By: dr Milan Zver
The debate over the role of strong personalities is very, very old, sometimes more in the forefront, sometimes less. As democracy became a widespread “market” commodity, politicians — in marketing language — became outstanding brands. More than a century ago, the prevailing thesis was that even mass parties could not succeed without their competing elites. In the first half of the 20th century, it often happened that the powerful names that came to the top because of democracy were soon abolished and replaced by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes; in this connection we should mention names such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Francisco Franco, Engelbert Dollfuss, etc. But there were also other, comparatively powerful politicians, dictators who came to the top without democracy, e.g., Vladimir Ilič Lenin, Josip Broz Tito, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, as well as Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, etc. Vladimir Putin is something special, Angus Roxburgh wrote about him the hit book The Strongman Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia. The author, who worked in Moscow as a British journalist in the 1980s, analysed Putin’s ability to “stifle” a weak Russian democracy and subjugate society to himself and his fellow oligarchs.
Is Europe just a “post-heroic” society?
We can imagine that strong names in democracies are different profiles of people than “strongmen” in authoritarian or totalitarian systems. Winston Churchill, Konrad Adenauer, Helmut Kohl, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair, etc. they added value to this form of government with their democratic potential when compared to other political systems.
We can find interesting views in the fresh literature on whether we need strong leaders at all. Edward Luce in his book The Retreat of Western Liberalism argues that merciful societies need strong leaders, i.e., “heroes” as we live in post-heroic societies. An individual is supposed to be a completely autonomous being, capable of rational decisions and does not need a super-arbiter or opinion leader to explain to him what is right and what is not. If, on the one hand, we assume that man is capable of rational decisions, that he behaves like that in elections and other political activities, that there is a highly developed democratic culture in society, which includes critical thinking and high readiness for political engagement, then (political) society is self-sufficient. But this is the “ideal” type of Western democracy, which, as research shows, is no longer vital enough. Even more, part of the profession finds that the Western system is slowly transitioning from recession to crisis or even to its end.
Just over ten years ago, democracy was considered an invasive global process. In the last three decades, we have seen new waves of democratisation and the number of new democracies has grown, sometimes by force. Today, this global process has come to a halt. Even countries of original democracy have problems. It is attributed not only to the decline, but, as we have already mentioned, to its end (e.g., David Runciman, How Democracy Ends). Simultaneously with the deepening crisis of democracy – this concept was first introduced in the 1920s – the so-called hybrid systems, authoritarian increase their power with a very modestly developed democracy, such as Russia, and totalitarian, e.g., China, where the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, freedom of the media and, moreover, the attributes of democracy do not mean much. Nevertheless, they are proving their military superiority, expanding their spheres of interest, and rejecting the Western social “offer”, arguing that it is decadent, inefficient, and unable to face the challenges of the future. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are stars in their countries, as well as in a good part of the world, with the help of strong media propaganda (with the help of TV channels such as Russia Today, Sputnik, CCTV-China Central Television, etc.), each of whom embodies all the “best” qualities of both illiberal societies.
The lack of human resources of the Slovenian left is not only its problem
So that we do not look for answers to questions about “supermen” only in theory and abroad, we should mind our own business as well. With the establishment of democracy in Slovenia, the first prominent political names appeared, which, among other things, shaped our traditional political context, e.g., Josip Jurčič, Ivan Tavčar, Ivan Hribar, and further Anton Mahnič, Janez Evangelist Krek and Anton Korošec, perhaps Etbin Kristan. The communist revolution later brought Edvard Kardelj, but Slovenia did not have other prominent “first league players” in Yugoslavia. Perhaps at the end of the common state we could also mention Milan Kučan and Janez Drnovšek, who were also visible in independent and democratic Slovenia. The Slovenian Spring, however, brought the undisputed first name of the turning point, Dr Jože Pučnik. If we look at the entire modern democratic period, from the beginning of the Slovenian spring until today, Janez Janša has the reputation of the most prominent Slovenian politician, also in the international environment. The latter has become a kind of focal point of the centre-right space, which may be why he seems quite consolidated compared to the image of the left, which does not have (any more) a strong central representative.
On the left, however, after the era of Kučan, who still has a significant informal influence, they do not have strong names who would be able to do politics, as it is called. For the last decade and a half, they have been looking for temporary solutions, from Janković, Bratušek, Cerar, Šarec and now Golob. If they do not have a strong name, they can use money and media propaganda to change a comedian, journalist, official, etc. into a politician who, like a comet, glows in the political space at a specific moment. Then he soon dries up, but he usually meets the short-term expectations of left-wing political strategists. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the political group of the left is dispersed, to put it simply, it is divided. The old nomenclature is slowly leaving, and new, comparably qualified ones are nowhere. I do not know a party from this hemisphere that would systematically train its staff to take on the most responsible functions. What seems to unite them today is that they are jointly opposed to someone who is more competitive than them. The lack of human resources of the Slovene left is not only its problem, but the problem of Slovene democracy and the Slovene state in general.
Deficit also at European level
The lack of strong names is also present at European level, which also affects the quality of democracy in Europe. With the temporary triumph of democracy in the early 1990s, big names – “personas” – European politicians such as Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Giulio Andreotti, and others – were gradually leaving us. Unfortunately, there were no relevant replacements. Angela Merkel is one of the last whose word had its weight, at home and abroad, including the famous slips. If we accept the starting point of the staff shortage, we must ask ourselves the logical question: which authority would defend European democracy today against Putin and Yiping?
European democracy is therefore also in crisis due to the lack of strong names. The European institutions should be run by people who have proven themselves in national contexts with knowledge, experience, virtues, and charisma. European leaders should not be recruited from the pool of shapeless Eurocrats. The European leader is much more than a Eurocrat who knows five languages, sectoral policies, and the language of “correctness”. He needs to have significantly more, and this is demanded by the European public, as well as by the rest of the world, in which the EU will have to fight once again: with strong names for its survival and development. Strong European leaders are therefore important not only for political cohesion within the EU, but also for positioning in the increasingly uncertain world we once ruled, but not today.