By: Mitja Iršič
According to RTV’s report, based on unofficial information, the Constitutional Court has lifted the temporary suspension of the implementation of part of the new law on RTV Slovenia, which could lead to the final establishment of the new council of RTV Slovenia. It is reported that four judges voted in favour of this decision, while one judge voted against. We can believe these unofficial news from Kolodvorska Street, as the alliance between three activist judges, the far-left circle at RTV Slovenia, and the Peace Institute has proven to be robust so far. What does this mean for Slovenian democracy? What does this mean for the rule of law?
First and foremost, it is a great victory for Robert Golob’s thunderbolts, who, after years of attempts, will finally succeed in gaining control over the last media stronghold they have not yet conquered. Odlazek’s octopus is already theirs, POP TV is unofficially one of the founders of Robert Golob’s image and work, and they have appointed their editor at Siol. Only RTV Slovenia remains as the last outpost of at least a hint of pluralism in an otherwise leaden homogeneity of Slovenian media, unlike anything seen since the rigid 1950s.
But at what cost have they managed to subjugate the public institution? The price will be enormous, and generations will feel it in one way or another. We have entered a sphere where the rule of law no longer applies, where the rule of law is merely a concept through which the authorities, by formalising their authoritarianism, achieve their goals. The potential unconstitutionality of the amendment was almost a consensus among serious legal experts – even Miro Cerar Jr., once a left-wing Prime Minister and one of the favourites of the deep state, agreed that the replacement of programme councillors (and consequently the entire leadership) in the middle of their term was highly questionable. But that can be debated and written about. An even more glaring mess is that the judges, by lifting the temporary suspension, have set a complete precedent, denying the legal security that was once granted to the initiators of the constitutional review (as Peter Jambrek, one of the fathers of the Slovenian Constitution, stated in the RTV Slovenia report, the court has only once revoked a temporary injunction in the country’s history, and it was only when it benefited the initiators rather than harmed them).
It is clear what has happened. It seems that the three judges are first political activists and only then legal professionals. It also appears that two constitutional judges have apparently fallen for the forbidden fruit. It is difficult to speculate on which one, but I can say only one thing: if they secure prestigious positions in European institutions in the next few years, it is time for international bodies to investigate the matter, including reports from media sources in Slovenia. Interestingly, for example, Rajko Knez wrote a separate opinion in the original decision, which was so convincing in the direction of the law’s unconstitutionality that his decision to (presumably) vote for lifting the suspension is completely inconsistent with his original view on the matter. Anyway, each person must live with their conscience. In the end, that is all we will have left.
Proceedings before the ECHR, just an insignificant formality
It is clear that the matter will now proceed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where the programme councillors will undoubtedly win the case, and Slovenia will be torn apart and humiliated. But by then, the constitutional judges will have long been “safe” in some prestigious European positions, and it will be us, the taxpayers, who will pay the compensation. Of course, at that time – years from now – the discussion will no longer be as intense. At that time, the whole story will be history, and Marcel Štefančić Jr. will already be celebrating 35 years of shooting idiot-socialistic banalities on the small screens of the public institution. We will wave our hand and say, “That is just Slovenia.”
But it is not that simple. This time it is different, after all. We have never experienced such destruction of all postulates at this level. We have experienced them, for example, in the erasure of wiretaps in the pharmacist affair, we have experienced them in the double conviction of Janez Janša or with the 22 criminal complaints against Franc Kangler. But the Constitutional Court has always been a guarantee of normalcy. We could rely on it to rule in accordance with professional standards, legal expertise, and, above all, conscience. Not anymore. The times when Janša received a judgment at the Constitutional Court without any dissenting voices are gone.
We are becoming Russia in 2000
Today, we are becoming Russia in 2000 – a bureaucratic autocracy, where judicial processes are a kind of farce staged by regime organs and the regime itself, like a puppet show for the people, giving them a sense that things are proceeding according to established and legal formalities. In other words, after the annulment of the decision, Slovenia will be a formal democracy with institutions already captured by the parallel mechanism, waiting for a daring autocrat of the right colour to take over and consolidate them as loyal groups of apparatchiks. Russia began transforming into its present fascist formation when Putin’s loyalists took over the judiciary. Everything else followed. Anna Politkovskaya was shot in 2006. They convicted a man who was proven to have had nothing to do with it, while Kadyrov’s executioners, who were proven to have committed the murder, are probably killing children in Ukraine today. Anecdotes say that the judges were in direct phone contact with the Kremlin, where officials dictated the wording of the verdict for Alexei Navalny.
The fascistization of Russia happened in five years. The fascistization of Belarus, after it was taken over by the “fighter against corruption” Lukashenko, took only two years. Both countries are officially democracies today. So is Slovenia. Democracy is a brilliant mask for true authoritarianism, hiding behind formalities. In such a state, do not wait too long before they come for you. Many Russians waited so long that today they have nowhere to go. Perhaps in 10 years, perhaps in 20, perhaps in 25, but it is only a matter of time before the Levica party implements its political programme of abolishing private property, and the constitutional lawyers of the future will say that Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees private property and inheritance, exists and is valid, but it must be interpreted more in terms of social justice. Do not wait that long, desperate young Russians, Venezuelans, and Belarusians would tell you today. They have nowhere to go anymore – you can go anywhere today.