By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
Recently, the Slovenian judiciary once again demonstrated its double standards. The District Court in Kranj convicted publicist Vinko Vasle for allegedly insulting left-wing activist and head of the March 8th Institute, Nika Kovač. Since Jože Biščak already analysed the case in detail in the previous issue of Demokracija, we will here only highlight the main point: A dissident author was convicted for “speaking harshly” about an important member of the regime. She and her organisation are closely connected to the current ruling establishment.
Most of us who actively appear in public, meaning we share our thoughts through media or social networks, have at some point been subjected to insults as bad as, or even significantly worse than, those in the incriminated writing by Vinko Vasle. Yet most of us never even considered filing a lawsuit. Because anyone from the “wrong side” of Slovenia’s political-ideological divide would likely not win such a case. Let us recall examples where not only were people on the right-wing side of politics insulted, including its highest representatives, but they were even threatened (remember “kill Janša”), and the perpetrators were let off without consequence. It seems that some are allowed to issue threats, while others – those not favoured by the regime – are not even permitted to use stronger language.
The judiciary plays a crucial role in the system of separation of powers in a democratic order. It is the guardian of the rule of law and a tool to hold accountable those with power and influence in society, especially those in positions of political authority. At least, in principle, this should be the case. In established democracies, the judiciary has traditionally been politically neutral, meaning it prosecutes and convicts criminals regardless of their ideological beliefs or political affiliation.
Recently, however, things have taken a turn for the worse. The politicisation of the judiciary is not happening only in post-communist countries like Slovenia, which never fully broke with the past. In Slovenia, politicisation has been present all along. But it is now happening on both sides of the Atlantic. For example, current U.S. President Donald Trump was convicted by a New York court ahead of the election in a case so trivial it should, at most, have been treated as a misdemeanour. And he was convicted by a judge who is an open supporter of Trump’s political opponents, an obvious conflict of interest. In Europe, courts intervene in the political process in both old and new democracies, from France to Romania. At least in the U.S., there are judges from different political backgrounds. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, although it too can be criticised for political activism (as when it overturned its own ruling that legalised abortion), acts as a counterweight to progressive judges. In the U.S., both Republican and Democratic politicians face legal scrutiny. In Europe, however, prosecutions disproportionately target politicians on the right, such as Nicolas Sarkozy, Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, Călin Georgescu, and others. In some cases, it is evident that the trial and subsequent conviction are intended to eliminate certain individuals from political life. In this way, the left uses the courts to rid itself of its rivals.
In light of all this, proposals to make a clean criminal record a condition for holding political office are highly problematic. One can object on purely principled grounds, it should be possible for someone who committed an offense and was punished to rehabilitate (especially if the offense was minor). But such a condition is particularly dangerous in a system where the judiciary is politicised and biased. It is no coincidence that such a proposal was made by the youth wing of the largest ruling party, precisely at a time when legal proceedings are underway against the leader of the largest opposition party. One can guess who this proposal is truly aimed at.