By: Gašper Blažič
Imagine a hypothetical situation that you have two sinners in the field of traffic offenses. One of them was driving drunk on the wrong side of the road, colliding head-on with a vehicle that was driving properly, and the lives of three young people ended up in it (and such a case unfortunately actually happened). The other drove 60 kilometres per hour in a settlement, where the limit is 50 kilometres per hour.
And what does the first one do? He points his finger at another and shames him in front of the public, saying look at the rascal, how he is endangering a traffic hazard, this is a real killer we should be afraid of. He does not consider the fact that even with a slight increase in speed, the possibility of a fatal accident is greatly increased. So, he is a potential killer. And maybe he drank alcohol before driving, maybe he is not wearing a seat belt, maybe he has old tires. And if there is a possibility for any of the above, then all of this also exists. So, this other sinner is a drunkard, a murderer, a pervert, a negligent, and a corrupt man.
This situation will remind us of two events. The first is from the Gospels, when a sinner was brought to Jesus who had been caught and should be stoned. Jesus wrote on the ground – describing the sins of those who demanded death for a sinner – and then said, “He who is without sin must cast a stone first.” And no one wanted to take the risk, the stones fell from their hands. Under Jewish law at the time, the deceived husband of a sinner who slept with another had the right to shine the first stone. But of course, he is far from innocent.
And the second event? Well-known writer Mark Twain was once accused of something he did not do. In court, the prosecutor pointed a stick at him and yelled, “there is a big bastard at the end of this stick!” Twain replied with a smile, “That is true, but at what end?”
Two concepts of governance in one term
Do you already know how much the point of all the above is related to the pre-election events? If you have noticed, practically all the debates in the confrontations concern only the second half of the 2018-2022 term. As if Janez Janša had been ruling all this time. It is true that the SDS won the 2018 elections. However, due to the agreement of most political parties, it was not given a mandate to form a government. But perhaps this was ultimately useful for Slovenia, as we were able to see for ourselves how the transitional left rules and what changes we experienced when in January 2020, just before the covid19 epidemic, towels were thrown in.
In the 2018-2022 term, we were able to taste two very different concepts of governance. The first was a transition-experimental with “new face” Marjan Šarec in the lead role. The other is represented by Janez Janša, who took over the government for the third time, although even some quasi-right publicists (such as Odlazek’s “Reporter”) predicted that his political career was over forever.
I do not want to describe the differences at length, because we already know them. They are even better known, for example, by the Minister of the Economy Zdravko Počivalšek, who also held this position in Šarec’s government. So let me mention just the two most noticeable differences.
From Moscow vassals to initiators in international politics
Let us look first at international politics. Many will remember that Marjan Šarec, as Prime Minister, rejected the possibility of speaking as a speaker in the European Parliament, while the government was establishing close contacts with Moscow or Putin’s regime, which attacked Ukraine in 2014. In the field of the European Union, Slovenia was more than just a passive observer. Or even better: At the time when foreign policy was created by Karl Erjavec, Slovenia was a kind of vassal of the Kremlin within the EU and NATO.
As one of the major foreign policy challenges for the 2018-2022 term was Slovenia’s EU presidency, many wondered how Slovenia would pass this test with the (former) Prime Minister, who knows international diplomacy less than a rabbit knows a drum. And, it must be admitted, he was perhaps a little more realistic in assessing his abilities compared to Alenka Bratušek, who ran for European Commissioner in 2014 with great confidence – even by proposing herself as Prime Minister. And then infamously failed.
Of course, in the meantime, Šarec’s throwing in the towel changed the course of events, although Kamnik citizen seriously considered that preliminary elections would take place in March 2020 and that LMŠ and SMC would win a strong enough majority to continue Šarec’s rule in somewhat more comfortable circumstances. The plan did not work out. However, changes in Slovenia’s foreign policy position took place very quickly. Adoration of Moscow was immediately over, and Janša was given the opportunity to lead Slovenia’s EU presidency for the second time. There was a lot of praise, despite the rage of the KUL opposition, which tried to tell on Slovenia in front of the world all this time and get the European Commission to take away the European funds already allocated to Slovenia. And when, after Russia’s aggression on Ukraine, Janša was the first to initiate a visit to Kyiv, the embarrassment of those who missed the historic opportunity was enormous. After the initial shock, they had to start a rumour that there was no visit to Kyiv and that in fact everything was happening somewhere in some bunker in Poland. And that this visit was not coordinated with the European Commission, but it was a solo campaign without cover. Many in Slovenia even fell for such conspiracies but did not consider the fact that the war in Ukraine can make life in Slovenia much more expensive. Therefore, we cannot act as if we are blind and deaf.
Outflow of taxpayers’ money and transitional looting
And domestic politics? Let’s look at an example of a long-term care law. In his speech at yesterday’s SDS pre-election convention, its president Janez Janša reminded of the fact that a whole bunch of expensive studies on social welfare institutions had taken place during Šarec’s government. And more than a hundred long-term care bills. Which, however, was finally adopted during the current government.
Do we realise what that means? It is always the case that someone has to prepare the law. And any such bill needs to be paid for with taxpayer money. And if we leave such drafts to certain privileged law firms, it becomes clearer where the taxpayer’s money goes. After all, these law firms do not really care whether their bill is passed or not. It is important that their service is paid for. And even such a draft, which they prepare, means a large pile of money from the state treasury. However, if there are more than a hundred of these drafts, the numbers are unimaginably high.
And if we add to this studies that were self-serving but cost a fortune, it becomes clearer why we did not get any new homes for the elderly during Šarec’s government. In addition to high taxes and bureaucracy, we also had a mafia parasite clientele, through which taxpayers’ money “for nothing” flowed into private pockets, while clientele holders collected fat commissions. This is called mafia rule and milking citizens for the completely private needs of certain individuals and groups. Therefore, the feeling that nothing is moving anywhere and that the taxpayers’ money, which should go for the sake of common prosperity, is actually being sucked up by the transitional-predatory “black holes”, has not deceived us. The book and documentary The Parallel Mechanism prove it.
Let’s say NO to experimentation
That is also why there is no reason to vote again for the old transitional slavery on Sunday under the impression of “Egyptian pots of meat”. But we must be aware that my voice is not just a voice unto itself. As in every election, the rule “all for one and one for all” applies this time as well. The possible wrong decision of one person will affect the whole community. This is one of the reasons why we should say a loud NO to transitional experimentation and express our confidence in those who have proven since 2020 that the logic of transitional plunder can be overcome. And to recognise the falsity of the accusations of these transitional predators (especially the KUL and the Gibanje Svoboda party) when they point the finger at the current government. Because in the end, they represent that sinner who has three young people on his conscience and points his finger at someone who drove through the settlement a little too fast.
Gašper Blažič is a journalist for Demokracija, editor of its daily board and editor of the Blagovest.si portal.