic, frayed nerves, and emotional outbursts are situations that, according to the author, we will likely witness more often in the period ahead.
Let’s hope that citizens will show sound judgment and goodwill, so that those described as having “long fingers and deep pockets” will eventually run out of opportunities to funnel stolen wealth into the pockets of relatives and acquaintances.
Citizens should always keep their own interests and the common good at the forefront of their minds. If they do, then the right decision for the benefit of everyone will not be far away.
The work-shy and the freeloaders as defenders of the “right” to be paid well for doing nothing
In the period leading up to a referendum, political actors who may have shown little productivity during their term in office suddenly find themselves forced into action.
Awakening from the comfort zone: Officials and politicians accustomed to the safety of their positions must venture out among the people, write explanations, defend their positions, and justify their work. Because a referendum demands a clear answer, “FOR” or “AGAINST,” it becomes much harder to hide behind complicated bureaucratic language or shift responsibility onto others.
Freeloaders – those who depend on public money through various questionable tenders, consulting contracts, or projects of dubious value, often view a referendum as a threat to their privileges.
If a referendum outcome rejects an arrangement that enabled their privileged status, their sources of funding may disappear overnight. Faced with the prospect of losing that status, they invest considerable energy and resources in campaigns aimed at convincing the public that preserving the status quo is essential for the stability of the state.
To conceal their own lack of productivity, some invoke issues related to foreigners and their likely low participation in local elections, suggesting that certain actors may seek to influence outcomes by effectively “importing voters,” drawing a comparison with the so-called “Yogurt Revolution.”
This also raises the question of social transfers for those who can work but choose not to work because they prefer not to. And then disturbances and public disorder break out in towns and cities large and small.
None of this is a new discovery. In a normal society, everyone living in the country should strive to contribute through work, responsibility, and participation in the community. Foreign residents should not expect to shape the destiny of local citizens without limits. Likewise, for those capable of working, long-term dependence on benefits should not become a permanent objective.
We need a healthy and rational economy.
Living off the budget and on the backs of citizens is quite comfortable, is it not?
The government expressed support in August for the proposal to hold a consultative referendum. It assessed that the question of how RTV Slovenia should be financed is suitable for directly determining the views of citizens and that the referendum result could serve as a basis for shaping future policy in this area.
In my opinion, the current situation is unsustainable due to what is described as an oversized system on the one hand and a level of output and usefulness of content that is inversely proportional to its size on the other. This does not mean abolishing the public broadcaster. Rather, it means addressing existing problems, increasing transparency in spending, and strengthening accountability to those who finance the system.
However, the author argues that it is excessive for RTV to continue, at all costs, to rely on citizens through a mandatory subscription fee, hanging over them like the Sword of Damocles.
In conclusion
How is it possible that in this beloved Slovenia, discussions always, repeatedly, and consistently revolve around protecting primarily those who do little or too little work, even though they could do more? Why do we not talk instead about people earning their salaries through their work rather than through bribes, commissions, theft, or diverting money to tax havens or friendly companies abroad?
About producing quality work and content first, and only then receiving appropriate compensation for it?
To conceal all this, the argument goes, appeals are constantly made to social solidarity with everyone, regardless of whether such support is justified or not.
The umbilical cord that was never fully severed from the period before independence, and immediately afterward, needs strong scissors, stronger and sharper than the ones famously mentioned in Tarča.
It is possible to socialise what genuinely needs to be socialised. It is not possible, however, to socialise everything indiscriminately. A healthy distinction between what should and should not be publicly supported would bring greater well-being for everyone: mentally, financially, and in terms of work and productivity.
Only in that way can Slovenia begin to move in the right direction. The time is favourable, the conditions are favourable, and the wind is blowing in the right direction, filling the sails of progress.
We simply need to keep our eyes open.