By: prof dr Andrej Umek
The proposal for the new energy law EZ-2 surprised me quite a bit. I wondered how something like this could be possible in a democratic country. Not long ago, the city of Ljubljana was divided by the state into two zones, one with district heating and the other with gas heating. As residents of Ljubljana, we had to adapt to this decree, despite the not insignificant costs. There was no other option. However, the new energy law prohibits gas heating and mandates electric heating, regardless of the fact that Slovenia does not have enough electricity for this. In essence, EZ-2 means that Slovenians will not be able to heat their homes in winter. I wonder who could have come up with such nonsense.
And as if on cue, another piece of information emerged. Prime Minister Robert Golob is the owner of the company Star Solar. I cannot help but have strange thoughts running through my head, strange questions popping up. For instance, is there any connection between the ownership of Star Solar and the EZ-2? I leave the answer to these questions to the esteemed readers. What remains undisputed is that Star Solar operates in the field of electricity production using solar energy, and its future and economic success depend to a large extent on how the Republic of Slovenia leads the green transition, how and how quickly it replaces fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. How the Republic of Slovenia leads the green transition, of course, depends on the government and its measures. And the government is currently led by Robert Golob. It is entirely understandable in a free-market society that the success of a company depends on the professional and managerial measures of its owner. However, simultaneous ownership and the ability to make political decisions that significantly affect the company’s success are, in my view, questionable. Certainly, simultaneous ownership and the ability to make political decisions that significantly affect the company’s success are inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment of all market participants. This principle is the foundation of a market economy as envisaged by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Therefore, I would expect the Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Protection of Competition to take a stance on this case. Since I am not a lawyer, I will withhold my final opinion on this case until the decision of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, hoping that it will treat all people equally regardless of their political position. However, for me, this is a case that should have been addressed by the aforementioned public agency rather than the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. The latter probably will not find reasons for action, while the former has not been requested to assess the situation.
Since I am not a lawyer, as mentioned before, I cannot fully and appropriately assess all sides of the Star Solar case. Therefore, the thought occurred to me to find a case where a wealthy entrepreneur was elected to a leading political position and how both the state and the individual reacted to it. I immediately thought of the example of John F. Kennedy, who was elected President of the United States in November 1960. As it has been quite a few years since then, I wanted to refresh my memory, so I searched my bookshelves for The Greening of America, in which Charles A. Reich describes his short presidential term. He took office on January 20th, 1961, and was assassinated on November 22nd, 1963. I found confirmation of my memories in the book. J.F. Kennedy, between his election and assuming the presidency, sold all his shares in private companies and used the proceeds to buy government bonds. This clearly demonstrated to the entire American and global public that, as president, he would not favour any particular company or industry but would advocate for the well-being of the country he led and its economy as a whole. And how did Golob act in a similar situation?
I certainly believe that ownership in a private company, one or more, is incompatible with the most responsible political functions. J.F. Kennedy took this into account, but Golob did not. That Golob’s attitude toward combining ownership in a private company and assuming a leading political function is at least morally and ethically questionable, there is no doubt, at least for me. Whether it is something more than a mistake, let’s call it a lapse, will be objectively judged by the relevant state authorities, at least I hope so. However, my hope is not very high, as, in my judgment, the case was entrusted to the wrong authority.
