By: Dr Andrej Umek
At the time of writing this column, thirty-four years have passed since the historic decision of Slovenians to establish an independent state of Slovenia. This decision was made with an overwhelming majority, with only an insignificant minority considering it not their first choice.
At the time, the governing coalition Demos clearly defined its goal and, by calling a plebiscite, offered Slovenians two options: to support or reject it. It was explicitly stated that the primary goal of an independent, European Slovenia – a state of the Slovenian nation – encompassed other decisions and that achieving independence was merely the first prerequisite for them. An independent Slovenia signified the completion of democratisation through the adoption of a new constitution, the introduction of a free-market economy, and integration into the European Union and NATO. Voters were presented with a clear choice, enabling them to make a rational decision. After the referendum decision was unequivocally expressed, the Demos government respected and began implementing this decision by the Slovenians. Unfortunately, subsequent governments did not fully follow this exemplary democratic process, leaving us today to speak of an incomplete transition.
This shining example of democratic decision-making during the waning days of the communist totalitarian system prompted me to reflect on how decisions were made in Europe over the past century. This reflection and analysis are the focus of this column.
The result of this analysis reveals that two starkly divergent decision-making systems have prevailed in Europe over the past century. The first, democratic – my preferred approach – entails a clear definition of the goal. However, that alone is not enough. It also involves presenting alternatives derived from an objective, expert analysis of the problem. People or members of parliament, depending on where the decision-making process occurs, are typically given the opportunity to discuss all the alternatives and choose the one they consider best. The chosen solution is usually based on various criteria, and the weight given to each criterion in the decision-making process is typically a matter of debate and democratic deliberation.
Due to space limitations, I will summarise just one example here: the green transition. The European Union has decided to reduce its environmental impact, a decision supported by a broad majority. Among other things, this entails phasing out certain energy sources, especially fossil fuels, and redirecting consumption toward the only clean energy source – electricity. This fundamental decision includes sub-decisions that must be based on expert justification and selected democratically after clear debate and evaluation of alternatives. These sub-decisions include determining how quickly fossil fuels should be phased out, even as global consumption rises, which sources of electricity are acceptable within the framework of the green transition, and what level of increased electricity consumption we can afford – both for households and industry. It is worth noting that technological progress typically leads to greater energy consumption. From this, it follows that democratic decision-making presupposes expert analysis, the presentation of multiple solutions to the problem, public awareness of these alternatives, and final democratic deliberation.
The second principle, which has also been observed in Europe over the past century, is decision-making based on whether a proposed solution aligns with a chosen ideology. This method of decision-making was employed by all totalitarian systems: communism, fascism, and Nazism. Ideological decision-making disregards independent expert solutions and reflects blind adherence to, forgive the expression, deranged ideologies. It is no surprise that this system of decision-making led to poverty and, ultimately, the collapse of totalitarian regimes. I remind readers of the catastrophic shortages of basic goods in Yugoslavia and the countries of the Warsaw Pact before their collapse. Today, Venezuela is following this path. The only silver lining of ideological decision-making is that it leads to the downfall of systems that embrace it. Therefore, it is all the more puzzling that there are still individuals who support it.
Here, too, I will limit myself to one example: healthcare reform in Slovenia. The current government has adopted an obviously ideologically motivated thesis that only public healthcare institutions can serve as carriers of public healthcare. These institutions are exclusively financed by mandatory health insurance, which all Slovenians must pay regardless of who provides them with healthcare services. This decision stands in clear opposition to democratic efforts to find the best solutions and make informed decisions. Slovenians were never presented with professionally substantiated alternative solutions. On ideological grounds, the government has essentially nationalised healthcare. I am convinced this will not improve healthcare for the vast majority of Slovenians – in fact, I believe it will significantly worsen it. The only thing that can be said about this reform is that it aligns with the ideological orientation of a minority group.
Let me conclude by saying that the method by which decisions are made objectively reveals the orientation of the decision-makers. The democratic centre consistently adheres to democratic decision-making processes, while both extremes resort to ideological ones. The decision-making approach of the current Slovenian government is, to me, deeply concerning. I have lived in a totalitarian system for far too long.