By: Ddr Štefan Šumah
The word “fascist” has become the most abused word in Slovenia, used mainly to discredit opponents regardless of their political colour. Of course, the leftists are in the lead here, somehow claiming a monopoly over the word and seeing fascists practically behind every bush.
Thus, “fascists” are, for example, Janez Janša, Bernard Brščič, Branko Grims … in fact anyone who disagrees with their agenda. And of course, if a person is not a fascist, he can rightly feel insulted! He can even sue for defamation. But without hope of success, since the courts (again mostly left‑leaning) usually turn a blind eye to this word, allowing them to insult people again. Well, to be fair, the word is increasingly used on the right too, mainly in the sense of “red fascism” to label individuals on the left.
To define fascism more precisely, I relied on ten characteristics often used in sociology, political science, and historiography to describe fascism as a socio‑political phenomenon: authoritarian rule (rejection of democracy, strong centralised power, often under one charismatic leader), totalitarian tendency (control over all aspects of social life – politics, economy, culture, education, media, even privacy), cult of the leader (personality cult presenting the leader as infallible and embodiment of the nation or state), nationalism (extreme patriotism, often including hostility toward foreigners or minorities), militarism and glorification of violence (army, discipline, combativeness, strength as core values), anti‑liberalism and anti‑communism (rejection of liberal democracy, individual rights, pluralism), corporatism (state control over the economy by merging employers and workers into “corporations” serving national interests), propaganda and manipulation of public opinion (mass media, symbolism – uniforms, rituals, slogans – for unity and control), suppression of opponents and dissenters (political violence, censorship, secret police, imprisonment, exile, or liquidation of opposition), mystical and mythological elements (myths of national greatness, “golden past,” racial purity, divine mission of the nation).
Therefore, I would propose a law defining when it is justified to call someone a fascist and when not. For example, if someone meets at least 6 out of 10 listed characteristics, then it is justified; if only 5 or fewer, then the accuser is criminally and materially liable. Yes, many would then seriously reconsider whether to label someone a fascist.
Let us take just two of the most notorious cases – Brščič and Golob. Both were labelled fascists and both filed lawsuits (Brščič already lost his). Let’s score them. Criterion 1: Golob 1 point (expressed authoritarian tendencies), Brščič 0 points (advocate of freedom). Criterion 2: Golob 1 point (expressed totalitarian tendency), Brščič 0 points (strong advocate of all kinds of freedom). To shorten: Golob would score points also for attempted personality cult, propaganda and manipulation of public opinion, suppression of opponents, corporatism, and use of myths – at least 7 points in total. A true fascist! And Brščič? He could perhaps be given 1 point for nationalism or “hostility toward foreigners,” but little more. For Golob, all points could easily be justified.
Thus, with such criteria, the courts would have no difficulty deciding whether someone is a fascist or not. Luka Mesec would, by all rules, “get” a fine. Clear definition of characteristics, clear criteria, and understandable legal wording as in the time of Maria Theresa. Therefore, I also have no doubt that the lawsuit of the “offended” Golob will fail and that Štrancar will easily prove his claims, thereby helping ensure that the insult “fascist” will no longer be a monopoly of the left.