By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
Recent events surrounding the four referendums once again demonstrated how closely intertwined with politics are those Slovenian NGOs that are the most vocal in public life and enjoy substantial support from the mainstream media. Closely aligned with the political left, of course. More than that, the success of this political camp depends largely on their activism. It was precisely these organisations that carried out voter mobilisation during the final days of the campaign, effectively on election day itself. They had also been the driving force behind the campaign for a “No” vote in the referendums. Had everything depended solely on Golob and his allies, or on the other left-wing parties (The Left itself is a “spin-off” of these NGOs anyway), the “Yes” side would, have won convincingly, not merely in two referendums but in all four. The left-wing opposition, given its lack of organisation, would have been far from capable of persuading a sufficient number of voters on its own.
It is obvious that these NGOs are not representatives of civil society in the true sense of the term. They are not volunteers who, after finishing their regular jobs, devote their free time to activities they believe benefit themselves, a particular group, or society. For them, activism is a profession. It is how they make a living. They are paid for it. Usually, this payment is not direct but comes through various indirect channels: either through sinecures in the para-state sector or through projects that serve merely as a cover for political activism. The Golob government generously funded left-wing NGOs with taxpayers’ money. In addition, some of the most prominent among them are said to be deeply integrated into international progressive networks and sponsored by philanthropists such as George Soros. These networks become active in different countries whenever it is necessary to secure power for the political left and advance its agenda.
The recent referendum campaign conducted by the left was built on extraordinary manipulation. Many people believed that voters would not fall for claims such as those about the introduction of a “political police force.” Yet many did. This once again demonstrated that no lie is so unbelievable that people will not be willing to believe it.
The governing coalition, the article continues, will have to take the referendum lesson seriously. The intensive campaign against its proposals caught it off guard. Its own campaign was passive and lacklustre, almost as if victory were assumed to be guaranteed. Public opinion polls also appear to have misled it, since they all predicted a “four times yes” outcome. Once again it has been shown that opponents should never be underestimated. And if there is one thing the political left excels at, it is propaganda, particularly propaganda based on constant manipulation. Nevertheless, the government must take this into account and prepare accordingly.
Ahead of the next referendum, concerning the Intervention Measures Act, which is considered much more important to the government than the recent four referendums, the negative campaign will be even stronger. Misleading claims will be just as frequent. Voters can expect to hear increasingly dramatic slogans claiming that the law benefits only the wealthy while worsening the quality of life for everyone else. To prevent its rejection the government will need to adopt a thoughtful and systematic approach. The law’s provisions can be defended because they offer benefits not only to the wealthiest citizens but also to ordinary people by reducing tax and other financial burdens. At the same time, the law is portrayed as a threat to influential groups that are heavily dependent on public funding. These groups, which are closely connected to left-wing politics, are said to want to preserve the status quo, which he considers harmful to Slovenia’s development. This argument must be presented to voters in a clear, persuasive and, if necessary, even populist manner.